Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and equipment approval.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:45:56 -0400

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the matter of

Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission’s Rules for unlicensed
devices and equipment approval.

ET Docket No. 03-201

REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted:  July 8, 2004 Released:  July 12, 2004

By the Commission:   Chairman Powell issuing a statement.

I.  INTRODUCTION
1. By this action, the Commission adopts changes to several technical
rules for unlicensed radiofrequency devices contained in Parts 2, and 15
of its rules.  These rule changes will allow device manufacturers to
develop expanded applications for unlicensed devices and will allow
unlicensed device operators, including wireless Internet service
providers (WISPs), greater flexibility to modify or substitute parts as
long as the overall system operation is unchanged.  WISPs use unlicensed
devices to provide broadband service for rural and underserved areas,
and also to provide an alternative broadband service in metropolitan
areas.  The increased flexibility in our technical rules for unlicensed
devices will encourage and facilitate an environment that stimulates
investment and innovation in broadband technology and services.
2. The changes adopted herein also remove unnecessary regulatory
impediments to the deployment of advanced technologies for unlicensed
wireless networking.  For example, the amended rules will specifically
provide for the use of advanced antenna technologies such as sectorized
and phased array antenna systems.  These “smart antennas” focus their
radio transmissions according to the geographic locations of their
users.  Use of these advanced antenna technologies provide for increased
spectrum efficiency because they allow for greater re-use of the same
radio frequencies.  The use of smart antennas will also allow WISPs to
pattern their coverage areas in a way that will best suit the needs of
their customers.
3. The rule changes adopted herein should prove beneficial to
manufacturers and users of unlicensed technology, including those who
provide services to rural communities.  We believe that the increased
flexibility allowed by these changes will help to foster viable last
mile solutions for the delivery of Internet services, other data
applications, video, and voice services to underserved, rural, and other
isolated communities.
 II.  BACKGROUND
4. Part 15 of the Commission’s rules governs the operation of unlicensed
radiofrequency devices.  As a general condition of operation, Part 15
devices may not cause harmful interference to authorized radio services
and must accept any interference that they receive.   In recent years,
there has been a significant increase in the number and types of devices
operating under the Part 15 rules.  Examples of common Part 15 devices
include cordless phones, computers, wireless baby monitors, and garage
door openers.  Such devices are widely used in everyday consumer
functions.  Another prominent sub-category of unlicensed technology
includes devices that employ spread spectrum and other digital
modulation techniques governed by Section 15.247 of our rules.   A wide
variety of devices have been introduced under these rules for business
and consumer use, including improved cordless telephones and computer
local area networks.  Moreover, the introduction of industry standards,
such as IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth, promise to increase both the number
and variety of devices that will operate on an unlicensed basis.
Overall, the Part 15 rules have been highly successful in fostering the
development of new unlicensed devices while protecting authorized users
of the radio spectrum from harmful interference.
5. The Commission released the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notice”)
in this proceeding on September 17, 2003.   The Notice proposed various
changes to update the rules to promote more efficient sharing of
spectrum used by unlicensed devices and remove unnecessary regulations
that inhibit such sharing.  More than sixty parties filed comments in
response to the Notice.  With the exception of the proposed rule changes
to permit the separate marketing of power amplifiers and establish a
spectrum etiquette for the unlicensed bands, the comments were generally
supportive of the Commission’s proposals.   Many of the comments
included suggested modifications to our specific proposals and were
intended to clarify certain rule provisions or simplify implementation
under our rules.  By incorporating some of these suggestions, the
Commission developed final rules consistent with our goals of increasing
spectrum flexibility and fostering technological innovation.
III.  DISCUSSION
A.  Revisions to Part 15
1. Advanced Antenna Technologies
6. In the Notice, the Commission proposed to update Section 15.247 of
the rules to allow the use of more efficient antenna technologies with
unlicensed devices.  The regulations in effect at the time allowed only
omnidirectional and directional antennas to be used with such devices.
However, systems employing advanced antenna designs such as sectorized
antennas and phased array adaptive antennas are now being used, or
contemplated for use, as part of wide area network systems operating in
the 2.4 GHz band.  To date, the Commission has not generally authorized
the operation of sectorized antennas by spread spectrum systems, but, by
individual interpretation of its rules, we have allowed a few phased
array systems to operate.   Sectorized antenna systems take a
traditional omnidirectional coverage area and subdivide it into fixed
sectors that are each covered using a single beam or antenna element to
transmit desired information to all devices in the sector.  For example,
a sectorized system can be made from two individual antennas, each
covering 60º of azimuth around the antenna structure, resulting in 120º
of coverage.  Operationally, each sector is treated as a different cell,
the range of which is greater than that of a system using a single
omnidirectional antenna.  A phased array antenna system consists of a
group of radiating elements arranged and driven in such a way that their
radiated fields add in some directions and cancel in others.  The
combined fields can produce a single beam, or multiple beams pointing in
a various directions while minimizing radiation in other areas.
Properties of the resultant beams such as intensity, direction, or
beamwidth can be adjusted by altering the input signal to each radiating
element.
7. Sectorized and phased array antennas are used to create dynamic
communication links with associated mobile or fixed devices in any
direction around an antenna structure.  This enables an application like
a broadband local area network to serve a number of spatially separated
clients from a single antenna system.  These antennas allow systems to
use spectrum more efficiently by making it possible to re-use a given
frequency to communicate unique information with different devices along
non-overlapping paths.
8. In the Notice, the Commission proposed to clarify that sectorized or
phased array antenna systems must be capable of forming at least two
discrete beams with a total simultaneous beamwidth radiating from the
antenna structure no greater than 120º, regardless of the number of
beams formed.  The 120º of beamwidth was not intended to be continuous
and was assumed to be divided among various independent beams pointing
in different directions around the antenna structure.  In this
implementation, a sector system or phased array could be designed to
transmit simultaneously in 2 beams of 60º, 10 beams of 12º, or any other
combination not exceeding a total of 120º beamwidth.  The Commission
stated that such a requirement would prevent abuse of our rules by
banning antenna systems which, in an extreme case, may be able to form
beams of 1º width simultaneously along 360 radials around an antenna
structure, emulating an omni-directional antenna but operating at power
levels far in excess of those authorized for omni-directional systems.
9. In addition, the Commission proposed to allow sectorized and phased
array systems to operate at the same power levels permitted for
point-to-point directional antennas by limiting the total power that may
be applied to each individual beam to the level specified in Section
15.247(b), i.e., 0.125 Watt or 1 watt, depending upon the type of
modulation used.   This change implies that when operating along
multiple paths, the aggregate power in all beams could exceed the output
power permitted for a single point-to-point system.  We proposed,
therefore, to limit the aggregate power transmitted simultaneously on
all beams to 8 dB above the limit for an individual beam.  This added
restriction will allow a maximum of six individual beams to operate
simultaneously at the maximum permitted power.  If more than six
individual beams are used, then the aggregate power must be adjusted to
fall within the 8 dB limit.  Finally, the Commission proposed that the
transmitter output power be reduced by 1 dB for each 3 dB that the
directional antenna gain of the complete system exceeds 6 dBi.  This
requirement is similar to the present rules for point-to-point operation
in the 2.4 GHz band.
10. Furthermore, the Commission asked questions regarding the operation
of advanced antenna systems.  Specifically, should there be an
additional power reduction required whenever two or more beams of an
advanced antenna system overlap?  The Commission also asked if there is
any need to modify the compliance testing requirements for systems that
employ multiple antennas or radiating elements.
11. Commenters generally agree with the Commission’s proposal to allow
the use of advanced antenna technologies with unlicensed devices
operating under Section 15.247.  There was general concern that any
rules adopted not be technology specific in any way that could preclude
the development of future systems that use technology such as MIMO or
Space Time Coding.   There were mixed opinions regarding the 120º total
beamwidth limitation.  Navini notes that the 120º requirement would
prevent its system from being authorized because the system’s aggregate
beamwidth exceeds 120º at times.  Bandspeed, Inc. argues that the 120º
beamwidth limitation is arbitrary and while it would not effectively
prevent a sectorized antenna from creating harmful interference, it
would preclude the application of certain antenna technologies.   On the
other hand, while Alvarion does not object to the 120º limit, it
suggests that the limit should apply to each channel or frequency used
by the system.   Nortel suggests an alternative method for determining
the total beamwidth used.  Commenters who disagree with our proposal,
including Adam Stuhr, Jeffrey N. Houle, and Ryan D. Konwinski, state
that new high-powered sectorized or phased array systems would cause
interference to existing 802.11b operations not affiliated with an
advanced antenna system.
12. We continue to believe that it is appropriate to revise Section
15.247 to permit the use of advanced antenna systems in the 2.4 GHz
band.  We are adopting our proposals with certain modifications based on
the comments.  First, we are allowing advanced antenna systems,
including sectorized and adaptive array systems, to operate with an
aggregate transmit output power transmitted simultaneously on all beams
of up to 8 dB above the limit for an individual beam.
13. Second, we are adopting a requirement that the total EIRP on any
beam may not exceed the EIRP limits for conventional point-to-point
operation.  We are aware that during the course of normal operation it
is possible that two beams may overlap while tracking associated mobile
units.  Because the effective radiated power along the path of overlap
might exceed the power level permitted by a single beam, we will require
that the aggregate power transmitted simultaneously on overlapping beams
be reduced to ensure that EIRP in the area of overlap does not exceed
the limit for a single beam. Applications for equipment authorization
must include the algorithm that will produce the maximum gain to ensure
that the requirement will be met.  For example, consider an antenna
system that forms two separate beams both operating at the maximum
permitted power.  If the two beams were to overlap coverage area, then
the power in each beam must be reduced in any proportion relative to the
other in such a way that the total power in the overlap area does not
exceed the maximum power allowed for one beam.
14. We are not adopting a rule to restrict advanced antenna systems to
120º beamwidth.  We conclude that the EIRP limits, including the areas
of overlap, will ensure that interference potential of the system is
minimized, regardless of the beamwidth employed.
15. The rules we adopt herein are technologically neutral and will
permit operation of various new and developing antenna technologies.
Although the Notice identified only sectorized and phased array systems
as those that the Commission would consider under the revised rules,
commenters have noted that other advanced antenna technologies are
either under development or in use for various applications.  Systems
using technologies such as MIMO, space-time coding, and switched beam
devices will be accommodated under the new rules.
16. We are grandfathering existing advanced antenna systems that have
already received an equipment authorization.  These systems may continue
to operate in accordance with the terms of the equipment authorization.
New systems must comply with the rules adopted herein.
17. The use of advanced antenna systems will benefit service providers
in both rural and high-density areas.  In rural communities, these new
regulations will allow service providers to use higher powers to reach
distant customers.  Conversely, in urban communities these new antenna
systems will allow providers to re-use spectrum more efficiently and
thereby serve multiple clients with minimal interference risk.
2. Replacement Antennas for Unlicensed Devices
18. Section 15.203 requires that intentional radiators be designed such
that no antenna other than that supplied can be used with the device.
The rules state that the device can be designed to permit a broken
antenna to be replaced by the user; however, the use of a standard
antenna jack or electrical connector is prohibited.  These rules are
intended to prevent both intentional and unintentional circumvention of
the Part 15 emission limits by replacing a device’s authorized antenna
with an antenna having higher gain characteristics.
19. In order to support more flexible antenna requirements for
unlicensed devices, the Commission proposed to allow that devices be
authorized for use with multiple antennas.  In the Notice, it proposed
to achieve this goal by requiring testing only with the highest gain
antenna of each type (i.e. yagi antenna vs. a horn antenna) that would
be used with the transmitter at the maximum output power of that
transmitter.  Any antenna of a similar type that did not exceed the
antenna gain of tested antennas could be used without retesting.
Manufacturers would be expected to supply a list of acceptable antenna
types with applications for equipment authorization.  This change would
enable consumers to more easily replace a broken antenna and save
manufacturers both time and expense in building devices.
20. Commenting parties generally believe that the Commission should
permit the use of replacement antennas.  However, instead of authorizing
replacements by antenna type, commenters suggest that the Commission
should consider antenna gain and radiation pattern in determining if an
alternate antenna is acceptable.  For example, the Consumer Electronics
Association (CEA) states that, generally antenna patterns vary more by
gain than by type.  Therefore, testing with the highest gain antenna
would best illustrate interference potential.   Globespan Virata, Inc.
adds that antenna gain must be considered for both in-band and
out-of-band emissions.  For example replacement antennas with dissimilar
out-of-band characteristics than the original may cause the device to
function in violation of the Commission’s rules.  Globespan suggests
that the Commission add a condition requiring that any replacement
antenna maintain the same or lower gain both in band and out of band
emissions.
21. Commenters also suggest that the Commission eliminate the
requirement for unique connectors.  They argue that the rule is
ineffective because it has no impact on ordinary consumers and does not
deter those who want to modify unlicensed devices.  Additionally, Cisco
states that the unique connector requirement burdens manufacturers due
to the need to find new “unique” connectors once its current connector
becomes widely marketed to other manufacturers.   Similarly, Cisco,
Intel, and others   request that the integral antenna rule of Section
15.407(d) for U-NII devices in the 5.15 GHz – 5.25 GHz band should be
eliminated.   This rule, like the Section 15.203 requirement, was
instituted in order to prevent unauthorized tampering resulting in
emissions from an unlicensed device causing harmful interference to
licensed services.  However, according to these commenters, the integral
antenna rule increases complexity and costs while not satisfying the
original intent.
22. We agree with commenters regarding the need to make modifications to
Part 15 to permit the use of a variety of replacement antennas.  A
change in this requirement will enable greater design flexibility for
manufacturers and allow consumers ease of replacement.  Although we
proposed to modify Section 15.203 to implement the modifications, we
believe that the changes are better suited for Section 15.204.
Accordingly, we modify Section 15.204 to permit intentional radiators to
be authorized with multiple antennas of similar in and out-of-band gain
and radiation pattern.  Compliance testing for the intentional radiator
must be performed using the highest gain antenna that will be used with
the device.  The manufacturer must supply a list of other acceptable
antennas in the literature delivered to the customer.
23. We are not convinced, however, that the unique connector requirement
should be eliminated.  Thus, all replacement antennas authorized for use
with an intentional radiator must incorporate a non-standard connector
which uniquely couples with that intentional radiator.  We remain
concerned that removing this requirement could make it easier for
parties to attach unauthorized high gain antennas or linear amplifiers
to unlicensed devices in violation of the rules.  Of even greater
importance, however, is our concern that removing this requirement might
have the unintended consequence of allowing uninformed consumers to
inadvertently attach an antenna which causes the device to emit at
levels in excess of the limits for human exposure to radio emissions.
For these reasons, we will continue to require that unlicensed devices
use non-standard antenna connectors as currently required in Section
15.203.
24. As suggested by commenters, we will also remove the Section
15.407(d) requirement that devices designed to operate in the 5.15 GHz –
5.25 GHz U-NII band incorporate an integrated antenna.  In light of the
fact that manufacturers are designing equipment that is capable of
operating across multiple unlicensed bands, we conclude that it is
impractical to maintain separate antenna requirements for each band in
which a device my operate.  Removal of this requirement will not present
a significant interference risk because the modified Section 15.204
rules will ensure that any replacement antenna used with a device will
not cause emissions to exceed authorized levels.  Furthermore, the
requirement that U-NII band devices incorporate a non-standard connector
which couples only to the transmitter with which it is authorized will
provide assurance that unauthorized antennas will not be used with the
devices.
3. Flexible Equipment Authorization for Radio Transmission Systems
25. Section 15.205 of the rules prohibits marketing of external radio
frequency amplifiers, except as part of a complete transmission system
consisting of an intentional radiator, external radio frequency
amplifier and antenna.   In the Notice, we proposed to allow marketing
of separate radio frequency power amplifiers on a limited basis.  We
proposed to restrict such marketing to amplifiers that are only capable
of operation under the digitally modulated devices rules in Section
15.247 and under the U-NII rules for the 5750 – 5850 MHz band.  These
are the rules under which most unlicensed wireless broadband devices
operate.   Further, we proposed to require that the parties responsible
for such amplifiers obtain an equipment authorization (certification)
and demonstrate that the device cannot operate with an output power of
more than 1 Watt, the maximum power permitted under the rules.
Consumers and businesses would then have the ability to obtain a
separate amplifier if they find the device they have purchased has
insufficient operating range to meet their needs.  We invited comment as
to whether we should instead provide only a more narrow relaxation to
allow separate marketing of power amplifiers that are designed in a way
such that they can only be used with a specific system that is covered
by an equipment authorization, such as through use of a unique connector
or via an electronic handshake with a host device.  We also noted that
frequency hopping systems that employ fewer than 75 hops are limited to
an output power of 125 mW and invited comment as to whether the unique
connector requirement may be necessary to ensure that 1 Watt amplifiers
are not used with devices that are limited to 125 mW.  We invited
comment on these proposals and solicited views on other ways the rules
might be modified to provide added flexibility without creating undue
risk of interference to radio services or unlicensed devices.
26. Many parties oppose allowing RF power amplifiers to be sold
separately if there are no safeguards to ensure that a system will
continue to operate in compliance with the rules after an amplifier is
installed.  Alvarion states the improper installation and operation of
RF amplifiers can cause interference such that other equipment
attempting to share the band will suffer in performance and or range.
Cisco states that although the technical specifications of amplifiers
may appear similar, the amplifiers may interact differently with other
components to which they are matched.  In other words, an amplifier
inserted at the final stage of a system with which it has not been
tested can produce system RF emission characteristics that could not
otherwise be predicted by the amplifier’s specifications.  Alvarion and
others suggest steps that can be taken to ensure that separately sold
amplifiers can be marketed and used successfully.
27. Alvarion states that if RF power amplifiers are tested to comply
with the FCC rules as a system, as they are in the current rules, and if
such devices are sold independently with a list of the FCC IDs with
which the equipment can legally be operated, then compliance with the
FCC rules can be maintained.  CEA recommends that to limit the potential
for any interference, the Commission should ensure that the amplifiers
can be added only to equipment authorized to operate with 1 watt of
output power, and not with equipment that is restricted by the rules to
125 mW.
28. We agree with the commenters that combining RF amplifiers with
systems that they have not been tested and shown to be in compliance
with should not be permitted due to the high risk of potential
interference.  We also agree with Alvarion that with the proper
constraints, amplifiers that have been shown to operate within the rules
with a given system should be allowed to be separately marketed.
Accordingly, we are adopting rules to allow external amplifiers to be
marketed separately if they are designed in such a way that they can
only be used with a specific system that is covered by an equipment
authorization, such as through use of a unique connector or via an
electronic handshake with a host device.  The amplifiers must have a
proprietary connection both into the amplifier and into the associated
routers and access points with which they are FCC approved to work so
that consumers with any other routers or access points cannot use them.
The output power of such an amplifier must not exceed the maximum
permitted output power of the system with which it is authorized.  In
addition, we are requiring that the amplifiers will be sold with a
notice that they are to be used only in conjunction with the routers and
access points for which they have been approved.  A description or
listing of the devices with which the amplifier can be used must appear
on the outside packaging as well as in the user manual for the
amplifier.  The amplifiers must not be used to circumvent regulations
regarding output power.  For example, an amplifier may not be used to
increase the output power of a system that is otherwise limited to 125
mW to a higher power.  The party responsible for ensuring compliance
with Commission regulations shall illustrate, during the equipment
authorization process, the method used to prohibit unauthorized power
increases.  The marketing of RF amplifiers that are not FCC certified to
be used as part of a specific system will continue to be prohibited.
29. In the Notice, the Commission proposed a number of rule changes to
enable WISPs to customize their transmission systems without the need to
obtain a new equipment authorization for every combination of
components.   Specifically, we proposed to allow professional radio
system installers to substitute technically equivalent components in
systems that have been granted equipment authorization.   We invited
comment as to whether specific criteria are necessary to qualify as a
professional radio system installer or commercial service provider, and
if so, what those criteria should be.  Because we are retaining the
unique antenna connector  requirement and the requirement that external
RF amplifiers be marketed only to operate with systems for which they
have been certified to operate with, there is no need to require a
professional installer to make antenna and amplifier substitutions.  The
connection and marketing provisions provide sufficient assurance that
unauthorized power amplifiers will not be able to be used with an
unlicensed transmitter.  We are, therefore, not adopting a professional
installer definition or requirement in this proceeding.
4. Measurement Procedures for Digital Modulation Systems
30. In the Notice, the Commission explained that unlicensed devices
designed to use digital modulation techniques may be authorized under
either the U-NII rules (Subpart E) or Section 15.247 of Part 15.  When
operating under either of these requirements the devices are limited to
1 watt maximum output power.  However, the method used to determine the
maximum power varies for U-NII and spread spectrum devices.
Specifically, the output power measurement required under the
Commission’s U-NII device test procedure is an RMS average measurement,
while the output power measurement required under the Commission’s
digitally-modulated spread spectrum device test procedure is a
measurement of the overall peak emission.  In adopting the U-NII rules,
the Commission recognized that digital modulation techniques often
display short duration peaks that do not cause increased interference to
other operations.  Measuring the peak level of short duration spikes
overestimates interference potential.  Accordingly, the Commission
established measurement procedures for digital U-NII devices which allow
for averaging output power in order to disregard these insignificant
spikes.
31. In the Notice, the Commission noted that the current rules may lead
to inconsistent treatment of similar devices.  Accordingly, it proposed
to harmonize the measurement procedures for digital modulation devices
authorized under Section 15.247 with the digital U-NII devices
authorized under Section 15.407.  Specifically, we proposed to allow
entities performing compliance testing for Section 15.247 devices to use
an average, rather than overall peak, emission as provided by Section
15.407, paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) when measuring transmit power.  We
proposed this change for devices using digital modulation that operate
in the 915 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.7 GHz bands.
32. Most commenters agree that the measurement procedures for digital
devices under Sections 15.247 and 15.407 should be harmonized.  Most
also prefer to use an average power measurement as provided for in the
U-NII regulations.  Nortel Networks agrees that the harmonization by
using the measure of the average emission power for both 15.247 and UNII
devices would benefit the industry.  It states that this change will not
have a detrimental effect on existing systems.  Nortel Networks submits
that it is appropriate to choose spectrum occupancy characteristics that
are commonly used by many RLAN systems already in use in these bands.
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America (“Matsushita”) states that
the Commission should permit, as an option, the use of the measurement
procedures utilized in the U-NII rules for 15.247 devices.  It contends
that providing for the use of both the existing and proposed procedures
would allow manufacturers and designers the maximum degree of
flexibility to design their equipment using existing and future
technologies.
33. Cisco Systems, Inc. cautions that aligning the measurement
procedures without also aligning the out-of-band emissions masks could
be detrimental to installed devices because of the potential for
increase in out-of-band emissions.  For example, Cisco illustrates that
alignment of the measurement procedure alone would allow the out-of-band
emissions from a device which currently must be authorized under the
U-NII rules to increase by as much as 10 dB if it were to be authorized
under the Section 15.247 regulations.   Cisco states that the Commission
can avoid such increases by changing the out-of-band emission limits of
Section 15.247(c) from -20 dB to -30 dB.  Itron opposes applying any new
measurement procedure to devices in the 902 – 928 MHz band because of
potential harm caused to existing devices in the band.
34. As discussed above, we believe that it is important to maintain
consistent treatment of similar technologies regardless of the rule
section under which it is authorized.  Therefore, as proposed in the
Notice, we will modify Section 15.247 to permit the determination of the
output power of a digitally modulated system by the same methods used to
determine output power of systems operating pursuant to the U-NII
rules.  This measurement, in both cases, may be taken as an average
power measurement as described in the Public Notice, “Measurement
Procedure Updated for Peak Transmit Power in the Unlicensed National
Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Bands,” DA 02-2138.
35. We are not removing the existing measurement requirements for
Section 15.247 devices from the rules; instead, the new measurement
procedure can be used optionally for digitally modulated Section 15.247
devices.  However, in order to address the concern of increased
out-of-band emissions from devices authorized under Section 15.247, we
will require that if emissions are measured using the average power
procedure, then out-of-band emission must be reduced to 30 dB below the
level of the device’s fundamental frequency.
36. The optional measurement procedure will be applicable to digitally
modulated devices in the 915 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.7 GHz bands.  We are not
persuaded by Itron’s comments to exclude the 915 MHz band.  Itron argues
that using an average rather than peak power output measurement would
result in higher-power devices being permitted to operate in the band.
It states that changing the testing procedure could be detrimental to
tens of millions of devices operating in the 915 MHz band.   We find
that Itron has not made a significant showing to warrant exclusion of
the 915 MHz band from the revised regulations.  We continue to believe
that these changes will benefit operators in the 915 MHz band equally as
well as operators in the 2.4 GHz and 5.7 GHz bands without resulting in
increased risk of interference.
37. We note that Sirius Satellite requests that we establish a new limit
for out-of-band emissions that fall over the satellite DARS band.  It
states that the current general limit of Part 15 emissions is many times
higher than the level of the received satellite signal.  Sirius proposes
a new limit of 8.6 uV/m for emissions from Part 15 devices falling into
the DARS band.  Sirius’ specific concern is not at issue in this
proceeding.  As the Telecommunications Industry Association correctly
states in its replies, the Commission has addressed, and denied, a
virtually identical proposal by Sirius in the Report and Order in ET
Docket No. 99-231.   No new information has been submitted by Sirius in
this proceeding that would warrant further consideration of this
proposal.
38. Along with aligning measurement procedures, we also make
clarifications to the definitions of transmit power to more effectively
reflect how this measurement should be taken when the transmit power is
delivered to an antenna system which may have one or multiple elements.
We make this clarification by replacing the term “peak transmit power”
in the U-NII rules with “maximum conducted output power.”  The maximum
conducted output power is defined as the total transmit power delivered
to all antennas and antenna elements averaged across all symbols in the
signaling alphabet when the transmitter is operating at its maximum
power control level.
39. In the Notice, the Commission asked whether it should amend the
spectrum occupancy rules for Section 15.247 and U-NII devices to apply
the same limits to both types of devices.   Itron and Tropos Networks
filed contrasting comments with regard to this question.  Itron believes
that all devices authorized under Section 15.247 should be required to
limit spectral occupancy to 17 dBm in any 1 MHz band, as provided by
Section 15.407.   Tropos Networks, on the other hand, states that the
spectral occupancy limit in Section 15.407 should be changed to 8 dBm in
any 3 kHz to match the current limit in Section 15.247.  We do not
believe that there has been sufficient discussion on this topic to
justify modifying the requirement either way.  Therefore, at this time,
we will leave the spectrum occupancy limits for both Section 15.247 and
U-NII devices unchanged.  We will consider addressing this subject at a
later date should we gather additional information with regard to the
affects of modifying the spectrum occupancy limits.
5. Frequency Hopping Channel Spacing Requirements
40. In the Notice the Commission reaffirmed its commitment to promote
spectrally efficient technologies and, in response to a request by the
Bluetooth Special Interest Group (Bluetooth SIG), proposed to modify the
frequency hopping spacing requirements for certain systems in the 2.4
GHz band.  By way of background, Section 15.247(a)(1) of the rules
currently require that frequency hopping systems have hopping channel
center frequencies separated by either a minimum of 25 kHz or the 20 dB
bandwidth of the hopping channel, whichever is greater.   The Bluetooth
SIG requested that this channel spacing requirement be modified to allow
hopping channel carrier frequencies to be more closely spaced.  In
particular, it asked that we modify the requirement to allow a
separation of a minimum of 25 kHz or two-thirds of the 20 dB bandwidth
of the hopping channel, whichever is greater.  Although the request did
not specify the operating band to which the changes should apply, we
interpret the request as being applicable to devices operating in the
2.4 GHz band because the Bluetooth product line operates in the 2.4 GHz
band.
41. The Bluetooth SIG requested this modification to accommodate next
generation Bluetooth technology that will use advanced modulation
schemes capable of higher data rates than existing Bluetooth devices.
Specifically, Bluetooth devices conforming to the present rules operate
at a data rate of up to 1 Mbps.  Second generation Bluetooth devices
employing new modulation techniques will be capable of data rates of up
to 3 Mbps.  This improvement will enable future Bluetooth devices to be
used for more data intensive applications like wireless local area
networks.
42. The Bluetooth SIG states that the current hopping channel spacing
requirements are met using modulation techniques such as frequency shift
keying, which is characterized by signals with relatively high signal
peaks and steep drop-offs.  However, its new modulation technique has a
relatively low signal peak with more gradual signal drop-off.  The
resulting hopping channel bandwidths are slightly wider than the channel
bandwidths of systems using older modulation techniques.  The Bluetooth
SIG states that it selected this new modulation technique for its second
generation product because the technique is backward compatible with
existing modulation schemes.   It states that the new devices would not
increase interference potential because they would use a reduced number
of hopping channels and limit output power to 125 mW.
43. In accordance with this request, we proposed to modify the frequency
hopping spacing requirement to permit certain systems in the 2.4 GHz
band to utilize hopping channels separated by either 25 KHz or
two-thirds of the 20 dB bandwidth, whichever is greater.  We stated that
although a single device’s channels will not overlap in time, the
operation of multiple devices using the new modulation technique
simultaneously in a given area may cause the spectral occupancy and
power density to increase, leading to an increased risk of
interference.  Therefore, we sought comment on the interference
potential of new waveforms with more gradual roll-off and potentially
higher spectral power densities at the channel band edges.
44. We noted that the current rules place output power limitations on
frequency hopping systems based upon the number of hopping channels
used.  Specifically, systems in the 2.4 GHz band that use at least 75
hopping channels are allowed 1 watt output power.   However, systems
that use fewer than 75 hopping channels are limited to 125 mW output
power.   In general, many systems that employ fewer than 75 hopping
channels use hopping channels that are wider than those that use 75 or
more channels.  In allowing these wider hopping channels, the Commission
recognized that a reduction in the maximum permitted output power was
needed in order to minimize any potential interference risk.    In the
Notice, we tentatively concluded that an output power limit of no more
than 125 mW is also appropriate for those systems that use more narrowly
spaced channels than currently permitted.  In line with previous
Commission findings, we stated our belief that this restriction would
ensure that systems using the narrow-spaced, slightly wider hopping
channels will not overcrowd the 2.4 GHz band with relatively high-power
emissions and sought comment on this proposal.  The proposed rule in
Appendix A of the Notice contained an additional restriction that was
not proposed or discussed in the text of the Notice.  Specifically, it
restricted this proposal to systems that employ fewer than 75 hopping
channels.
45. Commenters including CEA, Globespan, and IEEE 802 support our
proposal to modify the frequency hopping spacing requirement in the 2.4
GHz band. CEA states that relaxing the hopping channel spacing
requirement in the current rules and reducing the associated power limit
is appropriate given the utility of unlicensed devices using this type
of modulation and their limited potential to cause interference because
of the generally short range over which they communicate.
46. The IEEE  802 recommends allowing the two-thirds rule for all
frequency hopping systems in the 2.4 GHz band operating at an output
power no greater than 125 mW, regardless of the number of hopping
channels employed, as opposed to the proposed limitations.   The Wi-Fi
Alliance states that the net effect of the 2/3 bandwidth rules would be
to increase the number of available hopping channels, improving the
interference immunity of any frequency hopping implementation.  The
Wi-Fi Alliance further states that restricting the proposed rule change
to systems operating with less than 75 hopping channels would deny the
benefits of the 2/3 rule to a wider range of systems without any clear
benefit to coexistence between different systems.
47. ITI, Matsushita, and Motorola also recommend deleting the 75 hopping
channel or less requirement.   To implement this change, ITI suggests
the following change to the proposed text for Section 15.247(a)(1),
“frequency hopping systems in the 2.4 GHz band may have hopping channel
carrier frequencies separated by a minimum of 25 kHz or two-thirds of
the 20 dB bandwidth of the hopping channel, whichever is greater,
provided the systems operate with an output power no greater than 125
mW.”   ITI believes that this change would have no adverse impact on
interference between systems and would allow a Bluetooth system
operating with the next generation Bluetooth modulation scheme to use
the same number of hopping channels as current generation Bluetooth
systems.
48. Pegasus supports the two-thirds of 20 dB bandwidth channel
separation for frequency hopping systems for both the 915 and the 2.4
GHZ band.   In contrast, Itron opposes the application of this proposal
to the 915 MHz band, stating that the Notice did not propose to apply
the new rules to the 915 MHz band and that the Commission should state
that any changes will not apply to the band.  Itron states that due to
the prevalence of low power devices in the 915 MHz band, reducing
channel spacing poses a greater probability of interference among these
devices.
 49. We believe that our proposal to modify the frequency hopping
spacing requirement in the 2.4 GHz band will provide for more spectrally
efficient technologies.  We are therefore adopting our proposal.  We
agree with the commenters that the relaxed frequency hopping spacing
requirement proposed should not be limited to systems using 75 or fewer
channels.  We are therefore adopting the language, as suggested by ITI,
that will not limit flexibility to systems using 75 or fewer channels.
Frequency hopping systems that operate under the revised spacing rules
will be limited to an output power of 125 mW.
50. We are not extending this provision to the 915 MHz band as requested
by Pegasus.  There are additional concerns with regard to altering the
separation distances for frequency hopping systems in the 915 MHz band.
In particular, the 915 MHz band has only 28 megahertz of available
spectrum as opposed to 83.5 megahertz of spectrum in the 2.4 GHz band.
Because there is less spectrum available, wider skirts would have a
greater impact.  We do not have sufficient information about the affects
that modifying the spacing requirements would have on existing users of
the band.  Therefore, we are not changing the channel spacing
requirements for the 915 MHz band at this time.
6. Improving Sharing in the Unlicensed Bands
51. In the Notice, we invited comment on whether we should consider any
other methods to ensure efficient spectrum usage by unlicensed devices
and pointed to the “spectrum etiquette,” or sharing conditions,
developed by the industry for the operation of Unlicensed PCS devices
operating under Part 15 of its rules.   The spectrum etiquette
establishes a set of steps that a device must follow before it may
access the spectrum.   It requires that devices monitor the spectrum in
which they intend to operate.  A device may begin transmission only if
no signal above a specified threshold is detected.
52. We invited comment on a number of issues regarding the possibility
of implementing a spectrum sharing etiquette for devices that operate on
an unlicensed basis in bands other than the Unlicensed PCS band.
Generally, we sought comment on who should develop any such etiquette,
to which bands would an etiquette apply, and how effective would such an
etiquette imposed on new entrants be in improving spectrum sharing.
53. Most parties commenting on this issue believe that a spectrum
etiquette would be undesirable in the unlicensed bands because it would
tend to limit development.  For example, Pegasus Technologies, Inc.
(“Pegasus”) states that imposing spectrum etiquette on existing bands
would limit future development of the bands.  It refers to the 915 MHz
and 2.4 GHz bands specifically where it states that the increased design
complexity needed to implement a spectrum etiquette would hinder the
continued introduction of low-cost devices designed to operate in the
bands.  However, on a foreword looking basis, Pegasus suggests that if
the Commission makes additional unlicensed bands available, then an
etiquette may be feasible in at least a few of the new bands.   Intel
Corporation adds that, at this point, spectrum sharing etiquettes have
not been shown to be necessary.  It argues that if we were to mandate
etiquettes, it would likely delay new services and impede innovation.
On the other hand, Itron supports a sharing etiquette, particularly for
devices in the 902 -928 MHz band.  Itron suggests that we could best
promote sharing and efficiency in the 902 – 928 MHz band by establishing
a limit on the transmit duty cycle of Section 15.247 digital modulation
devices.   Also in support of some form of spectrum sharing
requirements, Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) presented several
suggested requirements which it believes could help to ensure that the
bands available for unlicensed operation do not become overcrowded.
Microsoft recommends that spectrum sharing be facilitated by requiring
devices to cease transmissions if there is no information to be sent,
allowing unlicensed devices to transmit only they can do so without
causing interference to other devices already using the channel, and
requiring unlicensed devices to incorporate dynamic range control which
would force a device to use the minimum transmit power necessary to
complete a communications link.
54. We decline to impose any type of spectrum etiquette for the Part 15
bands that are the subject of this proceeding because they are already
heavily used.  We believe that design flexibility has helped industry to
develop efficient sharing and modulation schemes.  It appears that the
existing regulations have resulted in very efficient use of available
unlicensed spectrum.  However, we also find that the recommendations
advanced by Microsoft have merit and should be taken under
consideration.  In particular, we find that Microsoft’s suggestions may
prove beneficial as we proceed in making additional spectrum available
for unlicensed operation.  For example, we now have under consideration
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on issues related to
allowing unlicensed devices to operate in unused portions, or “White
Spaces,” in the TV broadcast spectrum.   We note that a device operating
in accordance with the suggested guidelines could more effectively share
the broadcast band, minimizing the risk of interference to both TV
stations and other unlicensed devices.  The Commission will take into
consideration possible requirements such as these as it contemplates
making additional spectrum available for the operation of unlicensed
devices.
7. Part 15 Unlicensed Modular Transmitter Approvals
55. In the Notice we also proposed to clarify the equipment
authorization requirements for modular transmitters.  However, because
there are complex and evolving issues associated with modular
transmitters, we determined that further information is needed before
reasonable guidelines can be developed.  Accordingly, we will address
this matter in a later Commission action.
8. Special Temporary Authority
56. In the Notice, we proposed to delete the provisions in Section 15.7
of the rules for obtaining a Special Temporary Authority (STA) to
operate intentional or unintentional radiation devices not conforming to
the Part 15 rules.   We noted that the Office of Engineering and
Technology has not granted any STAs under Part 15 nor had any formal
requests for an STA under these rules in the last 10 years.  We further
noted that this need is being met through the allowances for STAs under
the provisions in Part 5 for experimental licenses.
57. Only Globespan Virata filed comments on this subject.  It expresses
support for removing the Special Temporary Authority provisions.   We
conclude that the STA provisions of Part 15 are no longer needed.  The
lack of interested parties commenting on this topic provides a further
indication that the rule section has outlived its usefulness.
Therefore, as proposed in the Notice, we delete Section 15.7 from the
rules.  STAs to operate intentional or unintentional radiation devices
not conforming to the Part 15 rules will continue to be granted, as
appropriate, under the experimental licensing provisions of Part 5.
B. Revisions to Part 2
1. Import Conditions
58. Section 2.1204 of the rules limits the importation of radio
frequency devices that have not yet received equipment authorization and
are not intended for operation within one of the Commission’s licensed
services to 200 or fewer units for testing and evaluation, and 10 or
fewer units for demonstration at industry trade shows, provided the
devices will not be offered for sale or marketed.   Devices intended for
use in a licensed service can be imported in greater numbers; 2000 or
fewer for testing and evaluation and 200 or fewer for demonstration
purposes.   We have found that devices used in licensed services are
easier to track and therefore need not be as tightly restricted.
59. In a comment filed in response to the 2002 Regulatory Flexibility
Act Review, Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) asked that we increase the
number of devices not intended for use in a licensed service that may be
imported to 2000 or fewer for testing and evaluation and 100 or fewer
for demonstration purposes.  HP further requests that the modified rules
be expanded to permit demonstration prototypes to be used, in addition
to trade shows, for any other purpose designed to build market
awareness.  As an alternative to the suggested rule changes, HP states
that we could consider combining Sections 2.1204(a)(3) and 2.1204(a)(4)
to create a limit of 2100 devices for all pre-authorized units to be
used for, “design refinement, software development, marketing and
customer support program development, or any other needed product
development purpose, including promoting market awareness.”   HP
contends that this relaxation of the import regulations would more
accurately reflect the manufacturing and marketing procedures in use
today.
60. In the Notice, we proposed to relax the import restrictions as
requested by HP.  However, we also expressed concerned that increasing
the limit as HP requests might encourage some manufacturers to import
far more devices than necessary and to request an exception to import an
even greater number of devices, without sufficient cause.  We sought
comment on both the necessity of increasing the importation limit and
the possibility of abuse of a revised rule.
61. Commenting parties generally contend that the current import limits
are not reflective of the marketing environment.  They support HP’s
proposal to increase the limits.   Cisco, for example, states that
raising the current limits will reduce the administrative burden on both
the Commission and industry, without any real risk of interference.
Likewise, the Wi-Fi Alliance states that it is reasonable to allow the
use of demonstration equipment for market development activities outside
of trade shows.
62. We do not believe, however, that commenters have made a compelling
argument supporting the need for a modification to the importation
regulations.  As noted in the Notice, the Commission routinely receives
requests to import products in greater numbers than provided for in the
current rules.  Such requests are generally processed with little
delay.  To be more specific, our Office of Engineering and Technology
Laboratory processes, on average, only about twenty-five such requests
per year.  This limited number of requests does not impose a significant
administrative burden on the Commission.  Furthermore, the requests are
useful to our staff because they indicate how many devices are being
imported prior to authorization.  We remain concerned that relaxation of
the import rules might result in an unnecessary influx of excess
equipment and increase the likelihood that manufacturers will lose track
of unauthorized devices.   Accordingly, we decline to modify the Section
2.1204 importation regulations.
2. Electronic Filing
63. In the Notice, we proposed three changes which we believed would
streamline our filing process by reducing paperwork burdens and further
our efforts to comply with the E-Government initiative.   Specifically,
we proposed to 1) delete the provisions for a paper filing of an
application for Certification in Section 2.913, noting that no requests
to submit paper filings had been received in the past five years; 2)
modify Section 2.926(c) to require electronic filing for all grantee
code assignment requests, and; 3) modify Sections 2.929(c) and (d) to
require electronic filing for all changes in address, company name,
contact person, and control/sale of the grantee.
64. All parties commenting on this issue support these proposals.   For
example, Cisco believes that virtually everyone who would file for
equipment certification or for a grantee code has access to both a
computer and the Internet.  Cisco also supports these proposals because
they will relieve the Commission of the administrative burden of
handling paper filings.   ITI supports these changes because it believes
that electronic filing speeds up application processing and therefore
supports the Commission in further streamlining to reduce cost and
increase efficiency.
65. With the support of commenters, we conclude that the paper filing
provisions in Sections 2.913(c), 2.926(c), 2.929(c), and 2.929(d) of the
rules are unnecessary and outdated.  The proposed revisions would
facilitate more efficient document filing and processing.  Therefore, we
will make the changes to Sections 2.913(c), 2.926(c), 2.929(c), and
2.929(d) as proposed in the NPRM and summarized above.
3. Accreditation of Test Laboratories
66. In the Notice, we observed that the rules do not address
re-evaluation intervals for laboratories that test devices for Part 15
and Part 18 compliance.   Accrediting bodies that evaluate the
laboratories generally determine these intervals themselves.  While
domestic laboratories are generally re-evaluated at two-year intervals,
some Accrediting Bodies reassess foreign laboratories only every 7
years.  We indicated that it is important that all laboratories, both
foreign and domestic, be re-certified on a common interval.  Therefore,
we proposed to modify Section 2.948 to clarify that all test sites, both
foreign and domestic, must be reassessed by their Accrediting Body every
two years.  We proposed to modify Section 2.962(e)(1) to clarify that
every Telecommunications Certification Body must be re-accredited every
2 years for continued accreditation.
67. Globespan Virata, Inc. supports the laboratory re-accreditation
proposals.  It notes that because equipment technology, test methods,
and regulations change frequently, the Commission should have assurances
that all testing labs are properly equipped and knowledgeable of current
practices.   HP states that it supports our intent to maintain a level
playing field globally for test labs offering measurement equipment
authorization.   For the reasons indicated above, we will modify the
rules as proposed.  Specifically, we are modifying Section 2.948 to
clarify that all test sites must be reassessed by their Accrediting Body

every two years.  Additionally, we are modifying Section 2.962 by adding
a new paragraph (c)(7) to clarify that every Telecommunications
Certification Body must be reassessed on two-year intervals.
C. Miscellaneous
68. Finally, we make an editorial change to Section 15.31(a)(3) to
update  the reference to ANSI C63.4 to its newest version.
Specifically, we are replacing “ANSI C63.4–2001” with “ANSI
C63.4–2003.”  The Note to paragraph (a)(3) remains unchanged.
IV.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS
69. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  The Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5
U.S.C. § 604, is contained in Appendix B.
70. Paperwork Reduction Act.  This Report & Order contains modified
information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13.  It will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the
PRA.  OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to
comment on the new or modified information collection(s) contained in
this proceeding.
V.  ORDERING CLAUSES
71. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission’s
Rules ARE AMENDED as specified in Appendix A, effective 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.  This action is taken pursuant to
the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections
154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r).
72. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
 73. For further information regarding this Report and Order, contact
Neal McNeil, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2408, TTY
(202) 418-2989, e-mail [email-masked].
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary

 APPENDIX A: RULE CHANGES
Part 2 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303 and 336, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 2.913 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to
read as follows:
§ 2.913 Submittal of equipment authorization application or information
to the Commission.
(a) All applications for equipment authorization must be filed
electronically via the Internet.  Information on the procedures for
electronically filing equipment authorization applications can be
obtained from the address in paragraph (c) of this section and from the
Internet at https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/index.cfm.
(b) Unless otherwise directed, fees for applications for the equipment
authorization, pursuant to section 1.1103 of this chapter, must be
submitted either electronically via the Internet at
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/index.cfm or by following the
procedures described in section 0.401(b) of this chapter. The address
for fees submitted by mail is: Federal Communications Commission,
Equipment Approval Services, P.O. Box 358315, Pittsburgh, PA
15251-5315.  If the applicant chooses to make use of an air
courier/package delivery service, the following address must appear on
the outside of the package/envelope: Federal Communications Commission,
c/o Mellon Bank, Mellon Client, Service Center, 500 Ross Street - Room
670, Pittsburgh, PA 15262-0001.
(c) Any equipment samples requested by the Commission pursuant to the
provisions of subpart J of this part shall, unless otherwise directed,
be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission Laboratory, 7435
Oakland Mills Road, Columbia, Maryland, 21046.

3. Section 2.926 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
§ 2.926 FCC identifier.
* * * * *
(c) A grantee code will have three characters consisting of Arabic
numerals, capital letters, or combination thereof.  A prospective
grantee or his authorized representative may receive a grantee code
electronically via the Internet at
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/index.cfm.  The code may be
obtained at any time prior to submittal of the application for equipment
authorization.  However, the fee required by section 1.1103 of this
chapter must be submitted and validated within 30 days of the issuance
of the grantee code, or the code will be removed from the Commission’s
records and a new grantee code will have to be obtained.
* * * * *
4. Section 2.929 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (c)
and (d) to read as follows:
§ 2.929 Changes in name, address, ownership or control of grantee.
* * * * *
 (c)  Whenever there is a change in the name and/or address of the
grantee of an equipment authorization, notice of such change(s) shall be
submitted to the Commission via the Internet at
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/index.cfm within 30 days after
the grantee starts using the new name and/or address.
(d) In the case of transactions affecting the grantee, such as a
transfer of control or sale to another company, mergers, or transfer of
manufacturing rights, notice must be given to the Commission via the
Internet at https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/index.cfm within
60 days after the consummation of the transaction. Depending on the
circumstances in each case, the Commission may require new applications
for equipment authorization. In reaching a decision the Commission will
consider whether the acquiring party can adequately ensure and accept
responsibility for continued compliance with the regulations. In
general, new applications for each device will not be required. A single
application for equipment authorization may be filed covering all the
affected equipment.
5. Section 2.948 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (d) and by
deleting paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
§ 2.948 Description of measurement facilities.
(a) * * *
* * * * *
(d)  A laboratory that has been accredited with a scope covering the
required measurements shall be deemed competent to test and submit test
data for equipment subject to verification, Declaration of Conformity,
and certification.  Such a laboratory shall be accredited by an approved
accreditation organization based on the International Organization for
Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC)
Standard 17025, “General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration
and Testing Laboratories.” The organization accrediting the laboratory
must be approved by the Commission's Office of Engineering and
Technology, as indicated in § 0.241 of this chapter, to perform such
accreditation based on ISO/IEC 58, “Calibration and Testing Laboratory
Accreditation Systems--General Requirements for Operation and
Recognition.”  The frequency for revalidation of the test site and the
information that is required to be filed or retained by the testing
party shall comply with the requirements established by the accrediting
organization. However, in all cases, test site revalidation shall occur
on an interval not to exceed two years.
(1) * * *
(2) * * *

6. Section 2.962 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4),
adding a new paragraph (c)(7), and revising paragraphs (e), (f)(1),
(f)(3), and (g)(3) to read as follows:
§ 2.962 Requirements for a Telecommunications Certification Body.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3)  The TCB shall have the technical expertise and capability to test
the equipment it will certify and shall also be accredited in accordance
with ISO/IEC Standard 17025 to demonstrate it is competent to perform
such tests.
 (4) The TCB shall demonstrate an ability to recognize situations where
interpretations of the regulations or test procedures may be necessary.
The appropriate key certification and laboratory personnel shall
demonstrate a knowledge of how to obtain current and correct technical
regulation interpretations. The competence of the Telecommunication
Certification Body shall be demonstrated by assessment. The general
competence, efficiency, experience, familiarity with technical
regulations and products included in those technical regulations, as
well as compliance with applicable parts of the ISO/IEC Standard 17025
and Guide 65, shall be taken into consideration.
* * * * *
(7)  A TCB shall be reassessed for continued accreditation on intervals
not exceeding two years.
(e) Designation of a TCB.
(f) * * *
(1) A TCB shall certify equipment in accordance with the Commission's
rules and policies.
(2) * * *
(3) A TCB may establish and assess fees for processing certification
applications and other tasks as required by the Commission.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) If during post market surveillance of a certified product, a TCB
determines that a product fails to comply with the applicable technical
regulations, the Telecommunication Certification Body shall immediately
notify the grantee and the Commission. A follow-up report shall also be
provided within thirty days of the action taken by the grantee to
correct the situation
* * *
* * * * *
Part 15 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
7. The authority citation of Part 15 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544A.
8. Section 15.7 is deleted.
9. Section 15.31 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:
Section 15.31  Measurement standards.
(a) * * *
 (3)  Other intentional and unintentional radiators are to be measured
for compliance using the following procedure excluding sections 4.1.5.2,
5.7, 9 and 14: ANSI C63.4–2003:  “Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise
Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the
Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz” (incorporated by reference, see § 15.38).
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.
11.  Section 15.38 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:
Section 15.38  Incorporation by reference.
*              *              *              *              *
(b)(6)  ANSI C63.4-2003:  “Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise
Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the
Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz,” 2003, IBR approved for § 15.31, except for
sections 4.1.5.2, 5.7, 9 and 14.
*              *              *              *              *
12. Section 15.204 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
and adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 15.204 External radio frequency power amplifiers and antenna
modifications.
(a)  Except as otherwise described in paragraph (b) and (d) of this
section, no person shall use, manufacture, sell or lease, offer for sale
or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or
distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing, any external radio
frequency power amplifier or amplifier kit intended for use with a Part
15 intentional radiator.
(b)  A transmission system consisting of an intentional radiator, an
external radio frequency power amplifier, and an antenna, may be
authorized, marketed and used under this part.  Except as described
otherwise in this section, when a transmission system is authorized as a
system, it must always be marketed as a complete system and must always
be used in the configuration in which it was authorized.
(c)  An intentional radiator may be operated only with the antenna with
which it is authorized.  If an antenna is marketed with the intentional
radiator, it shall be of a type which is authorized with the intentional
radiator.  An intentional radiator may be authorized with multiple
antenna types.

(1)  The antenna type, as used in this paragraph, refers to antennas
that have similar in-band and out-of-band radiation patterns.
(2)  Compliance testing shall be performed using the highest gain
antenna for each type of antenna to be certified with the intentional
radiator.  During this testing, the intentional radiator shall be
operated at its maximum available output power level.
(3)  Manufacturers shall supply a list of acceptable antenna types with
the application for equipment authorization of the intentional radiator.

(4)  Any antenna that is of the same type and of equal or less
directional gain as an antenna that is authorized with the intentional
radiator may be marketed with, and used with, that intentional
radiator.  No retesting of this system configuration is required.  The
marketing or use of a system configuration that employs an antenna of a
different type, or that operates at a higher gain, than the antenna
authorized with the intentional radiator is not permitted unless the
procedures specified in Section 2.1043 of this chapter are followed.

(d)  Except as described in this paragraph, an external radio frequency
power amplifier or amplifier kit shall be marketed only with the system
configuration with which it was approved and not as a separate product.

(1)  An external radio frequency power amplifier may be marketed for
individual sale provided it is intended for use in conjunction with a
transmitter that operates in the 902 – 928 MHz, 2400 – 2483.5 MHz, and
5725 – 5850 MHz bands pursuant to § 15.247 of this part or a transmitter
that operates in the 5.725 – 5.825 GHz band pursuant to § 15.407 of this
part.  The amplifier must be of a design such that it can only be
connected as part of a system in which it has been previously
authorized.  (The use of a non-standard connector or a form of
electronic system identification is acceptable.)  The output power of
such an amplifier must not exceed the maximum permitted output power of
its associated transmitter.
(2)  The outside packaging and user manual for external radio frequency
power amplifiers sold in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) must include
notification that the amplifier can be used only in a system which it
has obtained authorization.  Such a notice must identify the authorized
system by FCC Identifier.
13. Section 15.247 is amended by modifying paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
(d), and (e) and adding a new paragraph (i) as follows:
§ 15.247 Operation within the bands 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz, and
5725-5850 MHz.
(a)  Operation under the provisions of this Section is limited to
frequency hopping and digitally modulated intentional radiators that
comply with the following provisions:

(1)  Frequency hopping systems shall have hopping channel carrier
frequencies separated by a minimum of 25 kHz or the 20 dB bandwidth of
the hopping channel, whichever is greater.  Alternatively, frequency
hopping systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band may have hopping
channel carrier frequencies that are separated by 25 kHz or two-thirds
of the 20 dB bandwidth of the hopping channel, whichever is greater,
provided the systems operate with an output power no greater than 125
mW.  The system shall hop to channel frequencies that are selected at
the system hopping rate from a pseudorandomly ordered list of hopping
frequencies.  Each frequency must be used equally on the average by each
transmitter.  The system receivers shall have input bandwidths that
match the hopping channel bandwidths of their corresponding transmitters
and shall shift frequencies in synchronization with the transmitted
signals.

(i)  For frequency hopping systems operating in the 902-928 MHz band:
if the 20 dB bandwidth of the hopping channel is less than 250 kHz, the
system shall use at least 50 hopping frequencies and the average time of
occupancy on any frequency shall not be greater than 0.4 seconds within
a 20 second period; if the 20 dB bandwidth of the hopping channel is 250
kHz or greater, the system shall use at least 25 hopping frequencies and
the average time of occupancy on any frequency shall not be greater than
0.4 seconds within a 10 second period.  The maximum allowed 20 dB
bandwidth of the hopping channel is 500 kHz.
(ii)  Frequency hopping systems operating in the 5725-5850 MHz band
shall use at least 75 hopping frequencies.  The maximum 20 dB bandwidth
of the hopping channel is 1 MHz.  The average time of occupancy on any
frequency shall not be greater than 0.4 seconds within a 30 second
period.
(iii)  Frequency hopping systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band shall use
at least 15 channels.  The average time of occupancy on any channel
shall not be greater than 0.4 seconds within a period of 0.4 seconds
multiplied by the number of hopping channels employed.  Frequency
hopping systems may avoid or suppress transmissions on a particular
hopping frequency provided that a minimum of 15 channels are used.

(2)  Systems using digital modulation techniques may operate in the 902
- 928 MHz, 2400 - 2483.5 MHz, and 5725 - 5850 MHz bands.  The minimum 6
dB bandwidth shall be at least 500 kHz.

(b)  The maximum peak conducted output power of the intentional radiator
shall not exceed the following:

(1)  For frequency hopping systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band
employing at least 75 non-overlapping hopping channels, and all
frequency hopping systems in the 5725-5850 MHz band:  1 watt.  For all
other frequency hopping systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band:  0.125
watts.
(2)  For frequency hopping systems operating in the 902-928 MHz band:  1
watt for systems employing at least 50 hopping channels; and, 0.25 watts
for systems employing less than 50 hopping channels, but at least 25
hopping channels, as permitted under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section.
(3)  For systems using digital modulation in the 902-928 MHz,
2400-2483.5 MHz, and 5725-5850 MHz bands:  1 Watt.  As an alternative to
a peak power measurement, compliance with the one Watt limit can be
based on a measurement of the maximum conducted output power.  Maximum
Conducted Output Power is defined as the total transmit power delivered
to all antennas and antenna elements averaged across all symbols in the
signaling alphabet when the transmitter is operating at its maximum
power control level.    Power must be summed across all antennas and
antenna elements.  The average must not include any time intervals
during which the transmitter is off or is transmitting at a reduced
power level.  If multiple modes of operation are possible (e.g.,
alternative modulation methods), the maximum conducted output power is
the highest total transmit power occurring in any mode.
(4)  The conducted output power limit specified in paragraph (b) of this
section is based on the use of antennas with directional gains that do
not exceed 6 dBi.  Except as shown in paragraph (c) of this section, if
transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used,
the conducted output power from the intentional radiator shall be
reduced below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3)
of this section, as appropriate, by the amount in dB that the
directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

(c)  Operation with directional antenna gains greater than 6 dBi.

(1)  Fixed point-to-point operation:

(i)  Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used
exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting
antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum
conducted output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB
for every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
(ii)  Systems operating in the 5725-5850 MHz band that are used
exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting
antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi without any
corresponding reduction in transmitter conducted output power.
(iii)  Fixed, point-to-point operation, as used in paragraphs (c)(4)(i)
and (c)(4)(ii) of this section, excludes the use of point-to-multipoint
systems, omnidirectional applications, and multiple co-located
intentional radiators transmitting the same information.  The operator
of the spread spectrum or digitally modulated intentional radiator or,
if the equipment is professionally installed, the installer is
responsible for ensuring that the system is used exclusively for fixed,
point-to-point operations.  The instruction manual furnished with the
intentional radiator shall contain language in the installation
instructions informing the operator and the installer of this
responsibility.

(2)  In addition to the provisions in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4)
and (c)(1)(i) of this section, transmitters operating in the 2400-2483.5
MHz band that emit multiple directional beams, simultaneously or
sequentially, for the purpose of directing signals to individual
receivers or to groups of receivers provided the emissions comply with
the following:

(i)   Different information must be transmitted to each receiver.
(ii)  If the transmitter employs an antenna system that emits multiple
directional beams but does not do emit multiple directional beams
simultaneously, the total output power conducted to the array or arrays
that comprise the device, i.e., the sum of the power supplied to all
antennas, antenna elements, staves, etc. and summed across all carriers
or frequency channels, shall not exceed the limit specified in paragraph
(b)(1) or (b)(3) of this section, as applicable. However, the total
conducted output power shall be reduced by 1 dB below the specified
limits for each 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna/antenna
array exceeds 6 dBi.  The directional antenna gain shall be computed as
follows:

(A)  The directional gain shall be calculated as the sum of 10 log
(number of array elements or staves) plus the directional gain of the
element or stave having the highest gain.
(B)  A lower value for the directional gain than that calculated in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section will be accepted if sufficient
evidence is presented, e.g., due to shading of the array or coherence
loss in the beamforming.

(iii)  If a transmitter employs an antenna that operates simultaneously
on multiple directional beams using the same or different frequency
channels, the power supplied to each emission beam is subject to the
power limit specified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section.  If
transmitted beams overlap, the power shall be reduced to ensure that
their aggregate power does not exceed the limit specified in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of this section.  In addition, the aggregate power
transmitted simultaneously on all beams shall not exceed the limit
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section by more than 8 dB.
(iv)  Transmitters that emit a single directional beam shall operate
under the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(d)  In any 100 kHz bandwidth outside the frequency band in which the
spread spectrum or digitally modulated intentional radiator is
operating, the radio frequency power that is produced by the intentional
radiator shall be at least 20 dB below that in the 100 kHz bandwidth
within the band that contains the highest level of the desired power,
based on either an RF conducted or a radiated measurement, provided the
transmitter demonstrates compliance with the peak conducted power
limits.  If the transmitter complies with the conducted power limits
based on the use of RMS averaging over a time interval, as permitted
under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the attenuation required under
this paragraph shall be 30 dB instead of 20 dB.  Attenuation below the
general limits specified in Section 15.209(a) is not required.  In
addition, radiated emissions which fall in the restricted bands, as
defined in Section 15.205(a), must also comply with the radiated
emission limits specified in Section 15.209(a) (see Section 15.205(c)).
(e)  For digitally modulated systems, the power spectral density
conducted from the intentional radiator to the antenna shall not be
greater than 8 dBm in any 3 kHz band during any time interval of
continuous transmission.  This power spectral density shall be
determined in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section.  The same method of determining the conducted output power
shall be used to determine the power spectral density.
(f) * * *
(g) * * *
(h) * * *
(i)  Systems operating under the provisions of this section shall be
operated in a manner that ensures that the public is not exposed to
radio frequency energy levels in excess of the Commission's guidelines.
See § 1.1307(b)(1) of this Chapter.

14. Section 15.403 is amended by revising paragraph (n), deleting
paragraph (r), and re-naming paragraphs (s) and (t) to (r) and (s);
respectively as follows:
§ 15.403 Definitions.
* * *
(n) Maximum Conducted Output Power.  The total transmit power delivered
to all antennas and antenna elements averaged across all symbols in the
signaling alphabet when the transmitter is operating at its maximum
power control level.    Power must be summed across all antennas and
antenna elements.  The average must not include any time intervals
during which the transmitter is off or is transmitting at a reduced
power level.  If multiple modes of operation are possible (e.g.,
alternative modulation methods), the maximum conducted output power is
the highest total transmit power occurring in any mode.
* * *
(r) Transmit Power Control (TPC).  A feature that enables a U-NII device
to dynamically switch between several transmission power levels in the
data transmission process.
(s) U-NII devices.  Intentional radiators operating in the frequency
bands 5.15 - 5.35 GHz and 5.470 - 5.825 GHz that use wideband digital
modulation techniques and provide a wide array of high data rate mobile
and fixed communications for individuals, businesses, and institutions.
15. Section 15.407 is amended by replacing the term “peak transmit
power” with “maximum conducted output power,” in paragraphs (a)(1) –
(a)(6) and re-designating paragraph (d) as [Reserved], as follows:
§ 15.407  General technical requirements.
(a)  Power limits:

(1)  For the band 5.15-5.25 GHz, the maximum conducted output power over
the frequency band of operation shall not exceed the lesser of 50 mW or
4 dBm + 10log B, where B is the 26-dB emission bandwidth in MHz.  In
addition, the peak power spectral density shall not exceed 4 dBm in any
1-MHz band.  If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6
dBi are used, both the maximum conducted output power and the peak power
spectral density shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the
directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
(2)  For the 5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.725 GHz bands, the maximum
conducted output power over the frequency bands of operation shall not
exceed the lesser of 250 mW or 11 dBm + 10log B, where B is the 26 dB
emission bandwidth in megahertz.  In addition, the peak power spectral
density shall not exceed 11 dBm in any 1 megahertz band.  If
transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used,
both the maximum conducted output power and the peak power spectral
density shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the directional gain
of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
(3)  For the band 5.725-5.825 GHz, the maximum conducted output power
over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed the lesser of 1 W
or 17 dBm + 10log B, where B is the 26-dB emission bandwidth in MHz.  In
addition, the peak power spectral density shall not exceed 17 dBm in any
1-MHz band.  If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6
dBi are used, both the maximum conducted output power and the peak power
spectral density shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the
directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.  However, fixed
point-to-point U-NII devices operating in this band may employ
transmitting antennas with directional gain up to 23 dBi without any
corresponding reduction in the transmitter peak output power or peak
power spectral density.  For fixed, point-to-point U-NII transmitters
that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB
reduction in peak transmitter power and peak power spectral density for
each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi would be required.  Fixed,
point-to-point operations exclude the use of point-to-multipoint
systems, omnidirectional applications, and multiple collocated
transmitters transmitting the same information.  The operator of the
U-NII device, or if the equipment is professionally installed, the
installer, is responsible for ensuring that systems employing high gain
directional antennas are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point
operations.

NOTE:  The Commission strongly recommends that parties employing U-NII
devices to provide critical communications services should determine if
there are any nearby Government radar systems that could affect their
operation.
(4)  The maximum conducted output power must be measured over any
interval of continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in
terms of an rms-equivalent voltage.  The measurement results shall be
properly adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector
response times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to
the emission bandwidth, sensitivity, etc., so as to obtain a true peak
measurement conforming to the above definitions for the emission in
question.
(5)  The peak power spectral density is measured as a conducted emission
by direct connection of a calibrated test instrument to the equipment
under test.  If the device cannot be connected directly, alternative
techniques acceptable to the Commission may be used.  Measurements are
made over a bandwidth of 1 MHz or the 26 dB emission bandwidth of the
device, whichever is less.  A resolution bandwidth less than the
measurement bandwidth can be used, provided that the measured power is
integrated to show total power over the measurement bandwidth.  If the
resolution bandwidth is approximately equal to the measurement
bandwidth, and much less than the emission bandwidth of the equipment
under test, the measured results shall be corrected to account for any
difference between the resolution bandwidth of the test instrument and
its actual noise bandwidth.
(6)  The ratio of the peak excursion of the modulation envelope
(measured using a peak hold function) to the maximum conducted output
power (measured as specified above) shall not exceed 13 dB across any 1
MHz bandwidth or the emission bandwidth whichever is less.

* * * * *
(d) [Reserved]
* * * * *
 APPENDIX B: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"),  an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") was incorporated in the Notice
of Proposed Rule Making (“Notice”) in this docket, ET Docket 03-201.
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
Notice, including comment on the IRFA. As described more fully below, we
find that the rules we adopt in the Report and Order will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We have nonetheless provided this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
("FRFA") to provide a fuller record in this proceeding.  This FRFA
conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section
202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require the Commission (1)
to review biennially its regulations pertaining to telecommunications
service providers and broadcast ownership; and (2) to determine whether
economic competition has made those regulations no longer necessary in
the public interest. The Commission is directed to modify or repeal any
such regulations that it finds are no longer in the public interest.
On September 6, 2002, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking
comments regarding Commission rules which may be outdated and in need of
revision.   The Public Notice identified a number of rule sections in
Parts 2 and 15 as candidates for review, and encouraged interested
parties to provide comment on these rules.  Subsequently, on September
26, 2002, the Commission released a separate Public Notice seeking
suggestions as to which rule parts administered by the Commission’s
Office of Engineering and Technology should be modified or repealed as
part of the 2002 biennial review.   Some of the comments filed in
response to these Public Notices were addressed by Notice.  The Notice
also addressed other issues raised as a result of recent changes in
technology.
The Notice proposed several changes to Parts 2, 15 and other Parts of
the rules. Specifically, it proposed to:
1) modify the rules to permit the use of advanced antenna technologies
with spread spectrum devices in the 2.4 GHz band;
2) modify the replacement antenna restriction for Part 15 devices;
3) modify the equipment authorization procedures to provide more
flexibility to configure transmission systems without the need to obtain
separate authorization for every combination of system components;
4) harmonize the measurement procedures for digital modulation systems
authorized pursuant to Section 15.247 of the rules with those for
similar U-NII devices authorized under Sections 15.401- 15.407 of the
rules;
5) modify the channel spacing requirements for frequency hopping spread
spectrum devices in the 2.4 GHz band in order to remove barriers to the
introduction of new technology that uses wider bandwidths;
6) clarify the equipment authorization requirements for modular
transmitters; and
7) make other changes to update or correct Parts 2 and 15 of our rules.

These proposals would prove beneficial to manufacturers and users of
unlicensed technology, including those who provide services to rural
communities.  Specifically, we noted that a growing number of service
providers are using unlicensed devices within wireless networks to serve
the varied needs of industry, government, and general consumers alike.
One of the more interesting developments is the emergence of wireless
Internet service providers or “WISPs.” Using unlicensed devices, WISPs
around the country are providing an alternative high-speed connection in
areas where cable or DSL services have been slow to arrive.  We believe
that the increased flexibility proposed in the Notice would help to
foster a viable last mile solution for delivering Internet services,
other data applications, or even video and voice services to
underserved, rural, or isolated communities.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA

No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the
Rules Will Apply

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.   The RFA defines the term
“small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,”
“small organization,” and “small business concern” under Section 3 of
the Small Business Act.    Under the Small Business Act, a “small
business concern” is one that:  (1) is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and (3) meets may
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
The rules adopted in this Report and Order pertain to manufacturers of
unlicensed communications devices.  The appropriate small business size
standard is that which the SBA has established for radio and television
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturing.  This
category encompasses entities that primarily manufacture radio,
television, and wireless communications equipment.   Under this
standard, firms are considered small if they have 750 or fewer
employees.   Census Bureau data for 1997 indicate that, for that year,
there were a total of 1,215 establishments  in this category.   Of
those, there were 1,150 that had employment under 500, and an additional
37 that had employment of 500 to 999.  The percentage of wireless
equipment manufacturers in this category is approximately 61.35%,  so
the Commission estimates that the number of wireless equipment
manufacturers with employment under 500 was actually closer to 706, with
and additional 23 establishments having employment of between 500 and
999.  Given the above, the Commission estimates that the great majority
of wireless communications equipment manufacturers are small businesses.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements

Part 15 transmitters are already required to be authorized under the
Commission's certification procedure as a prerequisite to marketing and
importation.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.101, 15.201, 15.305, and 15.405.  The
changes proposed in this proceeding would not change any of the current
reporting or recordkeeping requirements.  Further, the proposed
regulations add permissible measurement techniques and methods of
operation.  The proposals would not require the modification of any
existing products.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives: (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.
At this time, the Commission does not believe the rule changes contained
in this Report and Order will have a significant economic impact on
small entities.  The Report and Order does not impose new device design
standards.  Instead, it relaxes the rules with respect to the types of
devices which are allowed to operate pursuant to the Commission’s
regulations.  There is no burden of compliance with the changes.
Manufacturers may continue to produce devices which comply with the
former rules and, if desired, design devices to comply with the new
regulations.  The rules will apply equally to large and small entities.
Therefore, there is no inequitable impact on small entities.  Finally,
this Report and Order does not include a deadline for implementation. We
believe that the rules are relatively simple and do not require a
transition period to implement.  An entity desiring to take advantage of
the relaxed regulations may do so at any time.
For the reasons stated above we find that the rule changes contained in
this Report and Order will not present a significant economic burden to
small entities.
Report to Congress.  The Commission will send a copy of the Report and
Order, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act.  In addition, the Commission will send a copy
of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA.  A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
 Appendix C: Parties Filing Comments
1. Adam Stuhr
2. Agere Systems
3. Alvarion
4. Andrew J. Wagner
5. ArrayComm, Inc.
6. Ashebir Gebre
7. Assa Abloy ITG, HID Corporation, Indala Corporation
8. Atheros Communications, Inc.
9. Bandspeed, Inc.
10. Barrington Smith
11. Barry Adler
12. Butch Evans
13. Chadd Thompson
14. Cisco Systems, Inc.
15. Consumer Electronics Association
16. Dell, Inc.
17. Derrick Klund
18. Ed Liu
19. Gabriel Ramuglia
20. Globespan Virata, Inc.
21. Hewlett-Packard Company
22. IEEE 802
23. IEEE 802.18
24. Information Technology Industry Council – ITI
25. Intel Corporation
26. Itron, Inc.
27. James W. Pearce
28. Jason Dandl
29. Jeffrey N. Houle
30. Licensed-Exempt Alliance
31. Logan Zvolena
32. Marlon K. Schafer
33. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America
34. Matt Harambasic
35. Microsoft Corporation
36. Mike McCamon, The Bluetooth SIG
37. Motorola, Inc.
38. NARTE
39. Navini Networks, Inc.
40. Near You Networks
41. Nichoals Prahl
42. Nick Kolovos, ITI
43. PART-15.ORG
44. Raymond L. Strassburger
45. Ryan D. Konwinski
46. Ryan M. O'Shea
47. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc.
48. SkyPilot Network, Inc
49. Symbol Technologies, Inc.
50. Telecommunications Industry Association
51. Teletronics International, Inc.
52. Teresa A. Severt
53. The Wi-Fi Alliance
54. Tom Johnson
55. Tropos Networks
56. Vivato, Inc.
57. WaveRider Communications
58. Wireless Communications Association International, Inc.
59. Wireless Internet Service Provider’s Association
60. Works d’Arndt Wireless Consultant
61. YDI Wireless, Inc.

 STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL

Re: Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission’s Rules for
Unlicensed Devices and Equipment Approval (ET Docket No. 03-201) Report
and Order.

Today’s Order furthers the Commission’s goals to increase spectrum
flexibility, promote spectrum efficiency and foster technological
innovation.  These rules affect nearly every American household.  Use of
unlicensed devices such as cordless phones, computers, wireless baby
monitors and garage door openers have increased significantly in recent
years.  By creating greater flexibility in our technical rules for
unlicensed devices we will encourage and facilitate an environment that
stimulates investment and innovation in broadband technology and
services.  These changes also remove unnecessary regulatory encumbrances
that hamper the deployment of advanced technologies for unlicensed
wireless networking.
Newly-authorized smart antennas provide for increased spectrum
efficiency because they allow for greater re-use of the same radio
frequencies.  They also will allow Wireless Internet Service Providers
to pattern their coverage areas in a way that will best suit the needs
of their customers in both rural and high-density areas.
In addition to the changes made to the rules involving advanced antenna
technology, today’s Order also makes several amendments that will give
greater flexibility in the use of unlicensed devices.  Modification to
the replacement antenna requirements, accommodations for the marketing
of separate power amplifiers to complete system upgrades, and
harmonization of the measurement procedures for digital modulation
devices will all help to create a more streamlined and efficient use of
the spectrum for unlicensed devices.
Overall, the amendments adopted today will help to ensure that as our
homes and lives become more dependent on new unlicensed technologies,
these technologies will continue to serve in the most efficient and
helpful way possible.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-165A1.doc

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/61FxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/