WPC! 2MBVRKZ#|j7jC:,y`Xj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LASERJET 4/4M LPT1Additional)HL4MPCAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\] XP2yEK Z X-#XP\  P6Qy`XP##|j"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(#x a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2  I a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2``a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2Na6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   23a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2reiPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:=~?>iAheader;Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2$G?^B@ODA VEBcFheading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2$ICrVGDGErZHFXHa2AgendaCa1AgendaAgenda ItemsD7D yP ) I. a3AgendaEa1IndentF2KGrVIHrIIr:JJrJa2IndentGa3IndentHa4IndentIa5IndentJ2XKrPKLrKM4LNQa6IndentKa7IndentLmhzo5  6Stable of allo (mhz)=($*$o5  EM  ` `   INTERNATIONAL!FF". ||0,,79?kk@ UNITED STATES   Region 1` ` | Region 2!|FF"Region 3.||0Band,,7|9National?|kk@Government$$M|%%ONonGovernment**[|t+t+\Remarks MHz` ` | MHz!|FF"MHz.||0MHz,,7|9Provisions?|kk@Allocation$$M|%%OAllocation**[| ` ` | !|FF".||01,,7|92?|kk@3$$M|%%O4**[|t+t+\5   tables  6STables of Frequency Allocations*$o5  EN     '3 #H|@E@#` F,k$%*D+  ` `   INTERNATIONAL !FF".||0,,79?kk@ UNITED STATES   Region 1` ` | Region 2!|FF"Region 3.||0 Band,,7|9National?|kk@Government$$M|%%ONonGovernment**[|D+D+\Remarks kHz` ` | kHz!|FF"kHz.||0 kHz,,7|9Provisions?|kk@Allocation$$M|%%OAllocation**[| ` ` | !|FF".||0 1,,7|92?|kk@3$$M|%%O4**[|D+D+\5   ` F,k$%*t+2aO(YK^PZ`QaGHZo5  6SGHz TABLE OF FREQ ALLOS8 *$o5  EO  ` `   INTERNATIONAL!FF". ||0,,79?kk@ UNITED STATES   Region 1` ` | Region 2!|FF"Region 3.||0Band,,7|9National?|kk@Government$$M|%%ONonGovernment**[|t+t+\Remarks GHz` ` | GHz!|FF"GHz.||0GHz,,7|9Provisions?|kk@Allocation$$M|%%OAllocation**[| ` ` | !|FF".||01,,7|92?|kk@3$$M|%%O4**[|t+t+\5   "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHeadingChapter HeadingPJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersQ>a݅@  I.   X(# 2dRaSdtbTbUcSubheadingSubheadingR0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddS+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateT X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offU@@    2{iV1dW1eX1gY1JhLETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5V 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Wf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11XL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14Y 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   2jkZni[j\dj]jkTITLETitle of a DocumentZK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented[N X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large\B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored] V -q2eq^k_Em`-oa8-pLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins^u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice_ ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format`D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoicea:A ,p, $0$002#ub8qcrdXpte[tINVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macrobz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoicec+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyledSMALLSmall Typestylee2vf[Uug[uh[ vi[fvFINEFine TypestylefLARGELarge TypestylegEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestylehVERY LARGEVery Large Typestylei2zjvkXvxlxmnyENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Headerj+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1kdfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsl$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5m$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2n@zolpq'Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IInJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabso )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginspDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontq4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2Ar|satuStyle 2Dutch Italic 11.5r$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Points$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5t$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointu$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2vswzxyStyle 10oInitial Codes for Advancedv U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggwi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediatex )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Moduley )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2'zΘ{Q|љ}yfootnote refK&7>footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI "z+WXpage numberK&7>page number"Gw* "7>NGI "{(YZDefault ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI "|([(\endnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "}+_+`2.~YOannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "~OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(d2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8ij@  3G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Akl@` ` `  ` ` ` 2&`g4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Jmn` ` ` @  ` ` ` 5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Sop` ` `  @  6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "\qr` ` `  @hhh hhh 7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "est` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2X pa8G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "nuv` ` `  hhh@  9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "wwx` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "׈GH` ` ` 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׉4I$J     2Cߤt12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׊*KL    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׋'MN   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׌&OP   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׍&QR  . 2DɧN16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׎&ST  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׏&UV  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "א&WX  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ב8YZ@  2Q20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "גA[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "דJ]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "הS_`` ` `  @  23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ו\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 2m>24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "זecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "חnef` ` `  hhh@  26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "טwgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJmn` ` @  ` `  2w628wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ESop` `  @  29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\qr` `  @hh# hhh 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 20pq!32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ewwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4}$~     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    2"36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2Tٷ^40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2aĻ44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2}N48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2޿A52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2p;56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    2Ng60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2U(64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2M+68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2eG72wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 73wSg z6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 74wSg {6w Document Style=(H8g {ܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  75wSg |6w Document Style=(H8g |ܺ*HںwSg E*   2gq,ee76wSg }6w Document Style=(H8g }ܺ*HںwSg E0    77wSg ~6w Document Style=(H8g ~ܺ*HںwSg E  . 78wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  79wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  2pp y)80wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 81wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 82wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E4$     83wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E*    2* 84wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E'   85wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&   86wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 87wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2\f88wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 89wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 90wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   91wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2i92wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  93wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  94wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 95wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2V$96wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 97wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 98wSg 6w Default Paragraph Font8g ܺ*HںwSg E;;#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#endnote text6w endnote textH̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EE;#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#2.299wSg 6w endnote referenceH8g ܺ*HںwSg E>>#x6X@7X@##b6X@ C@#100wSg 6w footnote text̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EE;#x6X@ 7X@##b6X@ C@#101wSg 6w footnote referenceH8g ܺ*HںwSg E>>#x6X@ 7X@##b6X@ C@#toc 1g 6w toc 1 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(#`` hp x (#222D2v2toc 2g 6w toc 2 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  ` (#`` hp x (#toc 3g 6w toc 3 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  ` (#` hp x (#toc 4g 6w toc 4 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  (#` hp x (#toc 5g 6w toc 5 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg Eh(#` hp x (#2,2 >22toc 6g 6w toc 6 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(# ` hp x (#toc 7g 6w toc 7 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg Etoc 8g 6w toc 8 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(# ` hp x (#toc 9g 6w toc 9 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(#`` hp x (#22^22index 1g 6w index 1 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` (#` hp x (#index 2g 6w index 2 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` (#`` hp x (#toa heading6w toa headingH̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(#` hp x (#captiong 6w caption 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EE; #x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#2 F_Equation Ca6w _Equation CaptionH8g ܺ*HںwSg E;!;"#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font11#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#endnote referenceendnote reference44#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#footnote textfootnote text;1#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#2<pfootnote referencefootnote reference44#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#102OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQEF#$ *  ׃  103OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE*%&   25qe;e104OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE0' (    105OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE) * . 106OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE +, 107OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE -. 2 p7KKK= 108OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE/0` ` ` "i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN"(#L 1 XxPBACKGROUND p>"(#L 2 XxPDISCUSSION p>"(#L 7  X-XxX` ` xA.` ` Need for UNII Devices and Spectrum ` p>"(#L 7  X~-XxX` ` xB.` ` Spectrum to be Made Available ` p"(#I 19  Xi-XxX` ` xC.` ` Technical Standards ` p"(#I 32  XT-XxX` ` X ` ` 1. General p"(#I 32  X?-XxX` ` X ` ` 2. Power and Antenna Constraints  p"(#I 35  X*-XxX` ` X ` ` 3. Emissions Outside the Band of Operation p"(#I 51  X-XxX` ` X ` ` 4. Channeling Plan & Modulation Efficiency p"(#I 55  X-XxX` ` xD.` ` Spectrum Etiquette ` p"(#I 63  X-XxX` ` xE.` ` Spectrum Sharing Considerations ` p"(#I 72  X -XxX` ` xF.` ` Alternative Regulatory Structure ` p"(#I 84  X!-XxX` ` xG.` ` New Part 16 Regulations ` p"(#I 90  X"-XxX` ` xH.` ` Equipment Authorization ` p"(#I 98 XxPORDERING CLAUSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE p!(#F100 XxPAPPENDIX A: FINAL RULES p!(#A A1 XxPAPPENDIX B: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS pv!(#@ B1"$(,))ZZ&"  X- INTRODUCTION ׃   X-x1.` ` By this action, we amend Part 15 of our rules to make available 300 megahertz  X-of spectrum at 5.155.35 GHz and 5.7255.825 GHz for use by a new category of unlicensed  X-equipment, called Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure ("UNII") devices. Gx yO-  ԍxWe note that in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding, we referred to these devices as  x"NII/SUPERNet" devices. However, on July 2, 1996, we received a letter from Smart & Thevenet, P.C. on behalf   of its client, SuperNet, Inc., which requests that the Commission refrain from using the word "SUPERNet" because   it would infringe upon its trademark registration of the name "Colorado Supernet." Accordingly, we have adopted  {O= -  the term "Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure" or "UNII" to refer to the devices in this proceeding. See Letter from Harlan S. Abrahams of Smart & Thevenet, P.C., received on July 2, 1996.  These devices will provide shortrange, high speed wireless digital communications on an unlicensed basis. We anticipate that UNII devices will support the creation of new wireless local area networks ("LANs") and will facilitate wireless access to the National Information  XH-Infrastructure ("NII"). HBGx yO;-  ԍxThe National Information Infrastructure or NII is a group of networks, including the public switched  x;telecommunications network, radio and television networks, private communications networks, and other networks  xnot yet built, which together will serve the communications and information processing needs of the people of the United States in the future. In order to permit significant flexibility in the design and operation of these devices, we are adopting the minimum technical rules necessary to prevent interference to other services and to ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently. We believe that the rules set forth herein will foster the development of a broad range of new devices and service offerings that will stimulate economic development and the growth of new industries. We also expect that this action will promote the ability of U.S. manufacturers, including small businesses, to compete globally by enabling them to develop unlicensed digital  X -communications products for the world market.* * Gx yO-  ЍxFor instance, as discussed below, the rules adopted herein allow for the development of devices compatible  {OJ-with the European High Performance LAN ("HIPERLAN") standard. See infra, note 44.*  Xb-" BACKGROUND  XK-TP  X4-x2.` ` On May 15, 1995, the Wireless Information Networks Forum ("WINForum") filed a Petition for Rule Making (RM8648) requesting that we allocate 250 megahertz of spectrum at 5.105.35 GHz for the operation of new high speed Shared Unlicensed PErsonal Radio Network ("SUPERNet") devices. On May 24, 1995, Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") filed a Petition for Rule Making (RM8653) requesting that we allocate 300 megahertz in the 5.155.3 GHz and 5.7255.875 GHz bands to establish a new unlicensed wireless radio service to promote the full deployment of the NII. In response to these two proposals, the  X-Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("NPRM") proposing to make available 350 megahertz of spectrum at 5.155.35 GHz and 5.7255.875 GHz for UNII"~ ,-(-(ZZ"  X-devices.Gx {Oy-ЍxSee Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 96102, 11 FCC Rcd 7205 (1996). The NPRM also proposed that such devices be subject to certain minimum technical standards, including power limits, emission limits, and a spectrum etiquette, to ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently, and to ensure that all UNII devices have equal access to the  X-spectrum. The NPRM solicited comments on whether we should adopt a channeling plan, whether we should adopt a minimum modulation efficiency, and whether we should regulate some UNII operations, particularly those intended for longrange community network  Xz-applications, as a licensed service. Further, the NPRM proposed to establish "safeharbor rules" that would set forth conditions under which unlicensed devices could operate without risk of being considered sources of harmful interference.  X -x3.` ` In response to the NPRM, 52 comments and 26 reply comments were filed. Most commenters support making available 5 GHz spectrum for unlicensed broadband operations. However, several incumbent and potential users of this spectrum express concern about the feasibility of spectrum sharing between these new unlicensed devices and incumbent and proposed primary services.  X-x4.` ` The frequency bands addressed in this proceeding currently are used primarily by Federal Government operations, particularly military radar operations. Other uses of the bands are as follows: the 5.005.25 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis to the aeronautical radionavigation, aeronautical mobilesatellite (R), fixedsatellite, and intersatellite  X<-services for both Government and nonGovernment operations;2$<ZGx {OG-  ЍxSee 47 CFR  2.106, Table and notes 733 and 797. In addition, the 5.1505.216 GHz subband is allocated  xon a primary basis to radiodeterminationsatellite (spacetoEarth) service and to the fixedsatellite (spacetoEarth)  xservice for feeder links used in conjunction with the radiodeterminationsatellite service for both Government and  {O-nonGovernment operations. See 47 CFR  2.106, notes 797A, US307. 2 the 5.255.35 GHz band is  X%-allocated to the nonGovernment radiolocation service on a secondary basis;\%FGx {O-  /ЍxSee 47 CFR  2.106, Table. Additionally, in the 5.255.35 GHz band, radiolocation stations installed on  xJspacecraft may also be employed for the earth explorationsatellite and space research services on a secondary basis  {O-for both Government and nonGovernment operations. See 47 CFR  2.106, note 713.  the 5.6505.925  X-GHz band is allocated on a secondary basis to the amateur service;=j Gx {O)-  /ЍxSee 47 CFR  2.106, Table. Additionally, the 5.655.67 GHz and 5.835.85 GHz subbands are allocated  {O-to the amateursatellite service on a secondary basis. See 47 CFR  2.106, notes 664 and 808.= the 5.7255.875 GHz band is designated for industrial, scientific and medical ("ISM") applications and unlicensed  X-Part 15 devices,|X Gx yOW#-  ЍxOn January 30, 1996, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No. 968,  x\11 FCC Rcd 3068 (1996), which proposed to amend the rules regarding the operation of spread spectrum transmission systems in the 902-928 MHz, 2.400-2.4835 GHz, and 5.725-5.850 GHz bands. | and radiocommunication services operating within this band must accept  X-harmful interference that may be caused by ISM applications;^ Gx {O`'-ԍxSee 47 CFR  2.106, note 806.^ and the 5.8505.925 GHz band"x ,-(-(ZZ" is allocated on a primary basis to the fixedsatellite (Earthtospace) service for non X-Government operations and to the radiolocation service for Government operations.m Gx {Ob-ԍxSee 47 CFR  2.106, Table of Frequency Allocations.m  X-x5.` ` On November 2, 1995, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA"), which manages spectrum used by Federal Government operations and is the principal Executive Branch advisor on telecommunications policy, submitted a letter  Xv-addressing the WINForum and Apple petitions. vZGx {O -  =ԍxSee Letter from the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, United States Department of Commerce, to Chairman Hundt, received November 2, 1995. In its letter, NTIA stated that the Administration strongly supports spectrum policies that will promote affordable, highbandwidth wireless computer networks and that the proposed WINForum and Apple devices could provide an important means of unlicensed access to the NII. To protect public safety operations, however, NTIA indicated that making available the 5.05.15 GHz band for unlicensed device operations is not feasible because this band must remain fully available for air traffic control operations.  X -x6.` ` Finally, the 1995 World Radiocommunication Conference ("WRC95")  X -modified some of the international spectrum allocations in the 5 GHz frequency range. z Gx {O -  yԍxSee Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC95), Geneva, 1995. The United States,  xhby signing the Final Acts with declarations, is obligated to apply provisionally the subject modifications of the Radio  xRegulations, as of the dates identified in the Final Acts and to the extent consistent with U.S. law, until either (1)  xYit deposits an instrument of ratification with the International Telecommunications Union (after ratification by the  xPresident) in which case U.S. rights and obligations under the Radio Regulations are modified, or (2) it informs the  x International Telecommunications Union that it does not accept the Final Acts in which case the United States retains its preexisting rights and obligations under the Radio Regulations to which it is party. Of principal interest to this proceeding, WRC95 allocated the 5.091 5.25 GHz band on a primary basis to the fixedsatellite (Earthtospace) service ("FSS uplinks") to provide feeder links for nongeostationary satellite systems in the mobilesatellite service ("MSS") on a coprimary basis with Government aeronautical radionavigation.  X-( DISCUSSION ׃  X-A.xNeed for UNII Devices and Spectrum  X-x7.` ` In the NPRM, the Commission recognized that recent developments in a number of different digital technologies have greatly increased the need to transfer large amounts of data from one network or system to another. For example, technological developments now permit digitization and compression of large amounts of voice, video, imaging, and data information, which can be rapidly transmitted from computers and other  X;-digital equipment to other devices within a network. The NPRM stated that these dramatic"; ,-(-(ZZ" developments in digital technology have stimulated a need for spectrum to be used for wireless interconnection within and among these networks. The Commission tentatively concluded that providing additional spectrum for unlicensed wideband operation would benefit a vast number of users, including educational, medical, business, and industrial users. Further, the Commission recognized that unlicensed access to this spectrum would permit educational institutions to form inexpensive broadband wireless computer networks between classrooms, thereby providing costeffective access to an array of multimedia services on the  X_-Internet. In addition, the NPRM requested comment on whether new UNII operations should include longerrange community networks.  X -x8.` ` Comments.The Commission's proposal to provide spectrum to accommodate UNII devices is strongly supported by the majority of the commenters ("UNII proponents").  X -The UNII proponents include a variety of potential users, some of whom represent educational, medical, business, or consumer interests. UNII proponents argue that UNII devices would facilitate connections among computers, televisions, appliance automation products, and onpremises network cable or telephone company access points within homes,  X-schools and health care facilities.R Gx {O -ԍxSee Motorola Comments at 1.R Further, they submit that unlicensed devices could potentially satisfy a collection of communications needs that otherwise would probably remain unmet if free and open consumer access to spectrum were not available. For example, Motorola states that licensed operations generally involve an expansive infrastructure needed to provide a level of reliability and coverage for a specific communications need. It argues that development of these systems requires a significant investment unlikely to be made under an unlicensed regime. In contrast, unlicensed devices do not have to have the same level of reliability and can operate both as standalone and as an adjunct to wired and licensed wireless  X-networks.RZGx {O-ԍxSee Motorola Comments at 1.R  X-x9.` ` Additionally, UNII proponents argue that UNII devices will provide communications that are flexible, mobile, have high data rates, and are low cost. They contend that existing wireless allocations and wireline alternatives may each be capable of providing some of these attributes, but not all of them. They contend that although some communication paths can be provided on wired networks or through currently allocated spectrum (like unlicensed Personal Communications Services ("UPCS")), those capabilities are inadequate to meet communications needs in a large and growing number of circumstances because they are not capable of providing the necessary data rates and do not  X-have a sufficient amount of spectrum available to meet all of the needs.Gx {O$-  \ԍxSee Northern Telecom, Inc Comments at 4 and Apple Reply at 5. We note that UPCS has access to 30 megahertz of spectrum at 19101930 MHz and 23902400 MHz. Specifically, they argue that UPCS does not provide sufficient capacity, wired networks lack flexibility and mobility, and other licensed wireless services are too costly. For example, Rockwell" F,-(-(ZZ" International Corporation ("Rockwell") claims that current unlicensed wireless systems are limited to data rates of about 2 megabits/second ("Mbits/sec"), far short of the 20 Mbits/sec  X-and higher data rates necessary to support multimedia applications.RGx {OK-ԍxSee Rockwell Comments at 2.R  X-x 10.` ` UNII proponents claim that unlicensed devices governed by flexible technical rules would enable the provision of a wide range of multimedia broadband digital communications at substantially lower costs than those offered by wired and licensedwireless  X_-networks. For example, the joint comments of EducatorsX_ZGx yOj -  !ԍxCalifornia State University, Education Network of Maine, University of Maine System, Network for  xInstructional TV, Inc., San Diego County Superintendent of Schools, South Carolina Educational Television Commission, and State of WisconsinEducational Communications Board (collectively, the "Educators"). support the proposal because UNII devices could function as unlicensed LAN facilities that would be capable of providing  X1-the lastmile loop within educational settings in a cost effective manner.T1zGx {O\-ԍxSee Educators' Comments at 2.T Educators claim that an affordable and convenient method for internal distribution of digital communications, such as would be provided by UNII devices, would be embraced by the educational community; thus, the use of UNII devices would likely extend into classrooms and other learning sites. Educators state that they are currently using the existing telecommunications infrastructure to deliver their services to some learning sites, but they face enormous financial and technical obstacles in distributing Internet access, data, voice or video services within  X-these sites to the individual classrooms where they are needed.V Gx {OM-ԍxSee Educators' Comments at 24.V Further, Apple estimates that the cost of wiring America's K12 schools would be $50 billion, while equivalent wireless connections would cost substantially less. Apple adds that even though 30 to 50 percent of America's schools have access to the Internet, only two to five percent of America's  X4-classrooms have such access.S4Gx {O-ԍxSee supra, NPRM at para. 14.S Additionally, comments from consumers and Internet service providers argue that it is extremely important for all individuals, particularly in remote,  X-insular and rural areas, to be able to access the Internet inexpensively.0 Gx {O-ԍxSee, e.g., electronic filed comments of Jim Martindale, Mike Renfro, and Jean Armour Polly.  X-x 11.` ` Some UNII proponents argue that the benefits of the NII will not be fully realized without the use of longer range community networks, as originally proposed by  X-Apple, and that spectrum should be made available for such operations.Z Gx {O%-  =ԍxSee Microsoft Comments at 5, the joint comments of the National School Board Association, Media Access  xProject, National Education Association, American Association of School Administrators, and People for the  yO&- xYAmerican Way (Joint Commenters) Comments at 5 , and Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA)"&,-(-(&" Comments at 5. They argue that"X,-(-(ZZ" there is a need for low cost, flexible, easily implemented means of communications networks spanning rural areas and extending information access throughout smaller municipalities. They also claim these networks are needed to unify school, library and hospital districts with broadband data connections but that, currently, longer distance connections are often  X-unavailable or prohibitively expensive.VXGx {O-ԍxSee Apple Comments at 2. V Specifically, Apple states that many schools and individuals do not have local access to the Internet and would have to pay long distance charges for such access. It claims that the needed T1 connections may cost from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars annually and often have high upfront costs and/or per minute  XH-charges.OHGx {O -ԍxSee Apple Comments at 5.O Apple and other supporters of the community network concept state that no other technology serves the needs for widebandwidth, lowcost communications that would be served by community networks. Apple claims that the ISM bands at 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz do not include sufficient spectrum to accommodate high speed connections.  X -x 12.` ` The Consumer Electronics Manufacturers' Association ("CEMA") and Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola") state that unlicensed longer range UNII devices will not supplant licensed microwave facilities, but should be viewed as a complement to, rather than a  X-replacement for, licensed services.g|Gx {O-ԍxSee Motorola Comments at ii and CEMA Reply at 4.g Further, Mulcay Consulting Associates ("Mulcay") asserts that the Commission should facilitate competition to licensed longer range communications services by providing for unlicensed community networks. Mulcay argues that, over the past 20 years, the computer industry, with the benefits of open competition and unhindered innovation, has enjoyed a performancetoprice ratio that has improved by several orders of magnitude. However, over the past 20 years, the corresponding improvement in the performancetoprice ratio of transmission equipment and services has been minimal because there has been no meaningful competition to local loop common carriers and because of  X-restrictive regulations governing the use of radio frequency ("RF") spectrum.OGx {O-ԍxSee Mulcay Reply at 45.O  X-x 13.` ` On the other hand, parties with incumbent or proposed operations in the bands addressed in this proceeding argue that there has not been a sufficient demonstration of need for new unlicensed UNII devices. For example, L/Q Licensee, Inc. ("L/Q"), an MSS applicant, argues that no UNII proponent provided a demonstration of the market demand for  XN-new UNII devices or an estimate of when such demand would materialize.RNGx {O%-ԍxSee L/Q Comments at 12, 14.R In addition to general opposition to providing spectrum for all UNII devices, a number of parties oppose"72 ,-(-(ZZ" Apple's idea for longer range community networks. For example, Pacific Telesis Group ("PacTel"), a Regional Bell Operating Company, argues that unlicensed longer range links would violate requirements for regulatory parity between wireless services and increase the  X-potential for interference from UNII devices.PGx {O4-ԍxSee PacTel Comments at 3.P Similarly, the American Radio Relay League, Inc. ("ARRL") states that longer range community networks are not consistent with the typical lowpower operations authorized by Part 15 and such high powered operations would not be in accordance with the licensing requirements of the Communications Act, which it claims  X_-require that systems with a significant interference potential be operated on a licensed basis.P_ZGx {Oj -ԍxSee ARRL Comments at 59.P  X1-x 14.` ` Additionally, fixed microwave manufacturers argue that unlicensed longer range community networks are not needed because existing licensed microwave services can adequately supply the needed communications capabilities. For example, the Fixed PointToPoint Communications Section, Network Equipment Division of the Telecommunications Industry Association ("TIA") states that unlicensed links longer than 12 km in length are not needed because fixed services in higher frequency bands can provide intercommunity links more efficiently by utilizing existing equipment and related technologies, which are less expensive, more reliable and provide greater capacity and higher speeds than unlicensed  Xy-equipment.MyGx {O-ԍxSee TIA Comments at 2.M TIA adds that 12 km UNII links would be sufficient to promote compatibility with High Performance LAN ("HIPERLAN") operations. Additionally, Part 15 spread spectrum interests argue that unlicensed community networks can presently be provided by longer range spread spectrum operations under Section 15.247 without the sharing problems  X-associated with nonspread spectrum techniques.t~Gx {OL-ԍxSee Cylink Comments at 6 and Western Multiplex Comments at 2.t  X-x15.` ` Decision. We find that there is a need for unlicensed wireless devices that will be capable of providing data rates as high as 20 Mbits/sec to meet the multimedia  X-communication requirements envisioned by the UNII proponents. Gx {O-  ԍxSee, e.g., Apple Comments at 45; HewlettPackard Comments at 2, 6; Northern Telecom, Inc Comments at 10; Rockwell Comments at 2; and WINForum Comments at 714. To achieve these high data rates at a reasonable cost, we believe that these devices must use broad bandwidths of up to 20 megahertz each and therefore these devices must have access to a substantial amount of  X~-spectrum to accommodate a number of devices within the same area. ! ~j Gx yO$-  ԍxWe have assumed up to a 20 megahertz channel requirement for UNII devices that will transmit data rates  xxof 20 Mbits/sec, which equates to a spectrum efficiency of 1 Mbits/sec per hertz. We recognize that a number of  xcommercially available transmitters and systems are capable of higher data rates per hertz, but they also are generally  xcapable of achieving higher signal to noise ratios because they are not as restricted in power as UNII devices. "& ,-(-('"  xAccordingly, we believe our assumed 20 megahertz channel per device for these high data rates is appropriate due to the low powers of UNII devices.  Further, we believe"~ !,-(-(ZZ2" that accessibility to a substantial amount of spectrum is necessary for these devices to develop and mature to their full potential. The record in this proceeding supports our belief that recent developments in digital technologies have greatly increased the requirements for transferring large amounts of information and data in relatively short time frames from one  X-network or system to another." Gx {Ou-  ԍxSee, e.g., Information Technology Industry Council Comments at 24, Northern Telecom, Inc Comments at 3, and Apple Reply at 23. Specifically, we note that computers have much faster central processing units and substantially increased memory capabilities, which have increased the demand for devices that can more quickly transfer larger amounts of data. Further, digital equipment is capable of switching and directing large amounts of information within networks. In addition to these technical advances in hardware capability, there has been substantial growth in the use, size, and complexity of digital networks as well. Many of these networks are not only growing internally in the amount and types of data they contain, but are also increasingly being used in combination and interaction with other such networks.  X -x16.` ` Further, it is clear from the record that educational institutions, business, industry, and consumers are all looking for ways to begin taking advantage of the innovative technological developments that promise the delivery of multimedia services comprising voice, video, imaging, and data. We agree with the commenters who argue that existing wireline and wireless services, in some cases, may not be able to meet all of the communications requirements and demands that these technological developments bring in a  XK-costeffective manner.#KzGx {Ov-ԍxSee e.g., WINForum Comments at 56, Apple Comments at 4, and Nortel Comments at 4. The record here shows that UNII devices may be able to provide costeffective communications services that will both complement and compete with existing  X-services.g$ Gx {O-ԍxSee Motorola Comments at ii and CEMA Reply at 4.g For example, the spectrum and associated regulatory structure developed for UPCS devices were not designed to handle broadband multimedia computer applications. Equipment in the UPCS bands is limited to a maximum bandwidth of 2.5 megahertz and would not support data rates of 20 Mbits/sec or greater as envisioned for UNII devices. Further, if we were to authorize broadband, high data rate equipment to use the 30 MHz of spectrum available for UPCS, that spectrum would quickly become congested and would have limited use for the types of operations it is intended to accommodate. Additionally, we believe that as the NII and other telecommunications infrastructures grow, new communications alternatives that are flexible and inexpensive will be needed to assure delivery of information and services to all members of our society, regardless of income or location. "  $,-(-(ZZz"Ԍ X-x17.` ` Accordingly, we find that it is appropriate to provide spectrum for wireless unlicensed digital network communications devices to meet the foreseeable communications demands of multimedia network systems resulting from developments of new digital technologies. We believe that this will facilitate rapid and inexpensive wireless access to information resources by educational institutions, business, industry, and consumers. We also believe that making this spectrum available for UNII devices will further the Commission's mandate, in Section 257(b) of the Communications Act, to promote vigorous competition and  X_-technological advancement.H%Z_Gx {O-  NԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  257(b) ("the Commission shall seek to promote the policies and purposes of this Act  xfavoring... vigorous economic competition, technological advancement, and promotion of the public interest, convenience, and necessity.").H For example, allowing unlicensed devices access to the 5.155.35 GHz and 5.7255.825 GHz bands would permit educational institutions to form inexpensive broadband wireless computer networks between classrooms, thereby providing costeffective access to an array of multimedia services on the Internet. In addition, unlicensed wireless networks could help improve the quality and reduce the cost of medical care by allowing medical staff to rapidly and inexpensively obtain patient data, Xrays, and  X -medical charts.  X -x18.` ` While we agree that some of the communications requirements, particularly the longer range community networks, could be partially accommodated through licensed services, such as the fixed pointtopoint and pointtomultipoint services, we believe that the unlicensed devices contemplated here will both complement and provide a costeffective alternative to such services. They may also provide an additional and competitive means for educational institutions, libraries, and health care providers for rural areas to connect to basic and advanced telecommunications services, as envisioned by the Telecommunications Act of  X-1996.o&\Gx {O-  ԍxSee Section 254(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by Section 101 of the  {Ok- xTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), at Section 101; see also Section 706  yO5-of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.o Given that the communications needs of these institutions are expected to be very great and that the technical means best suited to meeting these needs may vary considerably from institution to institution, we believe it desirable that a variety of communications options, including unlicensed operations such as UNII devices, be available to address these needs. Accordingly, we believe that some spectrum should be made available to accommodate some of the longer range community network requirements envisioned by the  X|-UNII proponents.'|Gx yO;"-  ԍxAs addressed below, the power limits we are adopting here will generally limit the longer range community networks to several kilometers. "N f ',-(-(ZZ"  X-B.xSpectrum to Be Made Available  X-x19.` ` In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to make available 350 megahertz of spectrum at 5.1505.350 GHz and 5.7255.875 GHz to provide for a number of UNII operations in each geographical area to meet the growing demand for new high speed data communications. The Commission stated that spectrum below 5 GHz is too congested, and that higher frequencies would both increase the cost of equipment and have even more limited  Xc-propagation characteristics than 5 GHz. Additionally, the Commission tentatively concluded that UNII devices could share spectrum in the 5 GHz range with other users.  X -x20. ` ` Comments.The UNII proponents support providing 350 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 GHz range for these devices. They argue that 350 megahertz of spectrum is needed to realize the full potential of today's broadband information technologies and to  X -encourage further innovation in the delivery of new broadband digital communications.( Gx {OT-ԍxSee Rockwell Comments at 2, WINForum Reply at 6, and HewlettPackard Comments at 2. They claim that providing unlicensed broadband devices access to this amount of spectrum will meet the needs of multiple users at a common location and should be sufficient to  X-provide for open entry and equal access by all unlicensed devices.t)ZGx {O-ԍxSee Motorola Comments at 2 and HewlettPackard Comments at 2.t Further, they claim that this amount of spectrum is needed to provide an environment for robust development and growth, and to permit the communications infrastructure to keep pace with future computer advancements. They also argue that 350 megahertz is required to link mobile users and those not served by the broadband wireline infrastructure. UNII proponents further argue that 350 megahertz is necessary for wide bandwidth UNII networks because these devices will have to  X -share the spectrum with other users, such as MSS, Amateur, and ISM.W* Gx {O-ԍxSee, e. g., WINForum Reply at 6.W Motorola adds that the proposed bands will help establish U.S. leadership in an everincreasing global market for  X-telecommunication products.R+~Gx {O -ԍxSee Motorola Comments at 2.R Similarly, Northern Telecom, Inc, ("Nortel") notes that the proposed bands would align the spectrum available domestically for UNII devices with the  X-spectrum available for European HIPERLAN systems.*,FGx {Oq -   ԍxSee Nortel Comments at 45. HIPERLAN is the new European standard for radio LANs currently being  xKformulated by ETSI RES10 for operation at 5 GHz and 17 GHz. It is intended to be a suitable radio replacement  xof wired LANs and for ad hoc networking providing a user data rate of 1020 Mbits/sec. The European  xRadiocommunications Committee ("ERC") identified the 5.155.25 GHz band for HIPERLAN throughout Europe  {O#- xand the 5.255.30 GHz band for HIPERLAN on national basis. See ETSI Final Draft, pr ETS 300 652, June 1886.  xxWe also note the European Space Agency has expressed concerns about sharing the 5.255.35 GHz band between  {O%%- xEarth Exploration Satellite Service operations and HIPERLAN. See Letter from Edoardo Marelli of the European Space Agency to SFCG Delegates regarding HIPERLAN and Cband SAR sharing Analysis, dated March 6, 1996.* " ,,-(-(ZZQ"Ԍ X-x21.` ` WINForum, however, argues that even more spectrum will be needed for UNII broadband unlicensed devices. WINForum urges the Commission to consider future  X-expansion of the UNII band above 5.35 GHz as operations mature and demand increases.O-Gx {OK-ԍxSee WINForum Reply at 6.O In this regard, WINForum estimates an eventual need for 450 megahertz of spectrum for wireless multimedia networks.  Xv-x22.` ` Incumbent users of the 5 GHz band oppose making available the entire 350 megahertz of spectrum for unlicensed UNII devices. While most incumbent users are not opposed to opening some spectrum for broadband unlicensed devices, they urge the Commission not to provide such spectrum in their own respective bands, alleging concern about potential interference from the unlicensed devices to their operations. Further, they state that WINForum originally requested only 250 megahertz of spectrum, and Apple only 300 megahertz, and that the record does not demonstrate a need for 350 megahertz. PacTel argues that 350 megahertz is excessive for unlicensed devices with unproven technology and untested market acceptance, that initially opening 100 megahertz of spectrum would be sufficient for the UNII operations to develop, and that additional spectrum could be provided  X-as needed.P.ZGx {O-ԍxSee PacTel Comments at 3.P  Xb-x23.` ` Some incumbent users also argue that the record does not demonstrate that spectrum for broadband unlicensed devices should be located at 5 GHz. In this regard, commenter L/Q argues that unlicensed UNII devices do not have to use spectrum in the 5 GHz range. They indicate that 185 megahertz of Government spectrum below 5 GHz will be made available for commercial use before the year 2004. They also assert that spectrum above the 5 GHz range could be used affordably by unlicensed devices, given that equipment  X-prices will fall as the devices become widespread.N/Gx {Ou-ԍxSee L/Q Comments at 14.N Further, Cylink Corporation ("Cylink") urges the Commission to explore whether there are other bands that are more appropriate than  X-5 GHz for mediumrange, pointtopoint communications.P0~Gx {O-ԍxSee Cylink Comments at 2.P For example, Cylink urges that the Commission consider use of the millimeter wave bands to provide wireless LAN  X|-communications for educational and industrial campus areas;1|Gx {O="-  MԍxSee First Report & Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 94124, 11 FCC Rcd 4481 (1996). the 2.4 and 5.8 GHz ranges for"| j 1,-(-(ZZ"  X-outdoor pointtopoint spread spectrum devices;2Gx {Oy-ԍxSee Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 968, 11 FCC Rcd 3068 (1996). and the 5964 GHz band for unlicensed high  X-speed communications.G3ZGx {O-ԍxSupra, note 49. G  X-x24.` ` MSS interests argue that the Commission should not permit UNII devices, particularly longer range devices intended to serve community networks, in the 5.155.25 GHz  X-band because such operations would interfere with MSS feeder links.4Gx {O* -  ԍ xSee Airtouch Reply at 2, Comsat Corporation and ICO Global Communications Reply at 2, and L/Q Reply at 4. Additionally, L/Q challenges the validity of the claim that UNII devices need access to the 5.155.35 GHz band to be compatible with HIPERLAN. They assert that HIPERLAN is still only a proposal that may not ultimately be adopted in Europe.  X -x25. ` ` Regarding the upper band, 5.7255.875 GHz, incumbent interests argue that this spectrum is not needed for UNII devices because the 200 megahertz proposed in the 5.15 X -5.35 MHz band should be sufficient.5 FGx {O-  ԍ xSee Cylink Comments at 4, Western Multiplex Comments at 3 and Wireless Field Test for Education Project ("WFTEP") Comments at 3. Parties that manufacture unlicensed spread spectrum devices under Section 15.247 of the Commission's rules argue that the upper band should not be made available because UNII devices might interfere with existing unlicensed spread  X -spectrum devices operating in this band.6 Gx {O-ԍ xSee Western Multiplex Comments at 34, Metricom Reply at 6 and Cylink Reply at 12. They oppose permitting nonspread spectrum UNII devices to operate in the upper band without detailed technical analysis and equipment testing to determine which UNII applications could be implemented, and what technical  Xb-specifications will be needed to avoid interference to spread spectrum operations.X7b2 Gx {OE-ԍ xSee, e.g., Cylink Comments at 8.X Amateur interests share a similar concern, arguing that UNII devices would cause harmful interference to amateur operations in this band. For example, the Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Association ("SCRRBA") argues that the 5.155.30 GHz band would better accommodate UNII devices because it would allow for the development of equipment  X-consistent with HIPERLAN.O8 Gx {Od"-ԍ xSee SCRRBA Reply at 9.O SCRRBA, however, states that the upper band could be used  X-on a limited basis by UNII devices if adequate technical limits (i.e., spread spectrum requirement, short distance, and power limit similar to UPCS) are imposed and if the secondary allocation of the amateur service in this band were upgraded to a primary" V 8,-(-(ZZ"  X-allocation.R9Gx {Oy-ԍ xSee SCRRBA Comments at 9. R The San Bernardino Microwave Society ("SBMS"), on the other hand, opposes any UNII operations in the upper band, arguing that these devices cannot share with amateur  X-weaksignal operations.M:ZGx {O-ԍxSee SBMS Reply at 25.M  X-x26.` ` Finally, several parties oppose allowing UNII operations in the 5.855.875 GHz portion of the spectrum. The Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") and the Intelligent Transportation Society of America ("ITS") state that UNII devices at 5.855.875 GHz would interfere with their plans to seek an allocation of the 5.855.925 GHz band for  XH-Dedicated Short Range Communications ("DSRC").;HGx {O -  ԍxSee FHWA Comments at 23 and ITS Comments at 2. FHWA's comments state that DSRC  xcommunications could encompass several applications that require guaranteed channel access. For example one such  xapplication involves implementation with roadside speed and locationsensing equipment, DSRC communications  xequipment, invehicle signing equipment and trajectory computing and control electronics. Using these components,  xas vehicles approach an intersection, their speed and location are compared with the traffic signal status and potential collision conditions are identified. DSRC is then used to warn drivers of danger. Further, Resound Corporation ("Resound"), a manufacturer of hearing health care products, argues that the 5.855.875 GHz band should not be provided for UNII operations, because such operations would interfere with the current use of this spectrum for low power hearing assistance devices permitted  X -under Section 15.249.Q< f Gx {O-ԍxSee Resound Comments at 4.Q  X -  X -x27.` ` Decision.We continue to believe that it is appropriate to provide unlicensed devices with access to a substantial amount of spectrum at 5 GHz to accommodate the demand by educational, medical, business, industrial and consumer users for broadband multimedia communications. We are also cognizant, however, of the need for UNII devices to share the spectrum with primary services without causing radio interference to those services. We believe that both of these concerns can be accommodated by adopting appropriate technical restrictions for UNII devices, particularly transmit power and outofband emission limits (see technical discussion below), and by avoiding portions of the spectrum where sharing would be particularly difficult. Accordingly, we will make 300 megahertz of spectrum available for UNII devices. Specifically, we are providing UNII devices access to three 100 megahertz bands at 5.155.25 GHz, 5.255.35 GHz and 5.7255.825 GHz. We recognize that this is less than the 350 megahertz that was proposed in the  X-NPRM, but we believe that this amount of spectrum provides an appropriate balance between spectrum sharing concerns and providing sufficient spectrum to satisfy the needs of UNII devices.  XR-x28.` ` We believe that 300 megahertz of spectrum will provide sufficient spectrum to allow the full potential of broadband multimedia technologies to be realized. This spectrum"; <,-(-(ZZ" should provide for open entry and equal access by all such devices and to allow access to the spectrum by multiple users at a common location using a variety of different devices. In this regard, we note that these broadband devices each may require 20 to 25 megahertz channel  X-bandwidth to provide the high data rates envisioned by the petitioners.=Gx {O4-  lԍxSee, e.g., HewlettPackard Comments at 6, Nortel Comments at 10, Rockwell Comments at 2, 3Com Comments at 5, and WINForum Comments at 7. Furthermore, as discussed in greater detail in Section C below, the different sharing environments applicable to the three 100 megahertz subbands, 5.155.25, 5.255.35, and 5.7255.825 GHz, require that UNII operations comply with discrete technical standards for each subband.  XH- x29.` ` This action will also open opportunities for American industry to be competitive in the global market for these new telecommunication products. Specifically, providing access to the 5.155.30 GHz band would permit UNII devices to be compatible with the European HIPERLAN and would allow American industry flexibility to create  X -products for both markets.H> "Gx {O-ԍxSee supra, n. 44.H  X -x30.` ` We also believe that the 300 megahertz of spectrum we are providing for UNII devices avoids the use of spectrum that would be particularly difficult to share with primary operations. Specifically, as addressed below, we believe that UNII devices can share with proposed and existing services in these bands including the MSS feeder link operations that may use the 5.155.25 GHz band. On the other hand, UNII devices will not have access to spectrum used by microwave landing systems ("MLS") operated by the FAA in the 5.05.15 GHz band. Additionally, UNII devices will not have access to the 5.8255.875 GHz band. This will avoid potential interference with low power Part 15 hearing aid devices and potential ITS operations in the 5.8505.875 GHz band, FSS operations in the 5.8505.925 GHz band, and amateur operations in the 5.6505.725 and 5.8255.925 GHz bands.  X-x31.` ` We are not persuaded by arguments that UNII devices should be accommodated in spectrum other than the 5 GHz bands. With regard to the argument that UNII devices could use Government spectrum below 5 GHz that will be made available in the future for commercial use, we note that this amount of spectrum is substantially less than the amount we are here making available and is distributed over a wide range of frequency bands that would make the design of equipment difficult and expensive. We note that those bands will be the subject of future rule making proceedings that will determine the types of operations for which those bands may be used. We are also unpersuaded that spectrum above the 5 GHz range, particularly the millimeter wave bands above 40 GHz, could be used by unlicensed devices as easily or be made available as quickly as the 5 GHz bands. We note that signals at these higher frequencies have propagation constraints that will reduce the communication distances of devices operating at equal powers. Further, equipment that" >,-(-(ZZ" operates at a higher frequency is typically more expensive than equipment that operates at a lower frequency range.  X-C.xTechnical Standards  X-1.xGeneral  Xc-x32.` ` In the NPRM, we proposed rules to provide the maximum technical flexibility in the design and operation of UNII devices, to ensure that they do not cause harmful interference to incumbent and future operations, and to facilitate basic spectrum sharing among unlicensed devices. We proposed a maximum peak power limit of 100 milliwatt ("mW") (10 dBW) Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power ("EIRP") for both the upper and lower 5 GHz UNII bands. We also requested comment on whether to permit operations at up to 1 watt ("W") (0 dBW) of transmitter output power within the upper band in order to facilitate community networks. Additionally, we did not propose limits on channelization or  X -modulation efficiency, but did request comment on these issues. Further, we proposed limits on emissions outside the bands of operation. Specifically, we proposed to require all emissions occurring from UNII devices outside of the authorized bands to be attenuated by at  Xh-least 50 dB or to the radiated emission limits set forth in Section 15.209,T?hGx {O-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.209.T whichever is the  XQ-lesser attenuation.f@QZGx {O\-ԍ xSee supra, NPRM at para. 49.f In addition, we proposed to require any emissions occurring in the  X:-restricted bands#A":Gx yO-  ԍxOnly spurious Part 15 emissions are permitted in restricted bands. The restricted frequency bands are those  xallocated for services involving safetyoflife or for services that are required by the nature of their operations to use  {Og- x,signals received at very low received levels. See 47 CFR  15.205. See, also, First Report and Order, GEN. Docket No. 87389, 4 FCC Rcd. 3493 (1989).# to comply with the radiated emission limits set forth in Section 15.209. We also proposed to require any unwanted emissions to comply with the general field strength limits set forth in Section 15.209. Finally, we proposed to require that any UNII devices using an AC power line must also comply with the conducted limits set forth in Section  X-15.207.TBGx {Oe-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.207.T  X-x 33.` ` Comments.The commenters strongly support the adoption of only those technical regulations, such as power limits and emission limits, needed to prevent interference  X-from UNII devices to incumbent services.Ch Gx {O$-ԍxSee, e.g., CEMA Reply at 7, Educators Comments at 4, and WINForum Reply at 11. They claim that this would provide technological flexibility in the design and types of new equipment that can be manufactured and would correspondingly provide consumers with greater choices in UNII devices and communications options."? C,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-ԙx!34.` ` Decision.We continue to believe that the best regulatory framework to facilitate the introduction of UNII devices is one that provides the maximum technical flexibility in their design and operation by imposing only the minimum technical rules necessary to prevent harmful interference to primary operations and to provide for basic spectrum sharing among unlicensed devices. The adoption of such an approach is overwhelmingly supported by the record. We believe that adoption of minimum technical rules would not only permit unlicensed devices to operate successfully on a shared basis, but would also encourage maximum flexibility in the types and designs of unlicensed digital devices that could use this band. Accordingly, as addressed below, we are adopting the minimum technical regulations which we believe will most facilitate the introduction of UNII devices, will adequately protect primary services, and will promote sharing among UNII  X -devices.MD Gx {O~ -ԍxSee para. 3554 below.M These rules specify power limits (in terms of peak power and power spectral density), emission limits, radio frequency hazard requirements, and other basic technical rules appropriate for unlicensed Part 15 operations. Further, as addressed below, we are not adopting a channeling plan, spectrum modulation efficiency requirement or a spectrum etiquette as we believe such technical standards are unnecessary at this time, could preclude  X-certain technologies, and could unnecessarily delay implementation of UNII devices.MEZGx {O-ԍxSee para. 5571 below.M  Xd-2.xPower and Antenna Constraints   X8-x"35.` ` Comments.The comments vary substantially with regard to the power and antenna gain limits that should be adopted to allow for reliable communications while protecting the incumbent 5 GHz services and allowing for sufficient frequency reuse among UNII devices. Some UNII proponents support our proposed maximum power limit for withinbuilding and shortrange LAN operations, but also claim that higher power will be needed for both localarea campus communications and for community area networks.  X-Incumbent interests generally support the proposed 100 mW EIRP limit which, they argue, is necessary to protect incumbent operations.  Xk-x#36.` ` Most UNII proponents support allowing higher power and higher antenna gain in the UNII spectrum. They claim that the propagation characteristics at 5 GHz are such that  X=-operation at power levels higher than the proposed limit is required to provide reliable  X&-communications for most localarea networks and for longerrange networks.F&Gx {O"-  ԍxSee, e.g., Benton Foundation and Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility ("Benton") Comments at 5 and Connectivity for Learning Coalition Comments at 3. They state that the signal attenuation caused by walls is one of the primary reasons why higher power is needed for LANs. Higher power, they state, is also needed for community networks to achieve reliable communications over the necessary distances. For example, WINForum argues that, in order to meet onpremises communication requirements, the maximum" FF,-(-(ZZ" transmitter output power limit in the 5.155.35 GHz band should be 100250 mW (10 to 6  X-dBW), and directional antennas should be permitted with up to 6 dBi gain.VGGx {Ob-ԍxSee WINForum Comments at 2325.V It also suggests allowing use of even higher gain antennas, as long as the transmitter power is decreased on a  X-dBfordB adjustment basis (i.e., transmitter output power would be decreased by one dB for every dB increase in antenna gain). WINForum states that these maximum power and gain parameters would provide a desirable balance between permitting sufficient inbuilding signal penetration by UNII devices and ensuring adequate interference protection to incumbent 5 GHz and other UNII operations.  X3-x$37.` ` Apple supports adoption of a maximum transmitter output power of 100 mW  X -(10 dBW) in the 5.155.25 GHz band.pHZ ZGx {O' -  ԍxSee Apple Comments at 8. They also support adoption of the same 100 mW maximum transmitter output  xpower limit for the 58255875 MHz band. Since we have decided not to make this spectrum available to UNII devices, comments addressed to technical rules for this band are now moot.p Apple states that this power limit would protect incumbent operations and would allow the lower power band to be used for personal/portable type operations that would generally operate indoors. Apple also argues for a higher limit on transmitter output power in the 5.255.35 GHz and 5.7255.825 GHz bands. Specifically, Apple states that we should set the power limit at 316 mW (5 dBW), with unrestricted antenna gain in these bands. It claims higher power is needed in these bands to provide for fixed pointtopoint operations that would meet the requirements of community networks.  Xd-x%38.` ` WINForum also urges the Commission to adopt higher power and antenna gain limits for the upper band, 5.7255.825 GHz. It notes that Part 15 spread spectrum devices in this band are currently authorized to operate with up to 1 W transmitter output power and with up to 6 dBi of antenna gain. Further, it notes that even higher power limits for spread  X-spectrum devices are currently under consideration by the Commission in ET Docket 968.JI|Gx {O5-ԍxSee supra, note 50.J  X-x&39.` ` Motorola recommends adoption of a maximum transmitter output power limit of 250 mW in the 5.155.35 GHz band, and 1 W in the 5.7255.825 GHz band, for  X-bandwidths equal to or greater than a certain threshold, e.g., 25 megahertz. Motorola also supports allowing transmitter antenna gains of up to 23 dB in both bands, without any  X-associated reduction in transmitter output power.JGx yO?"-ԍxWe note that 1 W transmitter power with 23 dBi gain would provide an EIRP of 200 W. Motorola argues that directional transmitter antennas will provide reliable communications with lower risk of interference. It further states that UNII device power limitations should be based on the output power spectral density to reduce interference concerns irrespective of the emission bandwidth. That is, transmitter output power should be reduced in direct proportion to any reduction in emission bandwidth below some threshold. With regard to community network links," J,-(-(ZZy" Motorola recommends that, consistent with the proposal in ET Docket No. 968, the Commission allow the use of even higher gain transmitter antennas whenever the transmitter  X-output power is reduced by 1 dB for each 3 dB of antenna gain above 23 dB.RKGx {OK-ԍxSee Motorola Comments at 8.R  X-x'40.` ` Mulcay points out that the proposed 100 mW (10 dBW) EIRP limit is substantially lower than the European HIPERLAN standard of 1 W (0 dBW) EIRP. Mulcay states that the maximum transmitter output power limit for UNII devices should therefore be raised to 1 W (0 dBW) EIRP to be consistent with the HIPERLAN limit. It claims this  XH-would facilitate U.S. firms' ability to compete in global markets.MLHZGx {OS -ԍxSee Mulcay Reply at 9.M  X -x(41.` ` Parties currently utilizing the 5 GHz spectrum generally support the 100 mW  X -EIRP limit proposed in the NPRM.M Gx {O-ԍxSee Pacific Telesis Comments at 4, TIA Comments at 2, and ARRL Comments at 7. NTIA recommends adoption of the 100 mW EIRP limit in the 5.155.25 GHz band to provide adequate interference protection to primary operations in that band. L/Q adds that UNII operations at any higher power would degrade the sharing capacity in that band and would greatly increase their potential to cause harmful interference  X -to FSS operations in the band.JN ~Gx {O-ԍxSee L/Q Reply at 5.J L/Q also opposes allowing directional antenna use by UNII devices operating in the band. It contends that though interfering signals from a directional antenna may not be received by all satellites overhead, they could certainly be received by satellites close to the horizon and, thus, FSS capacity to operate in the band could be impaired. The ARRL argues that permitting the power of UNII operations to exceed 100 mW EIRP or permitting the use of highgain antennas by nonspread spectrum UNII devices would represent a significant departure from the underlying precepts of Part 15, which require unlicensed operations not to cause interference to other services. Although the ARRL opposes the operation of UNII devices in the 5.7255.825 GHz band, it states that if a 100 mW EIRP limit and a power spectral density limitation of 0.03 mW in any 3 kHz bandwidth were  X-adopted, then UNII devices should be able to share this band with incumbent operations.QOGx {O-ԍ xSee ARRL Comments at 10.Q Finally, entities with spread spectrum interests oppose the operation of higher power, nonspread spectrum UNII devices in the upper band on the basis that such operations could  X~-prevent existing spread spectrum devices from sharing that band.eP~Gx {O#-ԍxSee Larus Comments at 2 and Cylink Reply at 5.e  XP-x)42.` ` Decision.We find that the 100 mW power limit proposed in the NPRM is not sufficient to accommodate the range and scope of communications envisioned for UNII";4 P,-(-(ZZ" devices. We believe that increasing the UNII device power limits will enable these devices to provide for a variety of operations including local areas networks, campustype settings, or as part of community networks. At the same time, we recognize the need to ensure that primary operations are adequately protected from harmful interference. In this regard, we note that the primary users and the considerations that relate to interference with their operations, vary in different parts of the spectrum we are providing for UNII devices. Specifically, the 5.155.25 GHz band will be shared with MSS feeder links; the 5.255.35 GHz band will be shared with Government radiolocation operations; and the 5.7255.825 GHz band will be shared with Government radiolocation, Amateur, ISM, and other Part 15 operations. Therefore, the sharing environment for UNII devices will be different for each of these three 100 megahertz segments. We find a balance between providing sufficient power limits for UNII devices and protecting primary operations may be struck by adopting different power levels for UNII devices in each of the three 100 megahertz bands. This approach will provide the needed flexibility to allow UNII proponents to design and manufacture equipment to meet a variety of communications needs while ensuring a successful spectrum sharing environment with other spectrum users.  Xy-x*43.` ` Accordingly, we will divide the 300 megahertz available to UNII devices into three bands of 100 megahertz each and will establish the following maximum UNII device power limits for each band: a) in the 5.155.25 GHz band, the maximum peak transmitter output power limit will be 50 mW with up to 6 dBi antenna gain permitted, which equates to 200 mW EIRP; b) in the 5.255.35 GHz band, the maximum peak transmitter output power limit will be 250 mW with up to 6 dBi antenna gain permitted, which equates to 1 W EIRP; and c) in the 5.7255.825 GHz band, the maximum peak transmitter output power limit will be 1 W with up to 6 dBi directional antenna gain permitted, which equates to 4 W EIRP. To permit manufacturers flexibility in designing UNII equipment, we will permit the use of higher directional antenna gain provided there is a corresponding reduction in transmitter output power of one dB for every dB that the directional antenna gain exceeds 6 dBi.  Xe-x+44.` ` In the 5.155.25 GHz subband, we believe a 50 mW peak output power with up to 6 dBi gain antenna will provide UNII devices great flexibility in how this band is used. Specifically, these power limits will allow UNII devices to provide a variety of shortrange communications, such as those between computing devices (such as computers, servers, printers, etc.) within a very local area, such as in a room or in adjoining rooms. We also believe that restricting UNII devices to this low power will allow UNII devices to share this band with cochannel MSS feeder link operations. In this regard, we note that the initial European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations ("CEPT") studies conclude that HIPERLAN systems, which have technical characteristics similar to those of UNII devices, can share this band with the MSS operations without causing harmful  X#-interference to the MSS feeder links.Q#Gx {O%-  ^ԍxSee CEPT Recommendation T/R 2206 (Madrid 1992); see also Proposed Modification of CEPT Recommendation T/R 2206. (See Section E "Spectrum Sharing Considerations""#"Q,-(-(ZZG""  X-below.) While some commenters have argued that based on the CEPT studies that UNII devices could operate at higher powers than we are adopting without causing interference, we recognize that since the CEPT study was made Globalstar has changed some of the parameters of its system and that its MSS feeder links potentially could be more susceptible to interference. In any event, we believe the power we are adopting is appropriate to ensure that UNII devices do not cause harmful interference to MSS feeder link operations. We are also restricting UNII use of this band to indoor operations. This will provide additional protection to cochannel MSS operations due to the attenuation of UNII device signals as they pass through the walls and ceilings of buildings. Accordingly, we believe this power limit, along with the restriction on outdoor operations, will provide the desired balance of providing sufficient power for UNII devices in this band, high frequency reuse, great flexibility in the types of UNII operations that are accommodated in this band, and protection of cochannel MSS operations.  X -x,45.` ` In the 5.255.35 GHz subband, we are adopting a higher maximum peak transmitter input power limit of 250 mW, along with the associated higher power spectral density limit noted below. We are not restricting UNII devices to indoor operations in this band because it will not be shared with MSS operations. We believe that UNII operations with a peak transmitter output power of up to 250 mW and a directional antenna with up to 6 dBi of gain will be sufficient to accommodate communications within and between buildings, such as are envisioned for campustype LANs. The only operations in this band are Government radiolocation systems (radar), and NTIA has supported allowing higher power for UNII operations in this portion of the band. These power and antenna gain limits are comparable to the 1 W EIRP limit used for HIPERLAN and therefore should provide manufacturers with economies of scale in developing equipment useable in both the domestic and international markets.  X-x-46.` ` In the 5.7255.825 GHz band, we note that spread spectrum Part 15 devices are already authorized to operate with 1 W transmitter peak output power and with up to 6 dBi gain transmitting antennas. Accordingly, we are authorizing similar peak power and antenna gain parameters for UNII devices in this band. We believe that UNII operations that comply with this power limit will be able to provide community networks with a typical range of several kilometers. Further, we believe that longerrange communications could be  X -possible in areas with a low interference environment (i.e., rural areas) where high gain  X-receive antennas could be used.RGx yOm!-  ԍxHigh gain receive antennas would not be useful in areas where the ambient noise level is high, such as areas where there are a large number of UNII devices operating cochannel. (Such antennas do not affect the transmitted emission level or EIRP.) We recognize that the commenters recommend that we allow the use of even higher gain transmitting antennas in this band. However, the record in this proceeding does not provide enough technical support for us to conclude that UNII devices with 1 W transmitter power and high gain transmit antennas would not cause interference to the primary service, Government radiolocation. Specifically, NTIA has expressed concern about higher"# R,-(-(ZZe"" powers in this band and supports further experimentation before either higher power or gain is authorized.  X-x.47.` ` In ET Docket No. 968, we are currently considering whether to authorize the use of transmitting antennas with higher gain for Part 15 spread spectrum operations in this band. If we decide in that proceeding to permit the use of higher antenna gain for spread spectrum operations, we may consider similar action for UNII devices in this band in a separate rule making. However, we note that permitting use of high gain antennas with UNII devices without requiring an equal reduction in power could have a significant impact on the interference environment in this band, and this issue would have to be addressed should a further rule making be initiated.  X -x/48.` ` With regard to sharing this band with amateur operations, we believe that UNII devices will cause little interference to amateur operations because of the relatively low power with which UNII devices will operate. Further, we note that the amateur service has access to all spectrum within the 5.655.925 GHz range. We therefore believe that amateur operations will be able to avoid using frequencies within the 5.7255.825 GHz band that are available to UNII devices, in those rare cases where such avoidance may be necessary.  XK-x049.` ` Additionally, in all three bands we are adopting peak power spectral density limits to ensure that the power transmitted by UNII devices is evenly spread over the emission bandwidth. Specifically, we will require UNII devices to decrease transmitter output power proportionally to any decrease in emission bandwidth below 20 MHz. These requirements will decrease the potential for interference to other services and will encourage the use of the UNII bands for the broadband operations for which they are intended. For UNII devices operating with less than 20 megahertz of emission bandwidth, we will limit power spectral density as follows: a) in the 5.155.25 GHz band, the transmitter peak power spectral density will be 2.5 mW/MHz for an antenna gain of 6 dBi; b) in the 5.255.35 GHz band, the transmitter peak power spectral density will be 12.5 mW/MHz for an antenna gain of 6 dBi; and c) in the 5.7255.825 GHz band, the transmitter peak power spectral density will be 50  XN-mW/MHz for an antenna gain of 6 dBi.SNGx yO-  ԍxThese power spectral density requirements shall be measured with a spectrum analyzer having a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz. Finally, to allow manufacturers flexibility in designing UNII devices, we will allow operations with antenna gains exceeding 6 dBi if the peak power spectral density is reduced by the same amount the directional antenna gain exceeds 6 dBi.  X-x150.` ` In the 5.155.25 GHz band, we will require transmitting antennas to be an integral part of the UNII device. This will ensure that our authorized power limits are not exceeded in this band. In the 5.255.35 GHz and 5.7255.825 GHz bands, we shall require that the UNII device use a permanently attached antenna or an antenna that uses a unique"" S,-(-(ZZ!"  X-coupling to the UNII devices in accordance with Section 15.203(a) of the rules.NTGx {Oy-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.203.N These requirements will limit potential interference to other systems and will provide for greater frequency reuse by UNII devices.  X-3.xEmissions Outside the Band of Operation  Xx-x251.` ` In the NPRM, we proposed to require that all emissions from UNII devices occurring outside of the UNII bands be attenuated by at least 50 dB or to the radiated  XL-emission limits set forth in Section 15.209,VULZGx {OW -ԍ xSee 47 CFR  15.209.V whichever is the lesser attenuation. In addition,  X5-we proposed that any emissions occurring in the restricted bandsTV5Gx {O -ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.205.T comply with the radiated emission limits set forth in Section 15.209. We also proposed to amend Section 15.205 to delete 5.15 5.25 GHz as a restricted band. Further, we proposed to require that any unwanted emissions comply with the general field strength limits set forth in Section 15.209. Finally, for any UNII devices that use an AC power line, we proposed to require such  X -devices to comply also with the conducted limits set forth in Section 15.207.TW ~Gx {O-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.207.T  X-x352.` ` Comments.Only a few parties commented on the emission limits proposed  X-in the NPRM. Several commenters supported the proposal.fXGx {O@-ԍxSee Mulcay Reply at 7 and Solectek Reply at 16.f For example, Mulcay agrees with the proposal to limit emissions pursuant to Section 15.209. However, other commenters argue that the Commission should permit industry to develop limits on emissions that fall  X<-outside the bands of operation.TY<Gx {O-ԍ xSee Motorola Comments at iv.T WINForum supports reliance on emission limits and measurement methods that would be developed by industry and argues that the rules regarding unwanted emissions should be stated in terms of burst average power and should be  X-independent of the power of the fundamental emission.UZ4 Gx {O -ԍ xSee WINForum Comments at 29.U  X- x453.` ` Decision.Limits on emission levels outside the bands of operation and frequency stability requirements are necessary to protect adjacent spectrum occupants and sensitive operations that may operate on harmonic frequencies. However, in view of the higher and different power limits we are adopting for UNII devices in each of these bands,  Xo-we are making appropriate adjustments to the limits we proposed in the NPRM on the permissible emission levels outside the band. Specifically, we will require UNII devices"Z Z,-(-(ZZ0" operating in the upper band to attenuate emissions below the maximum power spectral density by a factor of at least 40 dB for frequencies from the band edge to 10 megahertz from the band edge and by a factor of at least 50 dB for frequencies greater than 10 megahertz from the band edge. For the other two bands which have lower maximum power limits we will take this limit as an absolute limit. This will provide the same level of interference protection outside all three bands. Accordingly, the attenuation of peak levels of emissions outside of the frequency bands of operation below the maximum peak power spectral density contained within the bands of operation must be in accordance with the following limits: Xxi) For transmitters operating in the band 5.155.25 GHz: all emissions within the frequency range 5.145.15 GHz and 5.355.36 GHz must be attenuated by a factor of at least 27 dB; within the frequency range outside these bands by a factor of at least 37 dB.(# Xxii) For transmitters operating in the 5.255.35 GHz band: all emissions within the frequency range from the band edge to 10 MHz above or below the band edge must be attenuated by a factor of at least 34 dB; for frequencies 10 MHz or greater above or below the band edge by a factor of at least 44 dB.(# Xxiii) For transmitters operating in the 5.7255.825 GHz band: all emissions within the frequency range from the band edge to 10 MHz above or below the band edge must be attenuated by a factor of at least 40 dB; for frequencies 10 MHz or greater above or below the band edge by a factor of at least 50 dB.(# As already specified in the rules, the measurements of such emissions shall be performed  X-using a minimum resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz.M[Gx {O:-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.35.M Regardless of the attenuation levels shown above, we will not require emissions outside the frequency range of operation to be  X-attenuated below the general radiated emission limits in Section 15.209 of our rules.N\ZGx {O-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.209.N Further, we will not specify these emission limits as a maximum power spectral density of the operating band, as requested by WINForum, because such a limit would have to be adjusted with changes in antenna gain in order to maintain a consistent interference potential. The emission limits being adopted are based on the peak power spectral density within the band of operation, and the power spectral density is varied to reflect changes in the gain of the antenna. We recognize that changes to the gain of the antenna at harmonic frequencies may not directly correlate with changes to the antenna gain at the fundamental frequency. However, we believe that the limits being adopted for spurious emissions are sufficient to reduce the probability of harmful interference. Further, the provisions in Section 15.205 of" \,-(-(ZZ" our rules will ensure that harmful interference does not result to critical safety services  X-regardless of antenna gain.N]Gx {Ob-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.205.N  X-x554.` ` Further, we will adopt our proposal to remove the 5.155.25 GHz band from  X-the restricted bands listed at Section 15.205 of the rules.N^ZGx {O-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.205.N We note that UNII devices will have to comply with the provisions of Section 15.205 in order to protect sensitive operations. We also note that the 4.55.15 GHz and 5.355.46 GHz bands remain restricted; therefore, UNII devices operating close to the band edges at 5.15 GHz or 5.35 GHz will be required to sharply attenuate their signal at the band edge or avoid using the spectrum close to the band edge. We do not believe that this requirement will significantly affect UNII operations overall. In any event, this requirement is needed to protect sensitive and safetyoflife operations in adjacent bands. Additionally, we adopt our proposal to require that emissions comply with the general field strength limits set forth in Section 15.209. Finally, any UNII devices that use an AC power line must comply with the conducted limits set forth in Section  X -15.207.N_ Gx {O[-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.207.N  X-4.xChanneling Plan & Modulation Efficiency  Xd-x655.` ` In the NPRM, we did not propose to adopt limits on channelization or modulation efficiency, but did request comment on whether we should specify a channeling plan or a minimum modulation efficiency requirement for UNII devices to ensure efficient use of the spectrum. We specifically requested comments on whether a 20 or 25 MHz channeling plan and/or a 1 bit/second/Hz ("bps/Hz") modulation efficiency should be adopted and whether these regulations would be beneficial in facilitating unlicensed broadband high data rate use of these bands.  X-x756.` ` Comments.Commenting parties disagree as to whether the Commission should adopt a mandatory channelization plan or minimum bandwidth requirement for unlicensed UNII devices. Those supporting a channelization plan and/or minimum bandwidth requirement argue that the 5 GHz unlicensed bands should be dedicated for wideband systems. These parties contend that other unlicensed bands such as the UPCS  X=-spectrum are already available for narrower bandwidth applications.m`=~Gx {Ol#-ԍx See Lucent Comments at 3 and WINForum Comments at 25.m They claim that some channel limitations are needed. They contend that wideband devices with high signaling speed requirements suffer disproportionately from harmful interference caused by narrow bandwidth devices with low signaling speed requirements, and that complex rules would be required to correct this imbalance. WINForum, Lucent, and Nortel support a minimum"`,-(-(ZZ;" channel spacing of 2025 megahertz and suggest that the rules not prohibit UNII devices  X-from combining channels to enable very wide bandwidth communications.aGx {Ob-ԍxSee WINForum Comments at 2527, Lucent Comments at 3, and Nortel Comments at 10. In addition, Nortel states that a 2025 megahertz minimum channel bandwidth would simplify any industrydeveloped access protocol by limiting the number of channels that would need to be scanned in order to detect the absence of communications from other devices before transmitting. Further, it notes that such a channeling plan would enable UNII devices to be  Xv-compatible with HIPERLAN equipment.SbvZGx {O -ԍ xSee Nortel Comments at 10.S  XH-x857.` ` On the other hand, several NII proponents argue that, with so many open questions about the future needs for unlicensed wireless networking capabilities, it is premature and technically unwise to specify a channeling plan or a maximum channel  X -bandwidth.c Gx {O-ԍ xSee, e.g., 3Com Comments at 5 and Business Software Alliance Comments at 2. The channelization for these bands should be flexible, they state, because the bandwidth required for a given application is dependent on the data rate, communications distance, type of modulation, and specific error correction coding involved. They also claim that a minimum channel width or channelization requirement may limit both technical innovation and flexibility and therefore may increase costs and retard development of new  X-communications options.d~Gx {O-ԍ xSee Microsoft Comments at 36, Solectek Reply at 21, and 3Com Comments at 5. Finally, although Apple opposes mandatory channelization standards, it states that, in the bands used for high data rate systems, voluntary channelization plans or more informal channelization etiquettes could be developed by industry to promote efficient spectrum use.  X-x958.` ` Most UNII proponents oppose the imposition of any requirement for modulation efficiency. They claim that such a requirement would increase system complexity and preclude certain modulation techniques, which would in turn increase costs and  X-development time, and delay implementation of UNII devices.eGx {O-ԍ xSee Microsoft Comments at 6, California Wireless, Inc. Comments at 1, and 3Com Comments at 6. Several commenters oppose  X-the 1 bps/Hz modulation efficiency suggested in the NPRM on the grounds that it would preclude spectrum efficient technologies such as spread spectrum, which they observe is spectrally efficient because of its high interference rejection and spectral reuse but may not  X~-meet a 1 bps/Hz requirement.qf~Gx {O#-ԍ xSee Motorola Comments at 11 and WINForum Comments at 27.q Further, several parties claim that efficiency can only be measured meaningfully when geographic frequency reuse (cell area) is also considered, such  XP-as bps/Hz/unitarea.gP4 Gx {O5'-ԍ xSee Mulcay Reply at 11; Lucent Comments at 4; and Lace, Inc. ("Lace") Reply at i, 5. These parties argue that a robust system with low modulation"P g,-(-(ZZ" efficiency that is capable of operating in the presence of higher potential interference may  X-nevertheless have higher throughput per unit area than a less robust system.YhGx {Ob-ԍ xSee, e.g., Lucent Comments at 4.Y Finally, they argue that it is unnecessary to mandate a standard for spectrum efficiency, since the market  X-will decide what efficiency is needed.fiZGx {O-ԍ xSee, e.g., California Wireless Comments at 1.f In this regard, WINForum recommends forgoing the adoption of a modulation efficiency standard at this time in favor of allowing industry groups to consider the development of a more flexible spectral efficiency measure that would take  Xv-into account frequency reuse characteristics.PjvGx {O -ԍxSee WINForum Reply at 20.P  XH-x:59.` ` A few UNII proponents do support adoption of a modulation efficiency standard. For example, HewlettPackard Company ("HewlettPackard") recommends a minimum modulation efficiency standard of 0.66 bps/Hz, arguing that, though specification of a high bandwidth efficiency does not guarantee a high spectral efficiency, it can nevertheless  X -prevent low transmission rate systems from using the spectrum inefficiently.[k ~Gx {O-ԍ xSee HewlettPackard Comments at 7.[ Lucent recommends a minimum modulation efficiency standard of 0.5 bps/Hz based on the use of a 3dB bandwidth, as opposed to use of the full emission bandwidth. If, however, the emission bandwidth were used, Lucent recommends a higher minimum modulation efficiency standard. NTIA also recommends adoption of a bandwidth efficiency standard, but claims that imposition of a strict efficiency limitation at the outset may dampen rapid implementation. Therefore, NTIA recommends that the Commission adopt an effective bandwidth efficiency standard that would come into effect at some reasonable future date, such as three years after  X4-conclusion of this rule making proceeding.Ll4Gx {O-ԍxSee NTIA Reply at 12.L  X-x;60.` ` Finally, some parties, particularly incumbents, argue that a modulation efficiency standard should be required in order to ensure that spectrum is not wasted. They state that highly efficient technologies currently exist and that it is not unreasonable to require UNII devices to have modulation efficiencies higher than 1 bps/Hz. Alstatt Associates, for example, argues that, since digital television settop boxes have a modulation efficiency of 6.66 bps/Hz, and Part 21 and 94 devices have a minimum modulation efficiency of 4.46  X|-bps/Hz, UNII devices should be required to have a minimum efficiency of 3 bps/Hz.Sm|Gx {O#-ԍ xSee Alstatt Comments at 2.S Larus Corporation ("Larus") agrees that we should adopt a modulation efficiency standard of  XN-no less than 3 bps/Hz,QnN4 Gx {O3'-ԍ xSee Larus Comments at 2.Q while the Northern Amateur Relay Council of California, Inc."N n,-(-(ZZ" ("NARCC") argues that a spectrum efficiency of 2 bps/Hz is appropriate and has in fact been  X-achieved for years.OoGx {Ob-ԍxSee NARCC Comments at 6.O  X-x<61.` ` Decision.One of our goals in this proceeding is to provide rules which permit maximum technical flexibility in the design and development of UNII devices capable of providing high data rate communications for a variety of multimedia applications in a shared spectrum environment. Such devices have not yet been designed, built, or tested. Accordingly, we believe that adopting a rigid channelization plan or mandating a modulation efficiency standard at this time would not meet this goal, and could delay implementation of UNII devices by precluding certain technologies or applications. Further, we believe that the low power limits we are adopting will ensure efficient use of the spectrum by providing for high frequency reuse, which will allow for large numbers of UNII devices to share the spectrum in any geographic area. We also believe that establishing a channelization plan or modulation efficiency at this early stage in the technological development of the devices might have several undesirable effects, such as increasing costs and delaying the benefits of UNII devices to the public. Accordingly, we will not adopt a channeling plan or a modulation efficiency standard at this time.  Xd-x=62.` ` Nevertheless, we note that the focus of this proceeding is to make available spectrum for broadband high data rate unlicensed devices capable of meeting the communications requirements of new multimedia applications. We therefore agree with those commenting parties that suggest the purpose of making these bands available is to support use of high data rate devices. Accordingly, we are adopting a definition for the type of devices that will be approved for this band. Specifically, the Part 15 rules will state that unlicensed UNII operations in the 5.155.35 GHz and 5.7255.825 GHz bands will be limited to wide bandwidth, high data rate digital operations. Unlicensed devices accessing the 5.7255.825 GHz band under other Part 15 rules would not be subject to this definition. This will give equipment manufacturers the flexibility to design and manufacture a variety of broadband devices using different technologies and modulation techniques, while ensuring that this spectrum is used for its intended purpose. This definition will be enforced through the Commission's equipment certification process.  X"-D.xSpectrum Etiquette  X-x>63.` ` In the NPRM, we proposed a basic "listenbeforetalk" ("LBT") spectrum  X-sharing etiquette, similar to that established for UPCS devices,NpZGx {O#-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.321.N to ensure that the UNII  X -spectrum is used by devices in a manner that would permit them to share with one another._q Gx {Og&-ԍxSee supra, NPRM at para. 52._ We suggested that the proposed etiquette could serve as an interim protocol standard until"!~q,-(-(ZZ "  X-industry developed a spectrum sharing etiquette. In this regard, the NPRM encouraged industry to develop appropriate etiquette protocols for these devices through a consensus process and stated that, if appropriate, we would consider those protocols in this or a further  X-rule making proceeding. Finally, we solicited comments on whether such an etiquette should be required at all, or whether the minimal technical requirements would be sufficient to ensure spectrum sharing among UNII devices.  Xa-x?64.` ` Comments.The commenters overwhelmingly oppose the LBT spectrum  XL-etiquette proposed in the NPRM for UNII devices. Several parties argue that the LBT protocol is unnecessary and would be detrimental to UNII devices at 5 GHz. For example, Motorola states that LBT would be ineffective in controlling interference among UNII devices, particularly in buildings with many rooms and hallways. Several commenters also assert that LBT would be detrimental because it would preclude isochronous multimedia applications and other technologies such as Asynchronous Transfer Mode ("ATM") that would  X -not be able to comply with strict transmission timeframe requirements.r Gx {O=-  ԍ xSee, e.g., Lucent Comments at 5, Nokia Mobile Phones Americas, Inc. Comments at 2, and WINForum Comments at 20. Motorola claims that LBT would unduly restrict the utilitarian choices which manufacturers of UNII devices  X-could offer to consumers.Rs"Gx {Oi-ԍxSee Motorola Comments at 2.R  Xh-x@65.` ` Additionally, some commenters oppose establishing any interim etiquette on the grounds that devices developed under such an interim etiquette could be rendered useless once  X:-a permanent etiquette is adopted. t:Gx {O-ԍ xSee Lucent Comments at 5, Cylink Reply at 17, WINForum Comment at 20, and Mulcay Reply at 6. In this regard, Lucent asserts that adoption of an interim etiquette would hinder introduction of future systems and would inhibit the process of developing an industry consensus for spectrum sharing rules. Cylink contends that interim rules would harm the competitiveness of small businesses. It claims that only larger companies could afford to cover the risk of betting on the eventual outcome of industry working group deliberations aimed at adopting a consensual etiquette. Similarly, WINForum expresses concerns about the compatibility of interim devices with any subsequent permanent spectrum etiquette and suggests that any interim operations should be constrained to 50 megahertz in the upper band with a datecertain changeover mandate.  XT-xA66.` ` Several commenters, while not supporting the proposed LBT etiquette, do support the development of a spectrum etiquette, or of multiple etiquettes, by industry  X&-consensus in order to help minimize interference among UNII devices.u&FGx {O%-ԍ xSee Rockwell Comments at 3, WINForum Reply at 21, and CEMA Reply at 6. For example, WINForum states that highlevel protocols, like that adopted for UPCS, may be excessively  X-complex for UNII devices, but simple RF rules (e.g., power limits, channelization, unwanted"u,-(-(ZZZ"  X-emission limits) may prove insufficient to ensure fair, efficient, and open access.RvGx {Oy-ԍ xSee WINForum Reply at 21.R It adds that the development of such standards is appropriately left to voluntary standards organizations. NTIA also supports some type of channel monitoring protocol or UNII  X-etiquette to minimize interference, both to and from radar systems.LwZGx {O-ԍxSee NTIA Reply at 11.L Further, several other commenters aver that industry should be permitted to develop etiquettes within a time frame  X-mandated by the Commission.fxGx {O* -ԍ xSee Apple Reply at 29 and CEMA Reply at 6, 7.f  X_-xB67.` ` Some commenters oppose the adoption of any spectrum etiquette, stating that a required etiquette would inevitably limit innovation in the development of new UNII products, and that the use of etiquettes has not always been proven to avoid interference. The Connectivity for Learning Coalition ("Coalition") asserts that while such protocols mandate a manner in which some technologies may share the spectrum, use of those technologies may or  X -may not meet the needs of the education or library communities.Py ~Gx {O-ԍxSee Coalition Reply at 4.P Metricom, Inc. ("Metricom") states that, in theory, an etiquette may appear to allow for spectrum sharing, but  X -there is no practical evidence that complex etiquettes prevent interference.Uz Gx {O-ԍ xSee Metricom Comments at 14.U Metricom states that creative engineers guided by minimal technical standards will best be able to design communications solutions to match consumer needs. Finally, 3Com Corporation ("3Com") claims that a formal spectrum etiquette would limit ingenuity and development of UNII devices, and it urges the Commission to encourage the development of voluntary spectrum  XK-etiquettes to permit interoperability.N{KGx {O-ԍxSee 3Com Comments at 7.N  X-xC68.` ` Decision.In general, we believe that a spectrum etiquette can provide benefits by facilitating compatibility among devices and allowing for equal access to the spectrum by devices that use different technologies. However, we do not believe that the  X-interim LBT etiquette proposed in the NPRM would provide such benefits for unlicensed UNII devices in the 5 GHz band. As pointed out in the comments, that LBT etiquette would be ineffective in controlling interference among devices and would preclude some technologies that may be desirable for UNII devices. Accordingly we will not adopt our proposed etiquette.  XR-xD69.` ` We also note that the record does not provide an alternative spectrum etiquette to our proposed LBT etiquette that we could adopt at this time. Additionally, we do not think";4 {,-(-(ZZ" that it would be in the public interest to wait for an industry group to develop a satisfactory new etiquette as suggested by WINForum. We are concerned that it could take industry a substantial period of time to develop an etiquette for unlicensed UNII devices at 5 GHz, because of the wide range of interests that would have to be accommodated in establishing a single etiquette for all the broad multimedia applications envisioned for UNII devices. Further, after such an etiquette is developed, we would have to conduct a rule making proceeding to adopt the etiquette as a mandatory standard. Completing these activities would take at least a year, and possibly considerably longer. We do not believe that such a delay in implementing rules permitting UNII operations would serve the public interest.  X -xE70.` ` We recognize that there are tradeoffs in adopting any etiquette and that the benefits of an etiquette must be weighed against its drawbacks. For example, an etiquette could beneficially facilitate compatibility among devices and thus promote spectrum sharing, intercommunications among different devices, and equal access to the spectrum by devices built by various manufacturers. Drawbacks of an etiquette include an increase in the complexity of equipment design and, hence, an increase in cost to the manufacturer and the user, as well as a potential limitation on access to the spectrum by some technologies and equipment. In the instant case, it is early in the developmental stage for equipment to operate in these shared bands as intended. Therefore it may be very difficult to develop a spectrum etiquette at this time that will not limit the types of equipment that could most efficiently or effectively provide the desired broadband communications.  X-xF71.` ` Accordingly, we are not adopting a spectrum sharing etiquette at this time, nor will we delay access to the 5 GHz bands by UNII devices until industry develops an etiquette. We believe the minimal technical rules we are adopting, particularly the maximum power limits discussed above, will generally allow for equal access and sharing of these bands by UNII devices and thereby accomplish the intent of our proposed spectrum etiquette. Finally, our course of action will not preclude industry from developing any voluntary standards that it deems appropriate in the future. In this regard, we continue to encourage industry to develop appropriate etiquette protocols through a cooperative consensus process. If standards are developed that would better facilitate sharing of this band without precluding UNII devices or technologies, we would consider adopting those protocols in a further rule making proceeding. We note that WINForum states that it has already begun setting the foundation for joint industry action in this area. We encourage all interested parties to take part in this process and to cooperate in good faith.  X -E.xSpectrum Sharing Considerations  X"-xG72.` ` In the NPRM, we recognized that a number of primary services now use, or soon will use, the spectrum which we proposed for UNII devices. The existing operations include Government radiolocation systems; mobile satellite feeder links; amateur operations; industrial, scientific, and medical operations; other unlicensed Part 15 operations; and  X>&-proposed ITS. We stated in the NPRM that it would be necessary to develop spectrum">&{,-(-(ZZ$" sharing criteria between primary operations and the new UNII devices. We tentatively  X-concluded in the NPRM that sharing would be feasible, but requested comments on this issue.  X-xH73.` ` Comments.NTIA, the Government agency responsible for the spectrum management for Government operations, supports our proposal to permit UNII devices to  X-share these bands with primary Government operations.| Gx yO -  ԍxNTIA also states that UNII devices should not be permitted to operate below 5.15 GHz, where Microwave  xLanding Systems ("MLS") operate. Also, NTIA requests that future ITS operations in the 5.855.875 GHz band be  xhprotected by limiting UNII devices in this band to the proposed 100 mW EIRP. We are not making either of these spectrum bands available for use by UNII devices. However, NTIA urges us to adopt sharing protocols and power limitations to facilitate sharing. NTIA states that the success of community networks will depend on their geographic separation from high powered radar systems operating in these bands. NTIA adds that Federal radar systems serve the interests of national security and that, therefore, all efforts should be made to avoid operating community network links near military radar sites. Additionally, NTIA states that compatibility analyses of long range links with existing radar needs to be completed for both UNII and spread spectrum systems before higher powers are authorized.  X -xI74.` ` In the 5.155.25 GHz band, parties with MSS interests argue that sharing is not feasible between MSS feeder links and new UNII devices. In particular, L/Q asserts that only 1070 simultaneous users of UNII devices could operate in the 5.155.25 GHz segment in the continental United States before unacceptable interference would be caused to the  Xf-feeder links for Globalstar, its proposed mobile satellite system.O}fGx {O-ԍ xSee L/Q Comments at 8.O Airtouch Communications, Inc. ("Airtouch"), a limited partner in Globalstar, claims that its analysis indicates that UNII operations in the 5.155.25 GHz band would reduce the capacity of Globalstar in the U.S. by  X!-over 27%.Q~!BGx {O-ԍ xSee Airtouch Reply at 7.Q Further, Airtouch and L/Q argue that the European sharing analysis for HIPERLAN, addressed in the NPRM, cannot be applied in this proceeding because UNII devices and HIPERLAN do not have similar technical parameters and the International Telecommunication Union ("ITU") analysis is not based on current data.  X-xJ75.` ` On the other hand, UNII proponents claim that UNII devices would be able to share with Government radiolocation and MSS feeder uplinks operations because of the very low power with which UNII devices will operate in the 5.155.25 GHz band and because of the attenuation characteristics of radio signals in the 5 GHz range. With regard to sharing with MSS feeder uplink operations, they conclude that MSS feeder operations would also be able to share with UNII devices. They base this conclusion on the ITU study, which predicted that HIPERLAN systems would be able to coexist with the MSS feeder links in the 5.155.25 GHz band in Europe. Further, they note that HIPERLAN devices will be operating at 1 W, a power level substantially higher than the power limit proposed for UNII devices in" ~,-(-(ZZ<" this band, and that global MSS systems must be built to be robust enough to share with HIPERLAN. WINForum and Solectek Corporation ("Solectek") also counter L/Q's claim that only 1070 UNII devices could use the band in the United States before causing interference to MSS feeder links, pointing out that L/Q made strict assumptions that are not representative  X-of the UNII device environment.mGx {O-ԍ xSee Solectek Reply at 20 and WINForum Reply at 810.m Specifically, WINForum notes that ITU's studies assume a more reasonable performance margin of 0.41 dB rather than the 0.004 dB that L/Q used. Based upon these more realistic criteria, WINForum claims that over 540 million UNII devices could be deployed in the United States without causing harmful interference to the FSS uplink systems.  X -xK76.` ` Additionally, some parties argue that use of directional antennas will decrease the radiation perceived by a satellite above the users in the vertical plane. Further, Lace, Inc. ("Lace") argues that a 10% power increase in the MSS feeder link would easily resolve the  X -interference problem, if indeed that problem ever occurs.M ZGx {O-ԍ xSee Lace Reply at 2.M Lace and Solectek argue that there are other means to mitigate interference such as power spectral density limits, transmitter ontime limits, station antenna directivity, relay link antenna directivity, outofband noise rejection, and positioning long range outdoor links above 5.25 GHz.  Xb-xL77.` ` In the 5.7255.825 GHz band, incumbent operators either oppose allowing UNII operation due to interference concerns or urge that sharing studies be completed before that band is made available to UNII devices. For example, the San Bernardino Microwave Society ("SBMS") argues that sharing between UNII devices and amateur operations is not  X-possible.MGx {O-ԍ xSee SBMS Reply at 1.M However, the ARRL states that the proposed UNII maximum power limit of 100 mW EIRP appears to be sufficient to avoid significant interference to the amateur service, but it argues that the ubiquitous nature, mobility, and potential aggregate interference potential of  X-these devices necessitates that sharing studies be performed.S~Gx {O-ԍ xSee ARRL Comments at 911.S Additionally, Section 15.247 spread spectrum interests oppose UNII operations in this band and argue that without a means to control usage, operations in this band would rapidly degrade and become  X|-unusable.h|Gx {O="-ԍ xSee US West Reply at 3 and Larus Comments at 2.h Further, incumbents oppose high power UNII operations in this band because  Xe-they argue it is more likely to cause interference to incumbent operations.aeGx {O$-ԍ xSee ARRL Reply at 8 and WFTEP Reply at 1.a The ARRL also claims that higher power UNII operations should not be permitted because the Commission is unlikely to enforce the requirement that unlicensed device users cease operation if they are"7!4 ,-(-(ZZ" causing harmful interference to allocated services. Finally, Metricom states that to avoid interference, UNII devices in the upper band should be required to operate in spread  X-spectrum mode.XGx {OK-ԍ xSee Metricom Reply at 12.X  X-xM78.` ` On the other hand, UNII proponents argue that UNII devices can share with Government radiolocation, amateur operations, ISM devices, other Part 15 devices and proposed ITS operations. They argue that these incumbent operations already share this band with other types of unlicensed devices. In this regard, Mulcay notes that a substantial number of devices, including Part 15 direct sequence spread spectrum radios with 1 W output power and antenna gains of 30 dBi, frequency hopping radios with omnidirectional antennas and noncommunication devices under Part 18 with no limit on radiated power, already share the 2.4 and 5.8 GHz bands on an unlicensed, noncoordinated basis without causing  X -interference.O ZGx {O-ԍ xSee Mulcay Reply at 8.O WINForum likewise argues that UNII devices operating under equivalent  X -technical standards can also share this band without causing harmful interference.P Gx {Or-ԍxSee Winforum Reply at 11.P Apple notes that UNII devices will only share a part of the 275 megahertz wide amateur band at 5.655.925 GHz and, therefore, claim that UNII operations will not significantly affect the  X-amateur radio service.Q~Gx {O-ԍ xSee Apple Comments at 16.Q With regard to sharing with other Part 15 devices, UNII proponents contend that the record demonstrates that UNII devices can be designed to coexist with spread spectrum devices. CEMA argues that industry can develop technical guidelines and methodologies to allow community network systems and other systems to share unlicensed  X4-bands.O4Gx {O-ԍ xSee CEMA Reply at 4,5.O Further, Apple claims that directional antennas will reduce the probability that multiple devices will compete for spectrum in overlapping areas.  X-xN79.` ` Decision.We continue to believe that UNII devices can share these bands with existing and future operations. Specifically, we believe that the power limits, power  X-spectral density requirements and emission limits that we are adopting herein will permit the robust development of UNII devices without a significant impact on other spectrum users. With regard to Government operations, we agree with NTIA that MLS operations below 5.15 GHz must be protected. Accordingly, we are not allowing UNII devices access to spectrum below 5.15 GHz. We believe that this decision, along with the power limits and outofband emission limits, will adequately protect MLS operations. We also agree with NTIA that co-channel sharing with Government radiolocation is possible. We believe the power limits we are adopting will allow for this sharing as detailed below. Further, we believe that there"$",-(-(ZZ" will be no interference from UNII devices to possible ITS operations, since we are not allowing UNII devices access to the 5.855.875 GHz band.  X-xO80.` ` In the 5.155.25 GHz band, we note that the sharing analyses completed to date often reach different results because they are based on different assumptions. For example, since the CEPT studies were made, Globalstar has changed some of the parameters of its system, and, therefore, MSS feeder links potentially could be more susceptible to interference than those studies concluded. Based upon the information before us, we conclude that the limits we are adopting will ensure that UNII devices do not cause harmful interference to MSS feeder link operations.  X -xP81.` ` In the 5.255.35 GHz band, we believe that the 1 W EIRP limit and the power spectral density requirements we are adopting for UNII devices will adequately protect the primary radiolocation operations. We note that Government radiolocation systems are limited in number and generally located at remote military sites, on board ships, in aircraft and in spacecraft, and that these considerations in conjunction with the UNII power limits should adequately protect the radiolocation service. Further, UNII devices will have to accept interference from the radiolocation service.  XK-xQ82.` ` In the 5.7255.825 GHz band, we believe that the 4 W EIRP limit and the power spectral density requirements we are adopting for UNII devices will adequately protect the primary radiolocation operations and amateur operations. These limits provide UNII devices with power levels equivalent to Part 15 spread spectrum devices that already share this band with incumbent services. Therefore, UNII devices should likewise be able to share this band without causing interference to the primary services. Further, with regard to spectrum sharing with the amateur service, we note that the amateur service has access to 275 megahertz of spectrum in the 5.655.925 GHz band. We believe amateur licensees will, if necessary, be able to operate around UNII devices, which only have access to 100 megahertz in this portion of the 5 GHz spectrum. Additionally, we note that we are not at this time providing spectrum above 5.825 GHz for UNII devices. This eliminates any sharing concerns with users or potential users of the 5.8255.875 GHz band, which includes lower power Part 15 devices such as hearing aid devices, as well as ITS operations, and FSS operations.  X-xR83.` ` We also believe our power spectral density requirements will permit UNII devices to share this spectrum with unlicensed spread spectrum devices as the potential for interference to these devices from new UNII devices will be no greater than that which would be expected from additional spread spectrum devices. Thus we see no reason to restrict UNII devices in this band to spread spectrum technologies as requested by some commenters. Accordingly, we will allow UNII devices in this band to operate on a"##,-(-(ZZG"" technologyneutral basis. We believe this will provide manufacturers flexibility in designing  X-UNII products and thus will provide consumers with greater choices. Gx yOb-  ԍxAllowing UNII devices in this band to operate on a technologyneutral basis will give manufacturers  xchoices in that UNII spread spectrum devices will be more robust and will provide longer communication distances  xJbut will not be able to provide the higher data rates of UNII devices operating with the same power but with a more conventional digital modulation technology.  X-F.xAlternative Regulatory Structure  X-xS84.` ` In the NPRM, we proposed to allow UNII devices to operate on an unlicensed basis. We tentatively concluded that the low power and limited range of UNII devices would make licensing administratively difficult for users and the Commission. Further, we noted that this spectrum may be of very limited use to licensed services due to the presence of incumbent operations. Nonetheless, we requested comment on whether new UNII operations should be provided on a licensed basis. We also solicited comments with regard to whether we should license higher power community networks if we were to allow such operations. We also asked whether, in the case of mutuallyexclusive applications, we should use  X -competitive bidding to award such licenses.X Gx {O:-ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(2)(A). X  X -xT85.` ` Comments.Most UNII proponents support our proposal to allow UNII devices to operate on an unlicensed basis. They oppose licensing and auctions of any UNII operations, arguing that the benefits of authorizing Part 15 devices and systems would be  Xh-undermined completely if licensing were required.hBGx {O[-ԍ xSee Apple Comments at 20, CEMA Comments at 5, and WINForum Reply at 25. They state that licensing even expedited licensing would impede deployment, reduce innovation, reduce spectrum efficiency, increase costs, undermine the development of community networking and deny the  X#-benefits of low cost and flexible alternatives to existing media.p#Gx {O-ԍ xSee ITIC Comments at 5 and  Cylink Comments at 10.p Apple also contends that unlicensed community networks would not create problems of regulatory parity for common carriers and other profit making service providers. It states that those electing to use unlicensed bands would accept the fact that they will not control their spectrum environment and will be limited to low power operations; in exchange, they would be freed from the costs  X-and burdens associated with licensing.Of Gx {O"-ԍ xSee Apple Reply at 17.O  X-xU86.` ` However, AT&T, PacTel, TIA and some microwave equipment manufacturers state that if the Commission permits the operation of longer range community networks, those networks should be subject to licensing and auctions. AT&T states that allowing unlicensed community networks would be unfair to the holders of existing spectrum licenses, particularly"=$ ,-(-(ZZ" those who received their licenses through the auction process, and would undermine the  X-Congressional objective of promoting regulatory parity among wireless services.PGx {Ob-ԍ xSee AT&T Comments at 4.P AT&T further states that the type of operation envisioned for community networks requires a degree of reliability and quality that can only be realized through licensed services. PacTel argues that unlicensed community networks would create an inequitable regulatory structure where unlicensed service providers operate in competition with licensed service providers without the  Xv-common carrier obligations of a licensee.PvZGx {O -ԍxSee PacTel Comments at 5.P TIA states that implementing long range networks requires frequency coordination, use of narrow beam antennas and other  XH-fundamental components of licensing in order to succeed.LHGx {O -ԍ xSee TIA Reply at 8.L  X -xV87.` ` Decision.We continue to believe that low power UNII devices and associated operations are more amenable to an unlicensed structure and should be regulated  X -under the Part 15 rules. Specifically, the rules governing UNII devices are similar in their low power and flexible regulatory nature to those governing Part 15 devices. While some UNII devices in the upper band could have ranges of several kilometers, we believe that most devices will have typical communication ranges of a few meters to a few hundred meters. Additionally, like other existing unlicensed devices, we believe that trying to license UNII devices individually would be administratively difficult if not impossible for both the Commission and the consumer and would greatly delay the implementation and use of this  XM-band by UNII devices. Further, we do not think it would be advisable at this time to license  X6-spectrum blocks and large service areas to providers.  X- xW88.` ` We also are unpersuaded by the arguments that UNII devices and associated operations need to be licensed in order to provide regulatory parity with licensed services. With regard to unlicensed UNII devices that are used for community networks in the upper band, we note that these will also be of very limited range in comparison to the distances of fixed pointtopoint operations, will have to operate in a Part 15 sufferance mode and may not always be able to provide the same grade of service as the licensed operations. That is, they will receive no protection from other users of the spectrum. Further, we note that in the upper band unlicensed devices are already providing pointtopoint links for data  XP-transmissions, typically of up to 1.5 Mbits/sec. Further, w e believe that the vast majority of UNII devices will provide communications that are complementary to, rather than competitive with, the licensed services. We believe that the relationship between UNII devices and the licensed pointtopoint services will be analogous to the relationship between cordless telephones and PCS or the cellular telephone service. That is, UNII devices will provide a variety of broadband high data rate services but only in a very limited range and generally on the premises of the users, while licensed fixed pointtopoint microwave services" %~,-(-(ZZ" provide communication links that are substantially longer, up to 30 and 40 miles, and in a controlled radio environment where the licensee has the right of protection from interference.  X-x X89.` ` We do believe, however, that this proceeding has raised a number of spectrum issues that warrant further attention. Users and manufacturers of unlicensed devices, for example, may have little incentive to make the investment necessary to improve spectrum efficiency and thus allow more users to benefit. As we continue to implement spectrum policies that promote competition and efficiency we may also need to consider how to harmonize these policies with those for unlicensed devices.  X1-   X -G.xNew Part 16 Regulations  X -xY90. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the technical and operational flexibility afforded under Part 15 is the appropriate structure for regulating UNII devices, rather than a new Part 16 regulatory scheme. Under the Part 16 concept, unlicensed devices could be treated as a recognized radio service with spectrum rights, including interference  X-protection. Alternatively, we proposed to establish a "safe harbor" or clear technical operating parameters under which users of unlicensed UNII devices could operate without being  Xf-considered sources of harmful interference.kfGx {O-ԍ xSee supra NPRM, at Para. 54, 60.k Consistent with Part 15 operations, we also proposed that UNII devices have to accept any interference.  X!-xZ91.` ` Comments.NII proponents support the principles underlying either "safe harbor" or the Part 16 approach. Apple argues that for UNII devices to become viable, these devices must be treated as a recognized radio service, and their operations must be in protected spectrum reflected in Section 2.106 of the rules, the Table of Frequency  X-Allocations.SZGx {O-ԍxSee Apple Comments at 2728.S Further, Apple states that the Commission should make clear that it will not introduce new, incompatible services into the NII bands in the future. Apple argues this is fully consistent with both the Communications Act and Commission precedent; in that, it is identical to the approach adopted for unlicensedPCS and millimeter wave bands. Further, Apple argues that this approach is consistent with the Commission's obligation under Section 303(g) of the Communications Act to 'study new uses for radio... and generally encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.' CEMA also argues that the Commission has the authority to elevate the status of unlicensed devices and suggests upgrading the status of UNII devices to coprimary within the allocated bands. It claims that otherwise these devices will remain, by regulatory design, second class citizens in the RF  X-environment.NGx {O~%-ԍxSee CEMA Comments at 7.N Further, WINForum claims that some rural and educational users may not be willing to risk investment in equipment absent some reassurance that their communication" &~,-(-(ZZ"  X-needs will be met now and in the future.PGx {Oy-ԍxSee WINForum Reply at 23.P Finally, Cylink, Metricom and existing unlicensed spread spectrum device providers argue that if additional protection is provided to unlicensed UNII devices in this range of the spectrum, then this protection also should be extend to unlicensed spread spectrum devices.  X-x[92.` ` However, Airtouch and other parties with interests in the 5.155.35 GHz and 5.7255.825 GHz bands state that the "safe harbor" concept conflicts with the Part 15 regulatory scheme and would relieve unlicensed users of their obligation to avoid interference  XH-to licensed users.}HZGx {OS -ԍxSee Airtouch Reply at 3; L/Q Reply at 13, 16, 17; and SBMS Reply at 3.} L/Q argues that an analogy cannot be made to the protection provided to unlicensed DataPCS devices because unlicensed DataPCS devices received an allocation of  X -exclusive spectrum, but UNII devices will not operate on exclusive spectrum. SBMS and  X -other amateur interests oppose "safe harbor" rules because there will be no means of enforcement to prevent UNII devices from causing interference.  X -x\93.` ` Decision. We generally have provided spectrum for low power unlicensed devices on a noninterference basis, meaning that unlicensed devices must not cause interference to licensed users and must accept any interference they receive. This regulatory approach to accommodating unlicensed devices has protected licensed use while permitting the development of a wide variety of low power unlicensed devices. While we seek to encourage the important and valuable telecommunication operations which will be provided by UNII devices, we find that the current record does not provide a compelling reason to believe that such devices require higher or more protected status than we have provided for low power unlicensed devices in the past. Accordingly, we do not believe that it is necessary to create a new Part 16 or "safe harbor" rules to provide additional protection for UNII devices. We therefore, as discussed below, will regulate these devices in the same manner that we regulate other lowpower unlicensed devices. We do conclude, however, that some special consideration is warranted with regard to the use of unlicensed devices in the lower band, 5.155.25 GHz, which will be shared with MSS.  Xg-x]94.` ` In the 5.255.35 GHz and 5.7255.825 GHz bands, where the radio environment is well established with mature services, we can adopt rules in Part 15 for UNII devices in which all parties can have confidence that sharing is possible with little or no threat of interference. In both of these bands, we believe UNII device manufacturers and users can feel confident that their operations will not cause interference to primary operations, because in the 5.255.35 GHz band the only party authorized to use this spectrum is Government radar operations, with which we believe low power UNII devices can share spectrum without causing interference, and because the UNII devices in the 5.7255.825 GHz band will operate with powers equivalent to those of existing unlicensed operations that currently share this band without causing interference. Additionally, if interference problems did occur in these""',-(-(ZZ!" bands they would be localized and could probably be identified and resolved. In these cases we believe that the current Part 15 at sufferance rules are appropriate.  X-x^95.` ` We recognize that it is likely that two new uses of the 5.155.25 GHz band, MSS feeder link operations and UNII devices, will be developing at the same time. In view of this fact, as indicated above, we are adopting relatively conservative operating parameters for UNII devices. We believe that the very low power limits and indoor use restriction on unlicensed operations will ensure that millions, or even tens of millions, of UNII devices can successfully coexist and share the spectrum with MSS feeder links. Further, we note that interference from UNII devices to MSS operations could potentially occur only as a result of the cumulative effect of many millions of UNII devices and not by any single device. To the receiver on the MSS satellite, the operation of many low power UNII devices looks like an increase in the ambient noise floor. This has the effect of decreasing the desired signaltonoise ratio received from the higher power MSS feeder link and can ultimately reduce the capacity of or cause interference to MSS operations.  X-x_96.` ` While we believe that this approach for UNII devices is technically conservative and will fully protect MSS operations, we note that MSS interests have also suggested that we limit the aggregate EIRP density of emissions from unlicensed devices on  XK-the Earth's surface to the MSS satellite to 10 dBW/MHz.C$KGx yO-  ԍxThis equates to a power flux density of 124 dBW/MHz/m2 at a satellite with a slant range of 1414 km.  {O- xSee ex parte filing of Airtouch, December 5, 1996; see also, Draft New Recommendation Power Flux Density  x<Limits for Wireless Data Networks In The 51505250 MHz Band Sharing Frequencies With Systems In The Fixed  {O-Satellite Service, to ITUR Working Party 49S, David E. Weinreich of Globalstar, November 27, 1996.C They argue that MSS operations  X4-could begin to be affected when emissions from unlicensed devices approach such a level.=X4Gx yO-  ԍxGiven the indoor restriction and power limits we are imposing on UNII devices and taking into account  xother factors such as duty cycle, it would take millions, or even tens of millions of devices, to achieve this level of 10 dBW/MHz. = Alternatively, they suggest that the Commission should review the technical parameters for UNII operations in a future rule making as such a limit is approached. They state this would allow the Commission to review, for example, whether some future reduction in permitted power of UNII devices in this band should be imposed. They state that all existing UNII devices would be grandfathered. We concur that such an approach would provide further assurance that future potential conflicts between UNII devices and MSS operations are taken into account and that MSS operations are protected appropriately. Accordingly, we invite MSS parties to monitor the emissions from UNII devices in the 5.155.25 GHz band and, if emissions approach the 10 dBW/MHz level, to request that we initiate a rule making to  XN-reassess the use of this band. NGx yO$-  ԍxWe also note that it may also be appropriate to reassess the technical parameters governing UNII devices  xZin light of second generation MSS systems. For example, second generation MSS systems may be more sensitive  xiand therefore more susceptible to interference from UNII devices. On the other hand, if European HIPERLAN  x,systems proliferate and operate at more power than UNII devices, second generation MSS systems may be required"+',-(-(X'" to more robust and immune to interference from such devices.  At that time the Commission could determine if future UNII"N(X,-(-(ZZ" devices should be required to operate at different technical standards. In this regard, we note that it may also be appropriate to reassess the technical parameters governing UNII devices in light of second generation MSS systems. For example, second generation MSS systems may be more sensitive and therefore more susceptible to interference from UNII devices. On the other hand, if European HIPERLAN systems proliferate and operate at more power than UNII devices, second generation MSS systems may of necessity be designed to be more robust and immune to interference from such devices.  XH-x`97. ` ` We believe that this approach will provide both MSS feeder link and UNII operations with an appropriate level of protection and assurance for the continuation of their operations. While we think it unlikely that an interference situation will arise, this approach will permit us to develop regulatory solutions that will adequately protect the investments of both services, if such a situation were to develop. Accordingly, we believe that this approach will provide both the MSS community and the UNII device manufacturers with adequate certainty concerning their operations, and we do not believe that a "Part 16" or "safe harbor" rule is necessary for UNII devices at this time.  Xy-H.xEquipment Authorization  XM-xa98.` ` In the NPRM, we proposed that UNII devices would be subject to our certification requirements pursuant to Section 15.201(b), prior to marketing. Motorola recommends that we take this opportunity to streamline our equipment approval process so that all products, including UNII devices, may be approved and provided to the public with  X-minimal costs and delays.UXGx {O-ԍ xSee Motorola Comments at 12.U However, Motorola made no specific suggestion in reference to this proceeding and its comments in reference to PP Docket No. 9617 will be considered therein. We do not believe that applying the certification process to UNII devices will significantly delay the provision of this equipment to the public. We believe this process helps prevent noncompliant devices from interfering with other devices or services. Accordingly, we are adopting our proposal to require UNII devices to comply with the existing certification requirements for intentional radiators under Part 15.  X;-xb99.` ` Finally, we will require UNII devices to comply with the RF hazard  X$-requirements set forth in Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of our rules.q$Gx {O"-ԍxSee 47 CFR  1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093.q For purposes of these rules, all UNII equipment will be deemed to operate in an "uncontrolled" environment. Any application for equipment certification for these devices must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. "!)|,-(-(ZZ "Ԍ X-ԙ  ORDERING CLAUSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE אTP  X-xc100.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 15 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 15 IS AMENDED as set forth in the attached Appendix, effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g) and 303 (r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g) and 303(r).  X_-  XH-xd101.` ` Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.hAs required by Section 603 of the  X3-Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"),M3Gx {O -ԍxSee 5 U.S.C.  603.M an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") was  X -incorporated in the NPRM in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public  X -comments on the proposals in the NPRM including on the IRFA. The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") in this Report and Order is attached as Appendix B. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary"#*Z,-(-(ZZ"  a< + T#|\  P6G;5P#  #|\  P6G;5P# APPENDIX A: FINAL RULES#Xj\  P6G;9XP# אTP Parts 1, 2 and 15 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are revised as follows:  X-  X- x` ` Part 1 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ĐTP 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:  Xi- AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303 and 309(j) unless otherwise noted.  XR- 2. Section 1.1307 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:  X - 1.1307 Actions which may have a significant environmental effect, for which  X -Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.  X -* x* ` ` *  * *  X-x(b) *` ` * * x(1) * * * x(2) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services (PCS), the Satellite Communications Services, the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) and covered Specialized Mobile Radio Service providers authorized under subpart H of part 22, part 24, part 25, part 80, and part 90 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in  2.1091 and 2.1093 of  X-this chapter. All unlicensed PCS, unlicensed NII and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in  15.253(f),  15.255(g),  15.319(i), and  15.407(f) of this chapter. All other mobile, portable, and unlicensed transmitting devices are categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure under  2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter except as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.  XX-*x*` ` * **  XA-  X*-x PART 2 FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;  X-x` `  GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:  X"- AUTHORITY: Sec. 4, 302, 303 and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as  X#-amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303 and 307, unless otherwise noted. 2. Sections 2.1091(c) and 2.1091(d) of Part 2 are revised to read as follows:  XD'-  2.1091 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile and unlicensed devices. "-(+,))ZZ&"Ԍ X-* x* ` ` * **  X-x(c) Mobile devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services, the Satellite Communications Services, the Maritime Services and the Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized under subpart H of part 22 of this chapter, part 24 of this chapter, part 25 of this chapter, part 80 of this chapter (ship earth station devices only) and part 90 of this chapter ("covered" SMR devices only, as defined in the note to Table 1 of 1.1307(b)(1) of this chapter), are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if their effective radiated power (ERP) is 1.5 watts or more. Unlicensed personal communications service, unlicensed millimeter wave devices and unlicensed NII devices authorized under  15.253,  15.255 and subparts D and E of part 15 of this chapter are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, regardless of their power used, unless they meet the definition of a portable device as specified in  2.1093(b). All other mobile and unlicensed transmitting devices are categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization, except as specified in  1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization of mobile and unlicensed transmitting devices subject to routine environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in paragraph (d) of this section as part of their application. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. x(d) The limits to be used for evaluation are specified in  1.1310 of this chapter. All unlicensed personal communications service (PCS) devices and unlicensed NII devices shall be subject to the limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure.  X-*x*` ` * ** 3. Section 2.1093(c) of Part 2 is revised to read as follows:  X|-  2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable devices.  XN-*x*` ` * **  X7-x(c) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services, the Satellite Communications services, the Maritime Services and the Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized under subpart H of part 22 of this chapter, part 24 of this chapter, part 25 of this chapter, part 80 of this chapter (ship earth station devices only), part 90 of this chapter ("covered" SMR devices only, as defined in the note to Table 1 of  1.1307(b)(1) of this chapter), and portable unlicensed personal communication service, unlicensed NII devices and millimeter wave devices authorized under  15.253,  15.255 or subparts D and E of part 15 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. All other portable transmitting devices are categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization, except as specified in  1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization of portable transmitting devices subject to routine environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance"#',,-(-(ZZ%" with the limits specified in paragraph (d) of this section as part of their application. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.  X-*x*` ` * **  X-Xx PART 15 RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES (# 1. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:  X1- AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 624A of the Communications Act of  X -1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A. 2. Section 15.17(a) of Part 15 is revised to read as follows: (a) Parties responsible for equipment compliance are advised to consider the proximity and the high power of nonGovernment licensed radio stations, such as broadcast, amateur, land mobile, and nongeostationary mobile satellite feeder link earth stations, and of U.S. Government radio stations, which could include high-powered radar systems, when choosing operating frequencies during the design of their equipment so as to reduce the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference. Information on nonGovernment use of the spectrum can be obtained by consulting the Table of Frequency Allocations in  2.106 of this chapter.  X-*x*` ` * * * 3. Section 15.205(a) of Part 15 is amended by removing the 5.155.35 GHz portion from the restricted bands table to read as follows: (a) Except as shown in paragraph (d) of this section, only spurious emissions are permitted in any of the frequency bands listed below:"|-,-(-(ZZ" Y ddx !ddx.z Y      MHzc nMHzc MHzc  GHz 1     v0.0900.110  X-t#,5\  P6G;i,P##X\  P6G;P#1#Xj\  P6G;9XP#0.4950.505 pM2.17352.1905 v4.1254.128 j4.177254.17775 j4.207254.20775 v6.2156.218 j6.267756.26825 j6.311756.31225 v8.2918.294 v8.3628.366 j8.376258.38675 j8.414258.41475 s12.2912.293 d12.5197512.52025 d12.5767512.57725 v13.3613.41 "16.4216.423 ( 16.6947516.69525 ( 16.8042516.80475 25.525.67 37.538.25 7374.6 74.875.2 n108121.94 123138 "149.9150.05  156.52475156.52525 T156.7156.9  162.0125167.17 "167.72173.2 240285 322335.4 J399.9410 608614 d9601240 ~213001427 y14351626.5 u1645.51646.5 ~216601710 u1718.81722.2 ~222002300 ~223102390 y2483.52500 ~226552900 ~232603267 ~233323339 y3345.83358 ~236004400 4.55.15 5.355.46 7.257.75 8.0258.5 19.09.2 19.39.5 10.612.7 13.2513.4 14.4714.5 15.3516.2 17.721.4 i22.0123.12 23.624.0 31.231.8 36.4336.5  X-(#,5\  P6G;i,P##X\  P6G;P#2#Xj\  P6G;9XP#)1  c X-#X\  P6G;P#1#Xj\  P6G;9XP# #X\  P6G;P#Until February 1, 1999, this restricted band shall be 0.4900.510 MHz.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#  X}-2#Xj\  P6G;9XP# #X\  P6G;P#Above 38.6#Xj\  P6G;9XP#  XO-*x*` ` * * *  X!- 4. Part 15 is amended by adding a new Subpart E to read as follows:  X- Subpart E Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure devices  X-  15.401 Scope. This subpart sets out the regulations for unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII) devices operating in the 5.15 5.35 GHz and 5.725 5.825 GHz bands.  XR -  15.403 Definitions.  X$"- (a) UNII devices [Unlicensed]. Intentional radiators operating in the frequency bands 5.15 5.35 GHz and 5.725 5.825 GHz that provide a wide array of wideband, high data rate, digital, mobile and fixed communications for individuals, businesses, and institutions.  X$- (b) Peak transmit power. The peak power output as measured over an interval of time equal to the frame rate or transmission burst of the device under all conditions of modulation. Usually this parameter is measured as a conducted emission by direct connection of a"&.,-(-(ZZ%H" calibrated test instrument to the equipment under test. If the device cannot be connected directly, alternative techniques acceptable to the Commission may be used.  X-  15.405 Cross reference. (a) The provisions of subparts A, B, and C of this part apply to unlicensed UNII devices, except where specific provisions are contained in subpart E. Manufacturers should note that this includes the provisions of Sections 15.203 and 15.205. (b) The requirements of subpart E apply only to the radio transmitter contained in the UNII device. Other aspects of the operation of a UNII device may be subject to requirements contained elsewhere in this chapter. In particular, a UNII device that includes digital circuitry not directly associated with the radio transmitter also is subject to the requirements for unintentional radiators in subpart B.  X -  15.407 General technical requirements.  X- x(a) Power limits: x` ` (1) For the band 5.155.25 GHz, the peak transmit power over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed 50 mW. In addition, the peak power spectral density shall not exceed 2.5 mW/MHz. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used, both the peak transmit 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. x` ` (2) For the band 5.255.35 GHz, the peak transmit power over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed 250 mW. In addition, the peak power spectral density shall not exceed 12.5 mW/MHz. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used, both the peak transmit 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. x` ` (3) For the band 5.7255.825 GHz, the peak transmit power over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed 1 W. In addition, the peak power spectral density shall not exceed 50 mW/MHz. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used, both the peak transmit 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. x` ` (4) The peak transmit power must be measured over any interval of continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of an rmsequivalent 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 for the emission in question over the full bandwidth of the channel. ":&/,-(-(ZZ$H"Ԍx` ` (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. Measurements are made using a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz. If the device can not be connected directly, alternative techniques acceptable to the Commission may be used. x(b) The peak levels of emissions outside of the frequency band of operation shall be attenuated below the maximum peak power spectral density contained within the band of  X_-operation in accordance with the following limits: x` ` (1) For transmitters operating in the band 5.155.25 GHz: all emissions within the frequency range 5.145.15 GHz and 5.355.36 GHz must be attenuated by a factor of at least 27 dB; within the frequency range outside these bands by a factor of at least 37 dB. x` ` (2) For transmitters operating in the 5.255.35 GHz band: all emissions within the frequency range from the band edge to 10 MHz above or below the band edge must be attenuated by a factor of at least 34 dB; for frequencies 10 MHz or greater above or below the band edge by a factor of at least 44 dB. x` ` (3) For transmitters operating in the 5.7255.825 GHz band: all emissions within the frequency range from the band edge to 10 MHz above or below the band edge must be attenuated by a factor of at least 40 dB; for frequencies 10 MHz or greater above or below the band edge by a factor of at least 50 dB. x` ` (4) The above emission measurements shall be performed using a minimum resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz. A lower resolution bandwidth may be employed near the band edge, when necessary, provided the measured energy is integrated to show the total power over 1 MHz. Regardless of the attenuation levels shown above, emissions outside the frequency range of operation do not need to be attenuated below the general radiated emission limits in  15.209 of this part. x` ` (5) Unwanted emissions must comply with the general field strength limits set forth in Section 15.209. Further, any UNII devices using an AC power line are required to comply also with the conducted limits set forth in Section 15.207. x` ` (6) The provisions of  15.205 of this part apply to intentional radiators operating under this section. x` ` (7) When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier frequency shall be adjusted as close to the upper and lower frequency block edges as the design of the equipment permits. x(c) The device shall automatically discontinue transmission in case of either absence of information to transmit or operational failure. These provisions are not intended to":&0,-(-(ZZ$H" preclude the transmission of control or signalling information or the use of repetitive codes used by certain digital technologies to complete frame or burst intervals. x(d) Any UNII device that operates in the 5.155.25 GHz band shall use a transmitting antenna that is an integral part of the device. x(e) Within the 5.155.25 GHz band, UNII devices will be restricted to indoor operations to reduce any potential for harmful interference to cochannel MSS operations. x(f) UNII devices are subject to the radio frequency radiation exposure requirements specified in  1.1307(b),  2.1091 and  2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. All equipment shall be considered to operate in a "general population/uncontrolled" environment. Applications for equipment authorization of devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. x(g) The frequency stability of the carrier frequency of an intentional radiator operating  Xb-under this section shall be + 10 ppm over 10 milliseconds. The frequency stability shall be maintained over a temperature variation of 20 degrees to +50 degrees Celsius at normal supply voltage, and over a variation in the primary supply voltage of 85 percent to 115 percent of the rated supply voltage at a temperature of +20 degrees Celsius. For equipment that is capable of operating only from a battery, the frequency stability tests shall be performed using a new battery without any further requirement to vary supply voltage."1,-(-(ZZ7H"  X-  [ #Xj\  P6G;9XP# APPENDIX B: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS א X-TP As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603 ("RFA"), an  X-Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed  X-Rule Making ("NPRM"), ET Docket No. 96102. {O-ԍxSee Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 96102, 11 FCC Rcd 7205 (1996). The Commission sought written public  X-comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including the IRFA. The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") in this Report and Order conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 ("CWAAA"), Pub. L. No.  XN-104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).NZ {OY -  lԍxSee Subtitle II of the CWAAA is "The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996" ("SBREFA"), codified at 5 U.S.C.  603.   X <I.  Need for and Objectives of the Rule : By this action, the Commission provides 300 megahertz of spectrum for a new category of unlicensed equipment called "Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure" ("UNII") devices. These devices are needed to provide high speed wireless digital communications on an unlicensed basis. The Commission anticipates that these UNII devices will support the creation of new wireless LANs, campus networks, community networks, and will facilitate wireless access to the National Information Infrastructure. Additionally, the rules set forth herein will foster the development of a broad range of new devices and services that will stimulate economic development and the growth of new industries. Finally, this action will promote the ability of U.S. manufacturers to compete globally by enabling them to develop unlicensed digital communications products for the world market.  X<II.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the  X<IRFA : Five parties directly address the IRFA. In general, comments support the provision of UNII devices and argue that these operations will benefit small entities. Several comments  X-addressing the IRFA argue that longer range UNII devices will be needed to permit schools and libraries to access information on the NII without having to pay expensive monthly charges, such as long distance fees, to telecommunications service providers. Further, these parties state that longer range UNII devices will not only benefit equipment manufacturers, but also will benefit Internet service providers, small entities in rural communities, and the up  X[-to 5 million small businesses that offer products and services over the Internet.[ {O!-  "ԍxSee Wireless Field Test for Education Project; Fundamental Research Corporation; Crystal Wind Communications, Inc.; and Jean Armour Polly. However, regarding the manufacturers of UNII devices, the Northern Amateur Relay Council of California, Inc. ("NARCC") argues that only established major players in the microwave radio community will have the talent and resources to bring UNII devices to the market in a timely manner. Therefore, NARCC contends that affording small companies preferential treatment  X-will not produce anything significant in the way of a lower cost, more innovative product.| {O(-ԍxSee Northern Amateur Relay Council of California, Inc. Comments at 7.| "2,))ZZJH" Finally, Cylink, Inc. opposes the adoption of an interim spectrum etiquette because small entities would not have the resources to develop interim equipment and to later redesign that  X-equipment to comply with any formally adopted spectrum etiquette.N+y {OK-ԍxSee Cylink Reply at 17.N  X<III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will  X<Apply : The RFA generally defines the term "small business" as having the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. Based on that statutory provision, we will consider a small business concern one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The RFA SBREFA provisions also apply to nonprofit organizations and to governmental organizations. Since the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect until the record in this proceeding was closed, the Commission was unable to request information regarding the number of small business that might use this service and is unable at this time to determine the number of small businesses that would be affected by this action. The rules adopted in this Report and Order will apply to any entities manufacturing UNII devices to operate in the 5 GHz range which could include computer manufacturers and unlicensed RF equipment manufacturers. Although the rules do not directly affect entities that purchase this equipment, comments contend that several million entities, including consumers, schools, libraries, and small businesses, could benefit from the use of these devices. The rules adopted in this Report and Order will apply to entities engaged in the manufacturing of UNII devices. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to unlicensed device manufacturers. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business Administration ("SBA") rules applicable to manufacturers of "Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment" and "Computer Manufacturers." According to the SBA's regulations, an RF  X-manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business.Z+y {O-ԍxSee 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 3663. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 858 companies in the United States that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of  XP-these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified as small entities.P+y {O -  ԍxSee U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995), SIC category 3663. Further, according to SBA regulations, a computer manufacturer must have 1,000 or fewer  X"-employees in order to qualify as a small entity."F+y X%-#Xj\  P6G;9XP#эx#X\  P6G;P#See 13 CFR  121.201, (SIC) Code 3571.#Xj\  P6G;9XP# Census Bureau data indicates that there are 716 firms that manufacture electronic computers and of those, 659 have fewer than 500" 3,-(-(ZZH"  X-employees and qualify as small entities.y+y Xy-  /#Xj\  P6G;9XP#э#X\  P6G;P#xSee U.S. Small Business Administration 1995 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Report, Table 3,  xMSIC Code 3571, (Bureau of the Census data adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business  yO*-Administration).#Xj\  P6G;9XP#Ѽ The remaining 57 firms have 500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of those have fewer than 1,000 employees and therefore also qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Census Bureau categories are very broad and specific figures are not available on the number of these firms that will manufacture UNII devices; however, we acknowledge the likelihood that many of them will be small businesses.  X_<IV.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance  XI<Requirements : The rules adopted in this Report and Order will require UNII manufacturers to comply with the Commission's equipment certification requirements set forth in Section 15.210(b), prior to marketing, and the radio frequency hazard requirements set forth in Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of the rules. All equipment will be deemed to operate in an 'uncontrolled' environment. Any application for equipment certification for these devices must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. The equipment certification requirement is necessary to ensure compliance with the Commission's rules and promote electromagnetic compatibility. Further, compliance with the radio frequency hazard requirements is necessary to protect the health of individuals using the equipment. These requirements are typically required for all unlicensed equipment. No further reporting or recordkeeping requirements will be imposed. Therefore, the only compliance costs likely to be incurred are costs necessary to ensure that prototype devices comply with our equipment certification requirements and radio frequency hazard requirements. Skills of an application examiner, radio technician or engineer will be needed to meet the requirements. If a device is not categorically excluded, the manufacturer of the device must make a determination of whether the device will comply with the RF radiation limits. This study can be done by calculation or measurement, depending upon the situation. In many cases the studies can be done by a radio technician or engineer. Certification applications are usually done by application examiners.  X:<V.  Significant Alternatives and Steps Taken By Agency to Minimize Significant Economic  X$<Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities Consistent with Stated Objectives : Based on comments received in response to the NPRM, the Commission considered several  X-significant alternatives. For example, although the NPRM proposed to make 350 megahertz available for UNII devices, parties with incumbent or future operations request that less spectrum be made available in order to protect their interests. Specifically, parties with mobile satellite service ("MSS") interests argues that UNII devices should not be permitted in"!4 ,-(-(ZZ H"  X-the 5.155.25 GHz band because of potential use of this band by MSS feeder links.m+y {Oy-ԍxSee e.g., Loral/Qualcomm Licensee, Inc. Comments at 4.m Further, amateur radio parties oppose UNII operations in the 5.7255.875 GHz band because  X-of amateur operations in this spectrum.pZ+y {O-ԍxSee e.g., Amateur Radio Relay League, Inc. Comments at 5.p Resound Corporation ("Resound") and the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") oppose UNII operations in the 5.8505.875 GHz band  X-because of future plans to use this spectrum.h+y {OA -ԍxSee Resound Comments at 7 and FHWA Comments at 2.h After considering these alternatives, the Commission concluded that 300 megahertz of UNII spectrum at 5.155.35 GHz and 5.7255.825 GHz is appropriate for these devices to operate without interfering with incumbent and  X_-potential operations. This reduction from the proposed UNII spectrum is necessary to protect Part 15 hearing assistance devices, potential intelligent transportation system operations, and amateur operations in the 5.8255.875 GHz band from interference. This action should not have a negative impact on small UNII businesses and will protect incumbent and proposed spectrum users which may be small businesses. Additionally, various parties recommend different technical standards for UNII devices. For example, some UNII proponents support increasing the proposed power limit and permitting unrestricted antenna gain for UNII devices in order to accomplish longer range  X-communications.d~+y {O-ԍxSee e.g., Apple Computer, Inc. Comments at 8.d However, AT&T and pointtopoint microwave parties oppose longer  Xy-range use of UNII devices and support short range, low power operations.y+y {O:-  ԍxSee e.g., AT&T Comments at 3; Pacific Telesis Group Comments at 4; and Telecommunications Industry Association, Fixed PointtoPoint Communications Section Comments at 4. The Commission has determined that UNII devices should be governed by minimal technical rules which permit maximum flexibility in the way these devices are implemented. Specifically, the Commission has concluded that an increase in the power limits proposed in  X-the NPRM is supported by new material in the record in this proceeding, but does not believe unrestricted antenna gain should be permitted due to interference concerns. The Commission has determined that the public interest is best serviced by increasing the maximum peak power limit as follows: 50 mW peak transmitter output power with up to 6 dBi antenna gain (equates to 200 mW EIRP) permitted in the 5.155.25 GHz band; 250 mW peak transmitter output power with up to 6 dBi antenna gain (equates to 1 W EIRP) permitted in the 5.255.35 GHz band; and 1 W peak transmitter output power with up to 6 dBi antenna gain (equates to 4 W EIRP) permitted in the 5.7255.825 GHz band. In addition, to permit manufacturers flexibility in designing UNII equipment, the Commission will permit the use of higher directional antenna gain provided there is a corresponding reduction in transmitter output power of one dB for every dB that the directional antenna gain exceeds 6 dBi. Also, UNII use of the 5.155.25 GHz band is restricted to indoor oper )"Vg ations only.  )"Vg  Further, this action""5j ,-(-(ZZH" adopts a power spectral density ("PSD") requirement for UNII devices that would require that the maximum power be spread across of bandwidth of at least 20 megahertz. This PSD requirement will ensure that UNII devices spread its signal energy evenly across the band and encourages the use of this spectrum by wideband high data rate applications, but permits nonwideband operations at reduced powers. These increased power limits will permit UNII equipment manufacturers, many of which may be small businesses, more flexibility to develop products to meet market demands. Further, the Commission considered several alternatives from the comments regarding a spectrum etiquette for UNII devices. Although some parties support the proposed interim "listenbeforetalk" ("LBT") spectrum etiquette until industry can develop a formal spectrum  X -etiquette, +y {O| -ԍxSee e.g., Consumer Electronics Manufacturers' Association Comments at 4. others oppose the interim etiquette because it would limit the flexibility of UNII  X -devices to use different technologies._ Z+y {O-ԍxSee e.g., HewlettPackard Comments at 3._ Further, several UNII proponents support the adoption of an industry developed spectrum etiquette to govern unlicensed use of this  X -spectrum.Y +y {O[-ԍxSee e.g., WINForum comments at 21.Y Metricom, however, suggests that rather than adopting a complex spectrum  X -etiquette, UNII devices should be required to use spread spectrum techniques.P ~+y {O-ԍxSee Metricom Reply at 10.P The Commission has now concluded that the proposed LBT spectrum etiquette could delay deployment of UNII devices and hinder innovation in the development of these devices. Rather, the Commission has concluded that simple technical rules, such as PSD limits and outofband emission requirements, should be sufficient to ensure spectrum sharing between incumbent operations and new UNII devices. The Commission declined to adopt a spectrum etiquette, any channelization plan, or a minimum modulation efficiency requirement because such requirements may preclude certain technologies or some of the many different concepts envisioned by UNII proponents. We believe this action will benefit small entities by permitting these entities to develop innovative equipment to meet market demands without having to follow protocols governing use of the spectrum.  X-Finally, the NPRM proposed to establish parameters in the rules ("safe harbor"), under which UNII devices complying with these parameters could operate without being considered sources of harmful interference. Incumbent parties oppose "safe harbor" rules or any action  XP-that would provide unlicensed devices addition spectrum rights.P+y {O$-  ?ԍxSee e.g., Loral/Qualcomm Licensee, Inc. Comments at 15; Metricom Reply at 7; and San Bernardino Microwave Society Reply at 3. However, UNII  X9-proponents request that these devices be protected either by "safe harbor" rules or by"96j ,-(-(ZZH"  X-providing a primary allocation status for the unlicensed operations.+y {Oy-  ԍxSee e.g., Apple Computer Comments at 27, WINForum Reply at 23, and Consumer Electronics Manufacturers' Association Comments at 7. After considering the alternatives, the Commission concluded that "safe harbor" rules are not necessary at this time to provide assurances to assurance to UNII operators that their communications will not be prohibited. Rather, the Commission invited MSS parties to monitor the emissions from UNII devices in the 5.155.25 GHz band and if emissions approach the 10 dBW/MHz level to  X-request that we reassess the use of this band through future rule making.i"+y yO` -  ԍxWe also note that it may also be appropriate to reassess the technical parameters governing UNII devices  xZin light of second generation MSS systems. For example, second generation MSS systems may be more sensitive  xiand therefore more susceptible to interference from UNII devices. On the other hand, if European HIPERLAN  x,systems proliferate and operate at more power than UNII devices, second generation MSS systems may be required to more robust and immune to interference from such devices. i At that time the Commission could determine if future UNII devices should be required to operate at different technical standards. This approach will provide both MSS feeder link and UNII operations with an appropriate level of protection and assurance for the continuation of their operations. While, the Commission is confident that an interference situation will not arise, this approach will permit it to develop regulatory solutions that will adequately protect the investments of both services, if such a situation were to develop.  X < Report to Congress : The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, along with this Report and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.  801 (a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.