[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 94 (Friday, May 14, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26790-26803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11007]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 04-151; ET Docket No. 02-380; and ET Docket No. 98-237; 
FCC 04-100]


Unlicensed Operation of the 3650-3700 Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Commission's rules to 
maximize the efficient use of the 3650-3700 MHz band. The proposal 
would allow unlicensed devices to operate in either all, or portions 
of, this radiofrequency (RF) band under flexible technical limitations 
with smart/cognitive features that should prevent interference to 
licensed satellite services. This proposal fosters the introduction of 
new and advanced services to the American public, especially in rural 
areas.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 28, 2004, and reply 
comments must be filed on or before August 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neal McNeil at (202) 418-2408, 
[email protected], Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290, 
[email protected], or Ahmed Lahjouji, (202) 418-2061, 
[email protected]--Office of Engineering and Technology; or Eli 
Johnson at (202) 418-1395, [email protected], or Marty Liebman at 
(202) 418-0633, [email protected]--Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, TTY (202) 418-2989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 04-151, ET Docket No. 02-380 and 
ET Docket No. 98-237, FCC 04-100, adopted April 15, 2004, and released 
April 23, 2004. The full text of this document is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from 
the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may 
also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. Alternate formats are 
available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at 
(202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365.

[[Page 26791]]

    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 
July 28, 2004, and reply comments on or before August 27, 2004. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Comments 
filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the 
Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Although this 
proceeding is captioned under multiple dockets, only one copy of an 
electronic submission, captioned to ET Docket No. 04-151, should be 
filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include 
their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for 
e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and 
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get 
form .'' A sample form and directions will be sent 
in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing.
    All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office 
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Filings can be 
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or 
by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we 
continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). 
The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered 
or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 
236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The 
filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes 
must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight 
mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 
must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. 
U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express mail, and Priority Mail 
should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 
proposed to amend its rules to maximize the efficient use of the 3650-
3700 MHz band (``3650 MHz band'') and foster the introduction of new 
and advanced services. In broad terms, the central proposal of this 
NPRM would allow unlicensed devices to operate in either all, or 
portions of, this radiofrequency (RF) band under flexible technical 
limitations with smart/cognitive features that should prevent 
interference to licensed satellite services. Specifically, we propose 
to allow these devices to operate with higher power than currently 
authorized under part 15 of the rules subject to cognitive technology 
safeguards. In order to foster the development of the unlicensed use 
that was proposed in the NPRM, we seek comment on whether to restore a 
uniform primary allocation for all Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth 
stations in the band regardless of the date the earth stations were 
authorized, and whether to delete the existing co-primary allocations 
for the Fixed Service (FS) and Mobile Service (MS) in this band. We 
also seek comment on other options that could also allow for the 
provision of licensed terrestrial service in this band. On a related 
matter, we defer action on the petitions for reconsideration of the 
First Report and Order (3650 MHz Allocation Report & Order) in ET 
Docket No. 98-237, 65 FR 69451, November 11, 2000, that challenge the 
Commission's previous allocation decisions in the 3650-3700 MHz band 
pending adoption of final rules regarding the allocation changes 
proposed in this proceeding.
    2. We tentatively conclude that permitting unlicensed operation in 
the 3650 MHz band would foster the introduction of new and advanced 
services to the American public, especially in rural areas, and will 
result in a more efficient use of spectrum. This band appears 
particularly well suited to respond to the needs expressed by the 
growing number of entrepreneurial wireless internet service providers 
(WISPs) who are today bringing broadband services to consumers in rural 
areas of the United States who have many fewer choices for such 
services than consumers in more populated areas. WISPs have been asking 
the Commission for additional spectrum for unlicensed uses to provide 
both backhaul service and broadband service to their customers. Among 
the various alternatives we are considering, this spectrum is 
particularly promising in part because the incumbents--FSS earth 
stations that are limited to international intercontinental traffic--
are concentrated primarily on the coasts, leaving available the rural 
areas targeted by these providers. In addition, unlicensed use in this 
band would complement existing unlicensed operations in the 2.4 GHz 
band and new operations in the 5 GHz band by enabling the proposals 
should provide substantial opportunities for future, high-power, 
unlicensed devices and achieve efficient use of this 50 megahertz block 
of spectrum. As a result, these proposals should facilitate the rapid 
deployment of advanced telecommunications services and technologies to 
all Americans, especially in rural areas of the United States, thus 
promoting the objectives of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996.
    3. In addition, in order to ensure that we can consider other 
possible approaches to achieve our goals for this 50 megahertz block of 
spectrum, we also are seeking comment here on alternative options that 
could potentially provide a combination of unlicensed and licensed 
terrestrial services in this band. For example, we could include both 
FSS and FS licensed operations sharing the band while still allowing 
for unlicensed devices in the band, or split the band to allow separate 
spectrum for unlicensed and terrestrial licensed use, all in 
conjunction with FSS operations. Ultimately, our goal is to maximize 
the efficient use of this band and foster the introduction of new and 
advanced services.
    4. We believe that the 3650 MHz band is well-suited for the 
provision of new and advanced services to the American public, 
particularly in rural areas. Because incumbent FSS earth stations do 
not exist in much of the continental United States, this band appears 
particularly well suited to satisfy the demands of existing service 
providers using unlicensed devices for spectrum with which to enhance 
service to rural areas through high power unlicensed operation. 
Furthermore, as we observed in the Unlicensed Spectrum NOI, 68 FR 2730, 
January 21, 2003, the rules for unlicensed operation of RF devices have 
been very successful in providing consumers and businesses with a wide 
variety of additional choices to obtain and use information. Today, for 
example, a growing number of WISPs are emerging with the intention of 
providing an alternative to DSL and cable for high-speed connections 
into the home or office. The use of unlicensed RF devices appears to 
have proven to be ideally suited to bridge the gap, especially in rural 
areas, where cable or DSL services have been slow to arrive. Small 
entities with limited resources have stepped in to provide such service 
in areas that other service providers have not prioritized. In

[[Page 26792]]

numerous fora, these providers have expressed a desire for additional 
spectrum that could be used on an unlicensed basis, especially on a 
higher-power basis. These providers have stated that existing spectrum 
available for unlicensed operation is not adequate to accommodate 
Wireless Metropolitan Area Networks (MANs) or broadband access in all 
rural areas. In short, we see that there is a growing demand for 
higher-powered unlicensed devices operating at lower frequencies where 
the combination of propagation characteristics and higher power are 
more conducive to longer-range communications.
    5. Consequently, we tentatively conclude that allowing unlicensed 
operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band would hold great promise for 
addressing those needs. This contiguous 50 megahertz block of spectrum 
is sufficiently wide to permit wide bandwidth applications such as 
high-speed data transmissions which, for example, could serve to better 
encourage its use for Internet service or backhaul by WISPs due to the 
relatively low entry barriers posed by unlicensed operation as compared 
with licensed operations. Also, the 3650-3700 MHz band could be used to 
enhance the utility of existing unlicensed operations by creating the 
potential for additional synergies. This band is situated between the 
2.4 GHz (2400-2483.5 MHz) and 5.8 GHz (5.15-5.825 GHz) bands which are 
commonly used on an unlicensed basis. In addition, our proposals here 
would appear to facilitate the development and deployment of devices 
and systems capable of identifying and using the optimal band at any 
given time, such as under the newly adopted IEEE 802.16a (``WiMax'') 
standard. We envision multi-band systems which can analyze the 
operating environment and automatically select from the 2.4 GHz, 3650 
MHz, or 5.8 GHz bands. Systems of this type would be able to more 
effectively support applications such as broadband connectivity, 
distance learning, and telemedicine in many rural or underserved 
communities as well as on Native American Tribal lands.
    6. While our central proposal is for the use of unlicensed devices 
with cognitive radio techniques, we also wish to ensure that we can 
consider other possible approaches to achieve our goals; and thus we 
are seeking comment on various options that involve the use of licensed 
terrestrial services, such as those that may operate with lower power 
levels than those normally associated with licensed use. Specifically, 
we seek comments on various technical and operational issues associated 
with such options, and seek comment on whether some portion of the 3650 
MHz band should be designated for licensed terrestrial use.

Allocation Issues

    7. In broad terms, we believe that widespread use of the unlicensed 
devices proposed in the NPRM could be more readily encouraged if such 
devices were to coexist with only FSS operations in the 3650 MHz band. 
We reach this tentative conclusion because, the current FSS allocation, 
which is limited to international intercontinental operations, results 
in earth stations being sited primarily on the east and west coasts, 
thus leaving much of the continental United States available for other 
uses. Moreover, we believe that even a moderate presence of potentially 
ubiquitous terrestrial services under a licensed allocation could 
hamper or preclude the operation of unlicensed devices in large 
geographic areas--including, especially, rural America where the need 
is greatest. Therefore, our initial proposal to allow unlicensed 
operation in either all, or portions of, the 3650 MHz band would also 
entail retention of an FSS allocation that is limited to international 
intercontinental use, and the deletion of the existing terrestrial FS/
MS allocations in any portions of the band in which unlicensed 
operation would be allowed.
    8. Of course, if we ultimately adopt an alternative approach that 
authorizes licensed terrestrial services in the 3650 MHz band, we would 
reflect that by adopting or maintaining a terrestrial allocation 
enabling that approach. In our discussion of licensed alternatives, we 
also discussed whether to modify the relative protection status of 
future FSS earth stations if we retain a FS and MS allocation. We seek 
comment on what allocation changes would maximize efficient use of this 
spectrum.

FSS Allocation

    9. In the 3650 MHz Allocation Order, the Commission determined to 
grandfather existing FSS earth station operations on a primary basis 
and to permit new FSS earth station operations on a secondary basis. 
The Commission reasoned that allowing new FSS earth station operations 
on an unrestrained co-primary basis would impede any potential 
widespread use of the band for terrestrial services. Due to the weak 
signals that are received in the FSS, it was determined that 
coordination with the high-powered terrestrial operations would result 
in potentially large geographic areas where terrestrial services could 
not operate to avoid interference to FSS. The Commission stated that 
the size and shape of these ``exclusion zones'' could be different for 
each FSS earth station site because of factors associated with 
shielding, antenna orientation and terrain elevation. The Commission 
found that these coordination requirements and the presence of 
exclusion zones would significantly increase transaction costs and 
create a disincentive for deployment of new terrestrial operations. 
Thus, the Commission found that unrestrained deployment of FSS earth 
stations could hinder or greatly inhibit the opportunities for 
terrestrial operations in the band.
    10. Since the decision to allow new FSS earth station operations in 
the 3650 MHz band only on a secondary basis, significant strides have 
been made in the area of smart/cognitive radio technologies. By using 
these features, we seek comment on whether we should revise the 3650 
MHz band's existing allocations to permit new FSS operations in the 
band on a co-primary basis with unlicensed devices. Note that the scope 
of this NPRM does not contemplate any changes to the FSS earth station 
operations grandfathered indefinitely on a primary basis in the band 
pursuant to the 3650 MHz Allocation Order.
    11. While we seek comment on the possibility of permitting new FSS 
operations in the band on a primary or co-primary basis, we propose to 
retain the application of footnote US245 to the Table of Frequency 
Allocations. This footnote restricts FSS use of the 3650 MHz band to 
international intercontinental operations. Although deletion of the 
footnote could provide more flexibility for FSS operations in the band, 
we also believe that more extensive FSS use could curtail the efficient 
use of this band by terrestrial operations, whether licensed or 
unlicensed; and, potentially, increase the costs associated with 
coordinating other co-primary users of the band, thus inhibiting 
opportunities for such operation. In contrast, retaining the 
application of footnote US245 would make this band particularly 
attractive for intensive use by a wide array of advanced wireless 
technologies including higher-powered unlicensed devices. We seek 
comment on our proposal to retain footnote US245. Alternatively, we 
seek comment on whether we should recast footnote U.S. 245 as a new 
footnote particularly for the 3650 MHz band (e.g., as footnote NGxxx), 
without the requirement for case-by-case electromagnetic compatibility 
analysis.

[[Page 26793]]

    12. Four parties representing FSS interests filed Petitions for 
Reconsideration of the decisions made in the 3650 MHz Allocation Order. 
In addition, an Emergency Motion for Stay was filed. In broad terms, 
these petitioners request that we reverse the Commission's decision to 
make future FSS operations secondary in the 3650 MHz band. If we revise 
the 3650 MHz band's allocations to include primary or co-primary status 
for new FSS operations, this decision would substantially effect the 
disposition of those petitions. Accordingly, we defer further action on 
the Petitions for Reconsideration and the Emergency Motion for Stay of 
the 3650 MHz Allocation Order pending our adoption of final rules 
concerning the allocation proposals in the NPRM.

Fixed Service and Mobile Service Allocations

    13. The 3650 MHz band's current primary allocation provides for 
Fixed and Mobile (base station only) operations. While the range of 
licensed services that might be implemented under such an allocation 
could be limited, we believe that, with some modification to the 
allocation, the band could accommodate various new and advanced 
licensed services, including the services that could be provided by 
unlicensed devices.
    14. If we adopt our proposal for unlicensed use in any portion of 
the 3650 MHz band, we propose to delete the FS and MS allocations for 
the portion designated for unlicensed use. We believe that the 
provision of ubiquitous licensed terrestrial services, in addition to 
FSS operations, would hinder the successful deployment of unlicensed 
devices in many areas. One alternative approach could involve 
segmenting the 3650 MHz band into one portion that would allow only 
unlicensed and FSS operations, and another portion that would allow 
only licensed and FSS operations.
    15. We seek comment on whether the 3650 MHz band's current Fixed 
and Mobile (base station only) allocations should be maintained, 
modified or deleted. In particular, we seek comment on whether there is 
any need or interest for licensed terrestrial services.

Proposals for Part 15 Unlicensed Operations

    16. The 3650-3700 MHz band can be used to enhance the utility of 
existing unlicensed operations. As we stated above and in the 
Unlicensed Spectrum NOI, the distribution of incumbent FSS earth 
stations--primarily along the east and west coasts--makes this band 
particularly suitable for high power unlicensed operation especially in 
rural areas. Furthermore, since this band is situated between the 2.4 
GHz (2400-2483.5 MHz) and 5.8 GHz (5.15-5.135 GHz and 5.47-5.825 GHz) 
bands which are commonly used on an unlicensed basis, allowing 
unlicensed operation in some, or all, of the 3650 MHz band could add 
flexibility to current service offerings in all three bands.
    17. We propose two general approaches for enabling both fixed and 
non-fixed unlicensed devices to operate while protecting FSS earth 
stations and Federal Government operations in the 3650 MHz band. The 
first approach, which would apply to fixed unlicensed devices, requires 
professional installation of each device to ensure that certain 
criteria are met so that operation at a particular location and power 
would not result in interference to any FSS earth station. The second 
approach, which would apply to non-fixed unlicensed devices, requires 
such devices to be capable of automatically adjusting the EIRP based 
upon detection of the presence and strength of RF transmissions from 
operating FSS earth stations. In practice, this latter approach would 
employ methods similar in nature to dynamic frequency selection (DFS) 
techniques used in other bands. In addition, we propose that both fixed 
and non-fixed unlicensed devices be required to transmit a device 
identification signal to facilitate determining the source of any 
interference that might be caused by the operation of these devices. 
Finally, part 15 of the Commission's rules governs the operation of 
unlicensed radiofrequency devices. Therefore, as a general condition of 
operation, the unlicensed devices proposed herein may not cause harmful 
interference to authorized radio services and must accept any 
interference that they receive.
    18. We seek comment on whether both fixed and non-fixed unlicensed 
devices should be permitted to operate in either all, or portions of, 
this band. Commenters should discuss all the benefits and costs 
associated with using all, or portions of, the 3650 MHz band for such 
unlicensed use.

Fixed Unlicensed Operation

    19. Because the location of an operating fixed unlicensed device 
does not change, the development of criteria for ensuring that FSS 
operations are protected from interference is greatly simplified. In 
particular, once an appropriate location and operating parameters are 
chosen for a fixed device (i.e., those where its operation will not 
cause harmful interference to an FSS station), both the unlicensed 
device and the FSS should be able to operate without mutual adverse 
effect.
    20. Professional Installation. To ensure that fixed unlicensed 
devices are established and operated in a manner that will avoid 
causing interference to FSS earth stations, we propose to require that 
such devices be installed by a professional. The professional installer 
would be held responsible to account for the presence of all FSS earth 
stations and Federal Government operations in the vicinity of the 
unlicensed device. Using appropriate knowledge of each earth station's 
location and other relevant technical characteristics, the professional 
installer would be required to ensure that the installation and 
operational characteristics of the fixed unlicensed device complies 
with the following criteria.
    21. We expect that a primary use for fixed unlicensed devices in 
this band would be to provide wireless broadband connectivity by WISPs 
in rural areas. Therefore, we propose to allow fixed unlicensed devices 
to operate in the 3650-3700 MHz band with a maximum EIRP of 25 Watts 
(14 dBW) in order to increase effective range. This EIRP should be 
beneficial--particularly in rural areas--because, compared to current 
Part 15 limits, an EIRP of 25 Watts would more than double the signal 
range of an unlicensed device. We further believe that omnidirectional 
antennas would typically be employed for this purpose in order to 
achieve the most uniform coverage of a particular geographic area. To 
promote flexibility in system design, we propose to permit any 
combination of transmitter output power/antenna gain, so long as the 25 
Watt EIRP limit is not exceeded. Because interference potential is 
directly related to a device's EIRP, specifying this parameter rather 
than separate output power and antenna gain limits would more directly 
reflect the potential for interference in the band. We seek comment on 
our proposal to set a maximum EIRP of 25 Watts (14 dBW) for unlicensed 
RF devices in the 3650-3700 MHz band. Commenters who believe that it 
would be beneficial to specify other limits, such as transmitter output 
power and antenna gain, should provide details regarding the benefits 
or costs of such an approach as compared to our proposal. We also seek 
comment on our proposed equipment authorization requirements, 
recognizing the fixed and non-fixed equipment would likely need to be 
authorized separately because of the different rule requirements.

[[Page 26794]]

    22. Antennas. In ET Docket No. 03-201, 68 FR 68823, December 10, 
2003, we noted that sectorized and phased array antennas could be used 
to create highly spectrum efficient networks by forming dynamic 
communication links with mobile or fixed devices in any direction 
around an antenna structure. This could enable an application like a 
broadband local area network to serve a number of spatially separated 
clients from a single fixed antenna site. Such antennas allow systems 
to use spectrum more efficiently by making it possible to re-use a 
given frequency to communicate with different devices along non-
overlapping paths. We seek to encourage both new and novel antenna 
technologies that would foster more intensive spectrum use. Therefore, 
we do not believe that fixed unlicensed devices should be prohibited 
from using any particular type of antenna. However, we propose that 
devices using sectorized, scanning spot-beam, or other antenna types 
with multiple beam capability be required to limit the EIRP in any 
direction to no more that 25 Watts. We seek comment on how compliance 
with this requirement could be determined.
    23. FSS Protection Zones. FSS earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz 
band use high gain antennas that are very susceptible to interference 
from undesired signals directed toward the main beam. As a result, 
operation of a fixed unlicensed device located within the earth 
station's main beam, even with relatively low EIRP, could cause 
interference at large distances. Conversely, an unlicensed device 
located outside the earth station's main beam could operate with 
relatively higher power and at closer separation distances without 
causing interference.
    24. It would be possible, using various propagation models, to 
develop a continuum of permissible EIRPs as a function of both the 
unlicensed device's azimuth with respect to the main beam of the FSS 
earth station, and the separation distance between the two. However, we 
believe that another approach could provide a greater safeguard for 
protecting FSS earth stations, while simultaneously reducing and 
simplifying the burden on professional installers to comply with the 
standards proposed herein. In short, we propose to define protection 
zones around each FSS earth station; within which, operation of a fixed 
unlicensed device would be prohibited. Specifically, we propose that 
installation of a fixed unlicensed device be prohibited within a plus-
or-minus 15 degree arc of any earth station's main antenna beam if the 
separation distance between the fixed device and the earth station is 
within 180 km. At azimuths outside this main beam protection arc, a 
fixed unlicensed device would be prohibited if the separation distance 
from the earth station is within 25 km. At all other locations outside 
these zones, we propose that fixed unlicensed devices could be 
installed and be permitted to transmit with a total maximum EIRP of 25 
Watts. Based upon standard propagation models, we tentatively conclude 
that these criteria should afford FSS earth stations more than adequate 
protection from interference. We seek comment on this conclusion and 
invite comment on whether other distance versus azimuth criteria would 
be more appropriate.
    25. The separation distance proposed for unlicensed fixed 
operations, i.e., 180 km within 15 degrees of the FSS antenna main-beam 
azimuth and 25 km otherwise, is a conservative approach derived from 
the coordination zone that the Commission previously proposed as 
appropriate for much higher powered licensed fixed operations to 
protect FSS earth stations in the 3650 MHz band. In the 3650 MHz Second 
NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that within 200 kilometers 
of a FSS site it would be necessary for a licensed fixed operation to 
coordinate with the FSS operation. Outside of this coordination zone, 
the licensed operation would not need to coordinate and could operate 
with up to 1640 Watts EIRP. The 200 kilometer licensed coordination 
zone was based on line of sight protection to FSS earth stations and 
took into account elevation angle, and terrain shielding and over the 
horizon distances from the FSS earth station sites. By way of 
comparison, the 180 kilometer separation distance, or exclusion zone, 
we are proposing herein is 20 kilometers less than the 200 kilometer 
coordination zone proposed for licensed fixed point-to-point stations 
in the 3650 MHz Service Rules Second NPRM. However, the EIRP of the 
proposed unlicensed devices will be on the order of 18 dB lower than 
that proposed earlier for licensed fixed point-to-point facilities. 
Accordingly, we believe that the reduced separation distance of 180 
kilometers within 15 degrees of the main beam is appropriate. Outside 
of the main beam, the required separation distance (or exclusion zone) 
of 25 kilometers assumes that a noise-to-interference ratio of 10 dB is 
acceptable to the FSS operators and that the ITU-R large FSS antenna 
roll-off gain pattern is appropriate. We believe that these separation 
distances within which unlicensed fixed devices will not be allowed to 
operate, in conjunction with the requirement for professional 
installation will ensure that these fixed devices will not interfere 
with FSS earth stations. We invite comment on whether the assumptions 
used are sufficient to provide appropriate protection to the FSS earth 
stations.

Non-Fixed Unlicensed Operation

    26. With respect to non-fixed operation by unlicensed devices, the 
challenge of protecting FSS is more complex because a non-fixed device 
would not be limited to a single location, but may move around from one 
site to another. We believe that the FSS earth stations can be afforded 
adequate interference protection from non-fixed unlicensed devices.
    27. Power Limits. As an initial matter, we propose lower power 
limits for non-fixed unlicensed devices than the limits proposed above 
for fixed unlicensed devices. We envision that non-fixed devices 
operating in the 3650 MHz band will be used in similar fashion to non-
fixed unlicensed devices used in the 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands. 
Operations in the 2.4 GHz band are limited to a maximum power of 1 
Watt. Power levels for devices operating in the 5.8 GHz band range from 
50 milliwatts (1 Watt EIRP) for devices in the 5.15-5.25 GHz sub-band 
to 1 Watt (4 Watts EIRP) for devices in the 5.725-5.825 GHz sub-band. 
In order to protect the FSS and Federal Government operations in the 
3650 MHz band, we propose that non-fixed unlicensed devices in the 
3650--3700 MHz band be limited to a peak EIRP of 1 Watt. We note that 
handheld unlicensed devices in the 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands normally 
operate well below the maximum of 1 Watt due to battery power 
limitations and human exposure to RF radiation limitations. Therefore, 
we find that this proposed limit for the 3650 MHz band should allow for 
most types of unlicensed use while, along with the other limitations 
discussed in paragraphs 51 through 54 of the NPRM, protect FSS and 
Federal Government operations. We seek comment on this proposal.
    28. Listen-before-talk, Power Adjustment Capability. In order to 
protect FSS earth stations from non-fixed unlicensed devices, we 
propose that non-fixed devices be required to employ a DFS-like, 
listen-before-talk mechanism. In operation, this mechanism would 
automatically adjust the EIRP of the device based upon the received 
strength of an FSS uplink signal which is transmitted (in another 
frequency band) by the same earth station antenna being protected. 
Detection of a stronger FSS signal by the

[[Page 26795]]

unlicensed device would indicate relatively closer proximity to an 
earth station, thus requiring the unlicensed device to operate with 
lower power; while a weaker received signal would, conversely, indicate 
that a higher device power could be used. We believe that this approach 
is desirable in its simplicity because it does not require an 
unlicensed device to independently determine any other information; 
such as, the separation from, or its azimuth with respect to the main 
beam of, an FSS earth station.
    29. The Commission tentatively conclude that existing uplink 
transmissions from FSS earth stations in other bands could be used for 
this purpose. We reach this conclusion because the FSS stations that we 
seek to protect--whose operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band are used 
for downlink purposes--are also used for uplink (earth-to-space 
transmit) communications in the 5.85-5.925 GHz and 6.425-6.723 GHz 
bands. Therefore, we propose to require that unlicensed devices be 
designed with the ability to listen for an FSS uplink signal in these 
other bands in order to enable automatic EIRP adjustment. We further 
propose that, if the non-fixed device detects an uplink signal above a 
minimum power-switching detection threshold of -76 dBm referenced to a 
1-megahertz bandwidth (thus indicating close proximity to an earth 
station), then the non-fixed device would be prohibited from 
transmitting. For received uplink signals from -76 dBm to -79 dBm, the 
device would be limited to a maximum EIRP of 250 mW. For received 
uplink signals between -79 dBm and -82 dBm, the non-fixed device could 
operate at an EIRP of up to 500 mW. Finally, for received uplink 
signals at levels of -82 dBm or less, the non-fixed unlicensed devices 
would be permitted to operate at 1 Watt, provided such operation 
complies with applicable human exposure limits. We propose to define 
the power-switching detection threshold as the received signal strength 
(RSS) in dBm (or some other metric of received signal format), 
referenced to the output of a 0 dBi receive antenna. These power limits 
are captured in proposed Sec.  215.252(c)(2) in Appendix A.
    30. The received power levels are based upon a number of technical 
assumptions including that the maximum allowed EIRP of the unlicensed 
device would be uniformly spread over a 50 megahertz bandwidth. All of 
our assumptions are delineated in Appendix C of the NPRM. We seek 
comment on this approach and invite comment on whether the assumptions 
used in developing these power levels are appropriate to for providing 
protection to the FSS earth stations. For example, if the maximum 
allowed EIRP was assumed to be spread over less than a 50 megahertz 
bandwidth, how would such an assumption affect the tentative results we 
have obtained? We invite comment on the appropriateness and 
practicality of implementing this approach for non-fixed unlicensed 
devices.
    31. With respect to the receive bandwidth of the unlicensed device, 
we believe that no bandwidth correction factor would be required if the 
receive bandwidth of the non-fixed device is greater than 1 MHz. 
However, if the RSS is to be measured correctly by a non-fixed device 
having a receive bandwidth less than 1 MHz, then we propose that a 
bandwidth correction factor be taken into account. We seek comment on 
whether 10*Log (BW/1MHz) (where BW is the non-fixed device's bandwidth) 
should be used as the appropriate correction factor for non-fixed 
devices that have a bandwidth less than 1 MHz. Finally, we seek comment 
on what equipment authorization procedures should be required to verify 
compliance with these proposals. This proposal is most easily 
implemented if satellite uplinks in readily identified bands are 
operational at times where the FSS earth station is also in receive 
mode. We recognize that there may be no correlation between the 
transmit and receive frequencies of the earth stations and that some 
earth stations may be operating in a receive-only mode. We seek comment 
on the extent to which this scenario may exist, and possible approaches 
to apply in those cases.
    32. For systems, where multiple devices operate under a central 
controller, we propose that only the central controller be required to 
have the capability just described to detect the power-switching 
threshold and to convey appropriate commands to all devices under its 
control. We recognize that there may be devices or architectures 
developed, whereby remote devices are not under the control of a master 
device. We seek comment on requiring such devices to have power-
switching threshold detection capability. We also invite comment on how 
to identify remote units that operate only under the control of a 
central controller. If a device is to operate under the control of a 
central controller we invite comment on the maximum distance the 
unlicensed device should be allowed to be separated from the central 
controller and how to ensure that the remote device ceases 
transmissions when it exceed this maximum distance.

Issues Applicable to Fixed and Non-Fixed Operations

    33. Federal Government Facilities. We seek comment on whether the 
methods described for both fixed and non-fixed unlicensed devices would 
provide an effective means of protecting the three Federal Government 
radiolocation stations that operate in the 3650-3700 MHz on a primary 
basis. These stations, located at St. Inigoes, MD, Pascagoula, MS, and 
Pensacola, FL, were grandfathered as a condition of the transfer of the 
3650 MHz band to a mixed-use status. The rules require that FS and FSS 
stations located within 80 kilometers of each site coordinate with the 
Federal Government, but there is no coordination requirement for 
unlicensed devices. We observe that an unlicensed device could be 
designed to listen for transmissions from these facilities and to 
activate the capabilities of the device to modify its operations.
    34. Operation in Proximity to U.S. Borders. To provide sufficient 
protection to Canadian and Mexican stations operating in the 3650-3700 
MHz band that are located near the U.S. borders, we propose to require 
that fixed devices be located at least 8 kilometers from the U.S./
Canada or U.S./Mexico border if the antenna of the device looks within 
the 160[deg] sector away from the border and be located at least 56 
kilometers from each border if the device looks within the 200[deg] 
sector towards the border. This proposal is consistent with the 
treatment of licensed fixed stations in bands above 470 MHz along the 
U.S./Canada border. In addition, we point out that, even under these 
guidelines, operators of unlicensed devices may need to further reduce 
their power to protect FSS earth stations in Canada or Mexico. We 
believe that treating devices along the border in this manner would 
strike a balance between providing sufficient flexibility for 
unlicensed operations and the need to protect foreign stations. We seek 
comment on this proposal. We also invite suggestions for alternative 
approaches for treating unlicensed devices in the 3650-3700 MHz band 
along the U.S. borders.
    35. We tentatively conclude that no additional requirements are 
needed for non-fixed unlicensed devices to protect FSS earth stations 
that may be located in Mexico or Canada. The listen-before-talk, 
automatic power adjustment mechanism we have proposed for these devices 
should be sufficient to ensure that no Canadian or Mexican FSS earth 
stations licensed pursuant to the current

[[Page 26796]]

regulations will encounter interference. However, we seek comment on 
whether any special circumstances exist that might require non-fixed 
devices to incorporate other mechanisms to protect foreign FSS 
installations.
    36. Removal of Restriction on Unlicensed Operation in the 3650-3700 
MHz band. Unlicensed devices are currently restricted from operating in 
the 3650-3700 MHz band. Consequently, unlicensed devices are limited to 
only spurious emissions in this band. Historically, restricted bands 
were established to protect sensitive Federal Government and Non-
Federal Government operations, such as radio-astronomy, which rely on 
reception of extremely weak signals. However, as noted, the change in 
the allocation status of the 3650 MHz band from shared to mixed use 
provides an opportunity to reexamine that prohibition in this band. 
Because the proposed allocation changes set forth in the NPRM would 
limit licensed use of the 3650-3700 MHz band to relatively few FSS and 
Federal Government users and because no new Federal Government 
operations will be assigned in this band, we no longer believe that 
this band needs to remain restricted. In its comments, SIA states that 
it is opposed to permitting unlicensed devices to operate in the 3650-
3700 MHz band regardless of power level. It takes this position for 
several reasons, including lack of technical parameters for unlicensed 
devices and lack of knowledge of the potential number of unlicensed 
devices and their geographic orientation to FSS earth stations. We are 
not persuaded by SIA's argument because, as explained, it is feasible 
to develop operating rules for unlicensed devices in a manner that 
should address the in-band interference concerns raised by SIA. 
Accordingly, in order to accommodate new unlicensed use, we propose to 
revise Sec.  15.205(a) by removing the restricted designation from the 
3650-3700 MHz portion of the currently restricted 3600-4400 MHz band.
    37. Adjacent Band Emissions. In proposing to remove the restricted 
status of the 3650-3700 MHz band, we also recognize that it would be 
adjacent to frequency bands that will continue to be restricted. 
Therefore, in order to maintain the same degree of protection for 
adjacent band licensed operations that currently exist under the rules, 
we propose to require that new unlicensed operations in the 3650 MHz 
band limit emissions into the adjacent 3600-3650 MHz and 3700-4400 MHz 
bands to spurious emissions only (i.e., emissions with a maximum field 
strength of 500 microvolts/meter measured at 3 meters). A similar 
situation currently exists in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band which lies 
between the restricted bands 2310-2390 MHz below and 2483.5-2500 MHz 
above. Using spectrum-efficient system design and filtering, however, 
unlicensed devices are nevertheless capable of operating in this band 
at higher power levels than all other unlicensed devices. In a similar 
fashion, we believe that transmitters can be designed for the 3650-3700 
MHz band with sufficient filtering at the band edges to satisfy the 
emission limits in our rules. We seek comment on this proposal to limit 
emissions in the adjacent restricted bands.
    38. Device Identification Signaling. While we believe that the 
technical requirements proposed above for fixed and non-fixed 
unlicensed devices should be more than adequate to avoid interference 
to FSS earth stations in the first instance, we must also guard against 
any unforeseen instances when interference might nevertheless occur 
(e.g., when a new FSS earth station is installed, or when an existing 
earth station relocates). As an initial matter, we again emphasize 
that, pursuant to Sec.  15.5 of the rules, unlicensed devices are 
required to cease operation if found to be causing interference to any 
licensed service. In the event that interference might be caused, it 
could be difficult for the operator of a licensed station to identify 
and locate an unlicensed device that may be causing interference. 
Therefore, as a means of facilitating this identification, we propose 
to require all unlicensed devices to broadcast identification 
information at regular intervals.
    39. At a minimum, the transmitted data should consist of the 
contact information of the owner/operator of the device. In addition, 
information about the location of a fixed device could be included. 
Will this information be useful to FSS licensees? Commenters advocating 
an identification requirement should also provide detail regarding how 
often the identification signaling should be done and what other 
information would be useful. Would information such as the FCC ID 
number and transmitter serial number be helpful? We also seek comment 
on the need for, and effective methods to update the contact 
information when an unlicensed non-fixed device is sold or otherwise 
transferred to a new owner/operator after the initial sale of the 
device.
    40. We seek to ensure that any identification information embedded 
within the transmission of an unlicensed device can be easily 
extracted. Therefore, we seek comment on whether it is necessary to 
define an identification channel in which to place the data. Initially 
we propose to require the identification information to be confined to 
the 1 MHz portion of the band between 3650 MHz--3651 MHz segment of the 
band. We note that the proposed band segment for the identification 
lies adjacent to the newly re-designated 3600-3650 MHz restricted band. 
We reiterate that only spurious emissions are permitted in the 
restricted bands. Will unlicensed devices be able to effectively use 
the 3650-3651 MHz segment for identification purposes without 
transmitting unauthorized energy into the restricted band? 
Alternatively, the identification information can be transmitted as 
data packets interspersed among the unlicensed device communication 
data. Will FSS licensees be able to make use of such information and 
how often should it be transmitted? Finally, regardless of the method 
used to embed the identification data, we seek comment on whether there 
is a need to specify a modulation scheme and standardized data format 
so that the information may be successfully decoded.

Other Methodologies for Protecting FSS Earth Stations

    41. Finally, although we believe that the technical approach could 
be an effective approach for fostering efficient use of the 3650-3700 
MHz band by unlicensed devices, we seek comment on two other specific 
approaches, as well as on other approaches commenters may propose. 
Either of these approaches could be required, if we ultimately decide 
that our proposed approach is not practical, or potentially could be 
alternatives available to manufacturers of unlicensed devices for 
protecting FSS earth stations.
    42. Geo-location Option. A first alternative approach for 
protecting FSS earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band would be to use 
cognitive/smart unlicensed devices that know their current location and 
the location of nearby earth stations. We sought comment on that 
approach in the Unlicensed NOI, and a number of parties supported that 
approach. This approach would be based on a determination of reasonable 
distance separation standards for the operation of low-power non-fixed 
unlicensed devices in this band. For example, using known protection 
criteria for an FSS earth station, an unlicensed device could adjust 
its power based on its location relative to nearby FSS earth stations.

[[Page 26797]]

    43. This technical approach appears to be feasible. For example, 
IEEE 802.18 states that embedding GPS in unlicensed devices is 
technically feasible and could be used to limit the device so that it 
does not transmit when located in an area where interference to a 
satellite receive earth station is likely. We also recently noted that 
one of the benefits of cognitive radio would be the ability to 
determine its location and the location of other transmitters, and then 
select the appropriate operating parameters such as the power and 
frequency allowed at its location.
    44. One of the requirements of this approach is that we specify 
distance separations for protecting FSS earth stations. In its comments 
on the Unlicensed NOI, SIA submits a technical annex proposing 
calculated exclusion zones where unlicensed devices would not be able 
to operate. It argues that its analysis indicates a worst case 
exclusion zone of 416 km is needed for a 1 Watt EIRP unlicensed device 
to protect a satellite earth station. We find that SIA's methodology, 
while clearly deriving distances that would protect FSS earth stations, 
is overly conservative for the 1-Watt devices we are considering here. 
We also believe that the current guidelines in our rules for 
identifying when coordination is necessary are overly conservative for 
purposes of the NPRM. For instance, in comments filed in the 3650 MHz 
Service Rules Second NPRM, Comsearch stated that it has been able to 
coordinate stations at distances much less than otherwise thought 
necessary, and that in certain cases, earth stations have actually been 
located near the base of fixed service sites in the same band.
    45. We therefore seek comment on alternative methods for 
determining more accurate minimum separation distances for these low 
EIRP levels. Under the simplest approach, an unlicensed device need 
only estimate its distance from the earth station. While overprotecting 
the earth station when a device is behind the station's main lobe, it 
still would appear to allow operation over significant geographic areas 
of the United States. If a device could also estimate its orientation 
relative to the main lobe of the FSS antenna, we might reasonably 
determine lower distance separation requirements when a device is 
offset from the main lobe, thus granting additional operational 
flexibility in terms of geographic areas, but at the cost of added 
complexity. Ultimately, if there are no better methodologies for 
determining distance separation than those currently in the record, we 
could permit those approaches even though, compared with our preferred 
technical method, we believe that they overprotect FSS earth stations 
and thus needlessly limit the operational flexibility of unlicensed 
devices in this band.
    46. Unlicensed devices would need to protect not only existing FSS 
earth stations, but also any future earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz 
band. Thus, devices relying on geo-location must have a means to 
identify new FSS earth station locations, which should not occur very 
frequently. We seek comment regarding methods by which an unlicensed 
device would access a database of earth station sites and by which an 
updated database would be maintained. In addition, we seek comment on 
how often devices would need to update their databases in order to 
continue to be able to operate, as well as on the type of information 
that could or should be made available.
    47. We also note that it could be possible for an unlicensed device 
to lose contact with its geo-location reference signals under various 
circumstances. We seek comment on the protocols that should be followed 
when an unlicensed device using the geo-location option loses its 
location detecting capability, such as the period of time that the 
device could continue to operate before ceasing to transmit. It would 
appear to make sense to treat an unlicensed device 500 km away from the 
nearest earth when it lost its geo-location differently from one, for 
example, only 75 km away.
    48. Finally, we seek comment on whether a geo-location approach 
would be an effective means of protecting the three Federal Government 
radiolocation stations that operate in the 3659-3700 MHz band on a 
primary basis, as well as earth stations located in Canada and Mexico. 
As previously noted, the rules require that FS and FSS stations located 
within 80 kilometers of each site coordinate with the Federal 
Government. The locations of Canadian and Mexican earth stations 
presumably can be made readily available for use with a geo-location 
approach. Using the techniques described above, it would appear to be 
possible for unlicensed devices to maintain appropriate separation 
distances.
    49. Dedicated RF beacon signal. We also seek comment, although we 
see various difficulties spelled out, on whether an unlicensed device 
could make use of dedicated RF beacon signals emanating either directly 
from an FSS earth station or from another transmitter located in close 
proximity to an FSS earth station. Under this approach, unlicensed 
devices would be designed with cognitive capabilities to detect the 
absence, presence, or relative strength of the FSS pilot beacon at the 
location of the unlicensed device and make decisions about whether to 
transmit or what power levels would be appropriate to protect licensed 
FSS earth stations. In its simplest form, transmission by the 
unlicensed device would be enabled at permitted power levels only if no 
pilot beacon were detected. With a more sophisticated capability, an 
unlicensed device could detect not only the presence of a pilot beacon, 
but also the relative strength of the received pilot beacon or 
information in the data stream of the signal about the earth station's 
receive antenna type and/or orientation. A relatively weak, or absent, 
beacon signal would indicate that a higher EIRP could be used by the 
unlicensed device while, conversely, a relatively higher pilot beacon 
strength would require a corresponding reduction in EIRP.
    50. This approach would appear to require adoption of various 
standardized technical requirements to ensure that unlicensed devices 
could readily detect a beacon signal. Our analysis does indicate that a 
separate pilot beacon EIRP of between 1.5 Watts and 26.5 Watts would be 
sufficient to ensure that non-fixed unlicensed devices would be able to 
receive the beacon under any foreseeable circumstances where 
interference to FSS earth station could be a concern. We also think 
that a standard beacon EIRP might have to be specified, perhaps as well 
as standard format or information content, so that every earth station 
would present the same reference beacon signal strength at a given 
distance. We seek comment on any necessary technical parameters.
    51. We also seek comment on the important issue of a standardized 
frequency or frequencies for such beacon signals. Using a frequency 
within the 3650-3700 MHz band for a transmission emanating from a 
location at or close to an FSS earth station raises very significant 
technical questions about interference to FSS earth stations--
especially because this band is in the middle of a broader satellite 
receive band. If not a frequency within this band, what other 
frequencies might potentially be available that could provide the 
needed functionality without causing interference to existing 
licensees? If no such frequencies are available, it is not clear how 
this approach could be implemented.
    52. Also, especially compared with the previous two approaches, 
namely, professional installation of fixed devices and automatic EIRP 
adjustment for non-fixed unlicensed devices, this

[[Page 26798]]

methodology also raises questions about the costs and responsibilities 
for implementation. For example, with respect to responsibility for the 
operation of a beacon signal, it is not clear how the safeguard could 
be implemented by unlicensed device operators, so the burden would 
appear to fall on the FSS earth station licensee. The potentially 
significant costs raise questions about the equities of imposing them 
on existing licensees. There are also significant issues regarding 
whether and how those costs might be paid by unlicensed device 
operations.
    53. To allow FSS earth stations operating in this band, or other 
entities, to implement a separate beacon, we might need to modify 
footnote US348 of the Table of Allocations to include a secondary 
radiolocation allocation for this purpose. We also seek comment on such 
modification as well as on any necessary modifications to part 25 of 
the Commission's rules if we take this approach. Finally, we seek 
comment on how, under this approach, we should protect the three 
Federal Government radiolocation stations that operate in the 3650-3700 
MHz on a primary basis, as well as earth stations located in Canada or 
Mexico.

Options for Licensed Operations

    54. In order to ensure that we can consider all possible approaches 
for achieving our goals of maximizing efficient use of the 3650 MHz 
band and the provision of new and advanced service, we are also seeking 
comment on whether spectrum in this band should be designated for 
licensed use. If we decide to permit licensed use of the band, we will 
have to adopt appropriate allocation, technical and operational rules 
to govern such operations. Initially, however, we seek comment on the 
types of licensed services that might be implemented in the band, what 
kinds of technologies could be utilized to develop these services, how 
quickly these services could be developed, and where in the country 
these services might be implemented. Commenters should also discuss any 
technical, legal or economic advantages and costs associated with these 
service options.
    55. Fixed Service and Mobile Service Allocations. In addition to 
seeking comment on whether to maintain the band's current primary Fixed 
and Mobile allocations, we seek comment on whether to remove the mobile 
station restriction in the current Mobile allocation in this band. 
Since the Commission adopted the 3650 MHz Allocation Report & Order, 
great strides have been made in the development of smart/cognitive 
radio features that potentially could be used with licensed mobile 
handset operations to prevent interference with FSS operations. As a 
result, we seek comment on whether, if we adopt technical rules 
requiring use of smart/cognitive features, we should revise the 
existing Fixed and Mobile allocations to permit mobile stations to 
operate in the 3650 MHz band.
    56. We also seek comment on whether we should modify the FSS 
allocation if we retain the FS and MS allocations in the band. In the 
3650 MHz Allocation Report & Order, the Commission found that spectrum 
sharing between licensed terrestrial services and FSS operations on an 
unrestrained co-primary basis would not be feasible. As a result, the 
Commission decided to grandfather existing FSS earth station operations 
on a primary basis and to allow new FSS earth station operations only 
on a secondary basis to any FS/MS terrestrial stations. We seek comment 
on whether the use of smart/cognitive technologies by licensed services 
would make it technically feasible for new FSS operations to coexist 
with FS/MS services. Assuming such uses of the spectrum are found to be 
technically feasible, we request comment on whether FSS could be co-
primary with FS/MS and, if so, how this might be accomplished.
    57. Band Segmentation Between Licensed and Unlicensed Use and Band 
Pairing. If we adopt an option that permits terrestrial licensed 
operations, one way of allowing licensed fixed and mobile services, 
higher-powered unlicensed devices, and FSS earth stations to each have 
access to the 3650 MHz band would be to segment the band. For example, 
one segmentation option could be to divide the band into two 15-
megahertz segments and a 20-megahertz segment. The two 15-megahertz 
segments could be located at the bottom and the top of the band (i.e., 
3650-3665 MHz and 3685-3700 MHz), with the 20-megahertz segment 
situated in the middle of the band (i.e., 3665-3685 MHz). Under this 
option, higher-powered unlicensed operations would be restricted to the 
two 15-megahertz segments and fixed and mobile licensed operations to 
the 20-megahertz segment, and FSS earth station operations would have 
access to the entire band on a co-primary or secondary basis with 
licensed fixed and mobile operations. Licensed fixed and mobile 
operations would only have to coordinate with FSS earth stations 
operating on co-channel spectrum, and, because unlicensed devices 
operate on a non-interference basis, any FSS earth station would be 
protected from interference potentially caused by unlicensed devices.
    58. We seek comment on this segmentation option, as well as splits 
between unlicensed and licensed terrestrial users in other proportions. 
Another option, for instance, would be to establish a paired 20 
megahertz allocation of 3650-3660 MHz and 3690-3700 MHz for licensed 
terrestrial services while retaining 30 megahertz in the 3660-3690 MHz 
portion of the band for unlicensed operation. In addressing different 
band segmentation scenarios, commenters should discuss whether such 
scenarios would provide sufficient bandwidth to enable broadband voice 
or data services--on both the licensed and unlicensed segments. 
Commenters should also discuss the types of licensed services that 
might be provided if the licensed spectrum in the band is unpaired, 
e.g., TDD operations, and the amount of spectrum needed for such 
services.
    59. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether spectrum at 3650-3700 
MHz that is made available for licensed terrestrial operations could be 
paired with spectrum in other frequency bands, e.g., in the 2 GHz to 4 
GHz range, and if so, what kinds of services could be provided under 
this type of licensing scenario. We invite commenters to suggest 
possible band pairing options. Commenters should address whether, if 
the frequency bands suggested are relatively far from the 3650-3700 MHz 
band, it would be technically feasible to produce equipment (e.g., 
handsets) that could operate on both spectrum bands.
    60. Power Limits. If, under a licensing approach, we remove the 
current allocation restriction on the use of licensed mobile devices in 
the 3650 MHz band (i.e., base station only), licensed and unlicensed 
operations in the band could take on similar operational 
characteristics. We thus could require that licensed devices operating 
in the 3650 MHz band employ the same power limits as proposed above for 
unlicensed devices. Specifically, we could require that licensed non-
fixed devices operate at a maximum power level of 1 watt EIRP, and that 
licensed fixed devices operate at a maximum power level of 25 watts 
EIRP. By adopting the same power limit for licensed devices as proposed 
for unlicensed devices, we should not introduce any interference 
conditions, with respect to FSS operations, that would not be caused by 
unlicensed devices alone.
    61. We also seek comment on allowing higher power limits for 
licensed fixed stations operating in 3650 MHz band to enable greater 
coverage areas and transmission distances for such stations. Along with 
greater power

[[Page 26799]]

levels, of course, comes the concern about increased potential 
interference to FSS earth stations operating both within and above the 
3650-3700 MHz band. However, as discussed in the 3650 MHz Service Rules 
Second NPRM, we could adopt coordination zones surrounding co-channel 
FSS stations, within which any terrestrial station operator would have 
to coordinate with the FSS licensee. Because the size of a coordination 
zone would be a function of the power level of the fixed station, 
protection of co-channel FSS stations by high-powered licensed fixed 
stations would be accomplished simply by requiring larger coordination 
zones for such stations. In the 3650 MHz Service Rules Second NPRM, the 
Commission proposed a 1000-Watt EIRP limit for base and fixed stations. 
Such a power limit would create relatively large coordination zones, 
but would provide greater flexibility for licensees operating in the 
band. We therefore seek comment on the appropriate EIRP limit--e.g., 25 
Watts, 1000 Watts--for licensed base and fixed stations operating in 
the 3650-3700 MHz band.
    62. Adjacent Band Emissions. If we decide to permit licensed 
systems to operate in the 3650 MHz band, we would also have to decide 
how such systems would protect services operating in adjacent bands. In 
the 3650 MHz Service Rules Second NPRM, we proposed that, in order to 
protect FSS operations in the 3700-4200 MHz band from interference, 
terrestrial stations operating in the 3650-3700 MHz band would have to 
comply with the part 101 emission limits already in place to protect 
such FSS systems from licensed fixed stations operating in the 3700-
4200 MHz band. With our proposal to provide for unlicensed use of the 
3650 MHz band, we seek updated comment on what interference criteria 
might be used to protect adjacent band services from licensed systems 
operating in the 3650 MHz band. For example, should we require that 
licensed non-fixed devices comply with the field strength limit 
described above for unlicensed devices; should we require that licensed 
fixed stations comply with a particular field strength limit or satisfy 
the adjacent band protection criteria proposed in the 3650 MHz Service 
Rules Second NPRM?
    63. Protection of FSS Operations. If we ultimately adopt a 
regulatory approach that permits licensed operations in this band, we 
believe that it would be appropriate to require that licensed devices 
employ the same measures to protect FSS operations as proposed above 
for unlicensed devices. We seek comment on whether these measures (or 
any of the additional measures proposed above to enable unlicensed 
devices to protect FSS stations--e.g., the geo-location method, the RF 
beacon method) could or should be applied to licensed devices as a 
means of protecting Government radiolocation stations, non-Government 
FSS stations, and Canadian and Mexican stations operating near U.S. 
borders, or whether, for any reason, other measures (such as applying 
our present interservice coordination rules) might be more appropriate.
    64. Geographic Area Licensing. If we ultimately decide to permit 
licensed operations in this band, we would need to adopt a licensing 
approach for such operations. In the 3650 MHz Service Rules Second 
NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded to license the 3650 MHz band 
using geographic area licensing and sought comment on what sized 
licensing area or areas should be utilized to license this spectrum and 
whether nationwide licensing would be appropriate. Similarly, the 
Commission sought comment on spectrum block size or sizes and whether 
the band should be licensed using a 50-megahertz license. The 
Commission also sought comment on a range of issues concerning possible 
competitive bidding procedures. We seek updated comment from interested 
parties in all these areas.
    65. We thus ask interested parties to refresh the record on whether 
we should license this band using geographic licensing, as well as on 
particular geographic licensing approaches. As opposed to site-by-site 
licensing, geographic licensing may permit licensees more flexibility 
to respond to market demand and may result in significant improvements 
in spectrum utilization. In particular, geographic licensing allows 
licensees to coordinate usage across an entire geographic area to 
maximize the use of spectrum in areas of highest demand. Geographic 
licenses also provide the flexibility to dynamically adjust spectrum 
usage depending upon market demands. We note that one option for this 
band would be one nationwide license. Under this approach, there would 
only be one fixed and mobile services license available for this band 
which would give the terrestrial licensee greater flexibility in 
building-out its services. We seek comment on whether it would be 
appropriate to have one nationwide fixed and mobile services license 
for this band. We also seek comment on the competitive bidding 
procedures that should be used in the event that mutually exclusive 
applications are accepted, and whether the procedures proposed in the 
3650 Service Rules Second NPRM would be appropriate for the services 
that are contemplated to be introduced in this band.
    66. Spectrum Leasing. Additionally, we seek comment on whether 
fixed and mobile service licensees in the 3650 MHz band should be able 
to lease their spectrum through the policies established in the 
Secondary Markets Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Secondary Markets Report and Order and Secondary Markets 
Further NPRM, respectively). In the Secondary Markets Report and Order, 
we took action to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to the 
development of secondary markets to permit third parties to access 
spectrum through spectrum leasing arrangements. We adopted new policies 
and procedures that enable most wireless licensees to lease some or all 
of their spectrum usage rights to third-party spectrum lessees. Under 
these rules, the Commission is notified of the spectrum leasing 
arrangements (either through a spectrum manager lease notification or a 
de facto transfer lease application). We tentatively conclude that if 
we adopt licensing rules for this band, our spectrum leasing adopted in 
the Secondary Markets Order would apply. In addition, the Secondary 
Market Further NPRM proposed additional ways to facilitate third party 
access to spectrum through spectrum leasing arrangements, including 
further streamlining of the notification requirements, and creating 
leasing mechanisms to facilitate access by opportunistic devices with 
cognitive radio capability. We seek comment on whether adoption of some 
of the proposals in the Secondary Markets Further NPRM, or other 
revisions in the spectrum leasing policies would help optimize the use 
of the 3650 MHz band.
    67. Third-Party Access to Licensed Spectrum Under A ``Band 
Manager'' Approach. We also wish parties to update the record on 
whether, if we adopt licensing rules for this band, we should allow 
third parties access to spectrum in the 3650 MHz band through a ``band 
manager'' licensing model, either as a complement or alternative to the 
spectrum leasing approach adopted under the Secondary Markets Report 
and Order. In the 3650 MHz Service Rules Second NPRM, the Commission 
sought comment on whether the use of band manager licensing would be 
appropriate for the 3650 MHz band. As envisioned by that Commission, 
the band manager would be a Commission licensee that could engage in 
the business of making spectrum available to third-party spectrum users 
through private, written contracts. The

[[Page 26800]]

Commission specifically sought comment on whether the fixed and mobile 
services licensee should have the option of electing to operate as a 
band manager, a traditional licensee (with the right to enter into 
spectrum leasing arrangements), or both to the extent they serve to 
complement each other.
    68. Under this band manager approach, the fixed and mobile services 
licensee would essentially act as a ``spectrum broker'' and as spectrum 
use coordinator. As a spectrum broker, the licensee would have the 
ability to lease discrete spectrum usage rights to different third 
party spectrum users through private, contractual agreements, without 
having to secure prior approval by the Commission and without having to 
notify the Commission of every lease. As a spectrum use coordinator, 
the licensee would have the flexibility to lease and coordinate 
different spectrum rights, including different power levels and other 
technical parameters, to various spectrum users. We seek comment on 
whether a licensing framework utilizing the concept of band manager 
would optimize use of the 3650 MHz band by providing continued 
protection for incumbents as well as maximum flexibility for the 
potential fixed and mobile services licensee and for the creation of 
new and advanced services. Under this approach, the licensee, subject 
to the technical rules that we adopt, would decide how to maximize 
efficient use of the spectrum and coordination issues would be managed 
by the licensee through private contracts. In addition, the licensee 
would be directly responsible to the Commission for preventing harmful 
interference among the different users in the band, including the FSS 
licensees, as well as licensees in other bands. We also seek comment on 
any potential disadvantages of this type of a band manager approach, 
especially related to the interference risks of any particular features 
of the spectrum in question.
    69. If we choose to allow the fixed and mobile services licensee to 
act as a band manager, the licensee would be subject to any band 
manager service rules that we adopt. We seek comment on whether our 
spectrum management policies would be enhanced by permitting the 
licensee the flexibility to use its spectrum internally or provide 
telecommunications services, in addition to leasing it. If we were to 
permit such flexibility, should we also implement safeguards to ensure 
that a band manager's core function remains focused on leasing to 
other, third party spectrum users; and if so, how? Also, if the fixed 
and mobile services licensee choices to be a band manager, should the 
licensee have the ability to use the spectrum directly and construct 
its own facilities? In other words, should we limit the concept of a 
band manager to non-facilities-based operations so the licensee would 
only be engaged in the business of leasing spectrum? We also seek 
comment on whether it is necessary to provide additional safeguards to 
prevent a band manager from discriminating among spectrum users.
    70. We also request comment on the type of information to be 
included in agreements between a band manager and spectrum users if we 
adopt band manager licensing. We seek comment on whether the 
requirements the Commission established for agreements between Guard 
Band Managers and spectrum users in part 27 of our rules would be 
appropriate. For example, under part 27 of our rules, agreements 
between the Guard Band Manager and spectrum user(s) in the 700 MHz band 
must specify in detail the operating parameters of the proposed systems 
including power, antenna height, frequency(s) of operation, base 
station locations and area of operations.
    71. We also seek comment on whether we should require the fixed and 
mobile services licensee if it choose to be a band manager to file 
annual reports on its spectrum usage with the Commission. We seek 
comment on whether such agreements should ensure that the licensee is 
responsible for violations of rules by users of the spectrum assigned 
to them, and whether the licensee must provide the Commission with 
information on users to allow the Commission to limit interference and 
enforce our rules.
    72. Site-By-Site Licensing. If we license fixed and mobile services 
in the 3650 MHz band, another licensing approach would be to use site-
by-site licensing. One advantage to a site-by-site licensing option, 
might be that this licensing scheme allows access to the spectrum and 
entry into the market at a relatively low upfront cost. Under this 
licensing scheme, we could employ several methods. One method would be 
an exclusive use approach. Under this approach the first licensee to 
acquire a license is guaranteed to have its operations protected from 
interference from other later in time licensees. However, if the 
licensee wished to add more sites, it would have to acquire a new 
license for each additional site. We could also use frequency 
coordinators similar to those for certain microwave services. Under 
this approach, a frequency coordinator would decide whether 
interference will be caused by another entity's facilities being 
located near an existing licensee's facilities. If the frequency 
coordinator determines that the second entity's facilities will not 
cause interference to an existing licensee's operations, then the 
second entity would be able to acquire a license for its facilities.
    73. Another method would be a coordinated shared use approach. This 
approach would utilize a frequency coordinator similar to those for the 
shared private land mobile radio (PLMR) frequencies to determine where 
licensees can locate their facilities. These coordinators do not seek 
to achieve interference-free operations. By definition, with a 
coordinated shared use approach, we can have multiple licensees 
operating on the same frequencies in the same geographic areas without 
having exclusive spectrum usage rights and interference protections. 
Coordinators could perform the function, for an applicant, of choosing 
the best frequency(s) available in the service for which the applicant 
is applying at a particular site. They can do this by trying to match 
compatible operations, both in terms of the nature of the operations 
and the number of base stations and associated mobiles already on 
frequencies in the area, as well as proposed.
    74. Other Issues. Finally, we seek comment on any other issues that 
might arise in the event that fixed and mobile services are allowed in 
the 3650-3700 MHz band along with unlicensed devices and FSS 
operations.
    75. In sum, we seek comment on our proposal to allow unlicensed 
operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band as well as comment on the specific 
technical options described above. We request that commenters provide 
detailed information regarding the potential benefits and problems that 
might result from the use of these technical options--either alone, in 
tandem, or in combination with the other approaches on which we are 
seeking comment.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    76. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA),\1\ the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making

[[Page 26801]]

(NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments 
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided in paragraph 62 of the 
NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).\2\ In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, See 5 U.S.C. 601 has been amended 
by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, ), Public Law 
104-112, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)(CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
    \2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \3\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    77. The 3650-3700 MHz band is a ``transfer'' band that the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) reallocated 
from Government/non-Government shared use status to mixed use status 
effective 1993.\4\ Prior to the transfer, the non-government use of the 
band was limited to international, intercontinental Fixed Satellite 
Service (FSS) receive stations.\5\ A condition of the transfer allows 
Government radiolocation stations to continue to operate indefinitely 
in the 3650--3700 MHz band at three locations with a ``radius of 
operation'' of 80 kilometers (49.7 miles).\6\ In reallocating this 
spectrum, we sought to maximize the use of the band, and particularly 
to facilitate the provision of a broad range of traditional voice and 
broadband high-speed services, and to foster the introduction of such 
service to rural areas of the country.\7\ We expected this allocation 
to encourage new and more effective competition to existing wireline 
local exchange carriers by providing for an economical means to offer 
competitive ``local loop'' or ``last mile'' facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Spectrum Reallocation Final Report, Response to Title 
VI--Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, NTIA Special 
Publication 95-312, released February 1995. Shared use means that a 
band of frequencies is generally available for both government and 
non-government use. See 47 CFR 2.105(b). Mixed use means that 
government use is limited by geographic area, by time or by other 
means so as to guarantee that the potential use by government 
stations is substantially less than the potential use to be made by 
non-government stations. See 113(b)(2)(B) of OBRA-93. See 47 U.S.C. 
923(b)(2)(B).
    \5\ See Second Report and Order in Gen. Docket No. 80-739 
(Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules Regarding 
Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Administrative Radio 
Conference, Geneva, 1979), 49 FR 2357 (January 19, 1984).
    \6\ The three locations are Pascagoula, Mississippi; Pensacola, 
Florida; and Saint Inigoes, Maryland. Any unlicensed operations in 
the 3650-3700 MHz band would be required to protect Federal 
Government operations at these locations.
    \7\ We also noted and here reiterate our statutory mandate to 
provide for the deployment of advanced telecommunications services 
and technologies to all Americans. See Public Law 104-104, Title 
VII, 706, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 153 (Section 706); 47 U.S.C. 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. On December 20, 2002, the Commission released a Notice of 
Inquiry (NOI) in ET Docket No. 02-380 seeking comment from the public 
on the possibility of permitting unlicensed devices to operate in 
additional frequency bands.\8\ Specifically, the NOI sought comment 
with regard to the feasibility of allowing unlicensed devices to 
operate in TV broadcast spectrum and the technical requirements that 
would permit unlicensed devices to operate in that spectrum such that 
the devices do not cause interference to authorized services. 
Additionally, the NOI sought comment on the feasibility of permitting 
unlicensed devices to operate in the 3650-3700 MHz band at power levels 
higher than those permitted for unlicensed devices in other bands. 
Seventy-five parties filed comments and twenty-six parties filed reply 
comments in response to the NOI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Inquiry in ET Docket No. 03-280, 17 FCC Rcd 
25632 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Legal Basis

    80. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 301, 
302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 
304 and 307.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    81. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\9\ The RFA defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small business concern'' 
under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.\10\ Under the Small Business 
Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and 
(3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \10\ Id. 601(3).
    \11\ Id. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    82. A small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' \12\ Nationwide, as of 1992, there were 
approximately 275,801 small organizations.\13\ The term ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' \14\ As of 
1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the 
United States.\15\ This number includes 39,044 counties, municipal 
governments, and townships, of which 27,546 have populations of fewer 
than 50,000 and 11,498 counties, municipal governments, and townships 
have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate that the number 
of small governmental jurisdictions is approximately 75,955 or fewer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
    \13\ See 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 
6 (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy 
of the U.S. Small Business Administration).
    \14\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \15\ See 1995 Census of Governments, U.S. Census Bureau, United 
States Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United 
States (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    83. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities 
applicable to unlicensed communications devices manufacturers. 
Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition application to 
manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications 
Equipment. Under the SBA's regulations, a radio and television 
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturer must 
have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business 
concern.\16\ Census Bureau data indicates that there are 1,215 U.S. 
establishments that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and 
wireless communications equipment, and that

[[Page 26802]]

1,150 of these establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would 
be classified as small entities.\17\ The remaining 65 establishments 
have 500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how 
many of those have fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify 
as small entities under the SBA definition. We therefore conclude that 
there are no more than 1,150 small manufacturers of radio and 
television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
    \17\ See Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of 
Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry 
Series--Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting and 
Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9 
(1999). The amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number 
of small business firms because the relevant Census categories 
stopped at 499 employees and began at 500 employees. No category for 
750 employees existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is 
possible to calculate with the available information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    84. Part 15 transmitters are already required to be authorized 
under the Commission's certification procedure as a prerequisite to 
marketing and importation. See 47 CFR 15.101, 15.201, 15.305, and 
15.405. The changes proposed in this proceeding would not change any of 
the current reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Further, the 
proposed regulations add permissible operating frequencies. The 
proposals would not require the modification of any existing 
procedures.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    85. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives: (1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    86. At this time, the Commission does not believe the proposals 
contained in this NPRM will have a significant economic impact on small 
entities. The NPRM does not propose new device design standards. 
Instead, it relaxes the rules with respect to the types of devices 
which are allowed to operate pursuant to the Commission's regulations. 
There is no burden of compliance with the proposed changes. 
Manufacturers may continue to produce devices which comply with the 
former rules and, if desired, design devices to comply with the new 
regulations. The proposed rules will apply equally to large and small 
entities. Therefore, there is no inequitable impact on small entities. 
Finally, this NPRM does not recommend a deadline for implementation. We 
believe that the proposals are relatively simple and do not require a 
transition period to implement. An entity desiring to take advantage of 
the relaxed regulations may do so at any time.
    87. Unless our views are altered by comments, we find that the 
proposed rule changes contained in this Notice will not present a 
significant economic burden to small entities. Therefore it is not 
necessary at this time to propose alternative rules. Notwithstanding 
our finding, we request comment on alternatives that might minimize the 
amount of adverse economic impact, if any, on small entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    88. None.

Ordering Clauses

    89. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 302, 
303(c), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 154(i), 302, 303(c), 303(f), and 303(r) 
this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted.
    90. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this NPRM, including 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

    Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rule Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 15 as follows:

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

    1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544a.

    2. Section 15.205 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  15.205  Restricted bands of operation.

    (a) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            MHz                          MHz                          MHz                         GHz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.090-0.110                  16.42-16.423                 399.9-410                   4.5-5.15
\1\ 0.495-0.505              16.69475-16.69525            608-614                     5.35-5.46
2.1735-2.1905                16.80425-16.80475            960-1240                    7.25-7.75
4.125-4.128                  25.5-25.67                   1300-1427                   8.025-8.5
4.17725-4.17775              37.5-38.25                   1435-1626.5                 9.0-9.2
4.20725-4.20775              73-74.6                      1645.5-1646.5               9.3-9.5
6.215-6.218                  74.8-75.2                    1660-1710                   10.6-12.7
6.26775-6.26825              108-121.94                   1718.8-1722.2               13.25-13.4
6.31175-6.31225              123-138                      2200-2300                   14.47-14.5
8.291-8.294                  149.9-150.05                 2310-2390                   15.35-16.2
8.362-8.366                  156.52475-                   2483.5-2500                 17.7-21.4
8.37625-8.38675              156.52525                    2655-2900                   22.01-23.12
8.41425-8.41475              156.7-156.9                  3260-3267                   23.6-24.0
12.29-12.293                 162.0125-167.17              3332-3339                   31.2-31.8
12.51975-12.52025            167.72-173.2                 3345.8-3358                 36.43-36.5
12.57675-12.57725            240-285                      3600-3650                   (\2\)

[[Page 26803]]

 
13.36-13.41                  322-335.4                    3700-4400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Until February 1, 1999, this restricted band shall be 0.490-0.510 MHz.
\2\ Above 38.6.

* * * * *
    3. Section 15.252 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  15.252  Operation within the band 3.65-3.70 GHz.

    (a) Fixed and non-fixed unlicensed devices in this band must be 
operated in a manner so as not to cause harmful interference to 
licensed fixed satellite service (FSS) earth stations authorized to 
receive signals in the 3650-3700 MHz band.
    (b) Fixed devices. Fixed devices must be installed by a recognized 
professional installer. The installer shall ensure that the operation 
of the fixed device complies with the following requirements.
    (1) The maximum peak effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) 
shall not exceed 25 Watts. The fixed device may employ an advanced 
antenna system capable of dynamically modifying the system radiation 
pattern. The EIRP of the fixed device must be reduced to levels which 
will not cause interference to existing licensed FSS earth stations.
    (2) No fixed unlicensed device shall operate within the sector of a 
circle around a licensed FSS earth station defined by an arc  15[deg] on either side of the FSS earth station antenna 
boresight and a 180 km radius. Outside of this sector, no fixed device 
shall operate within 25 km of a licensed FSS earth station.
    (c) Non-fixed devices. The maximum peak EIRP of non-fixed devices 
shall not exceed 1 Watt.
    (1) The non-fixed device shall employ active interference avoidance 
mechanisms to detect FSS earth station uplink signals in the bands 
5.85-5.925 GHz and 6.425-6.723 GHz.
    (2) The non-fixed device shall reduce peak EIRP below 1 Watt in 
accordance with the receive signal level (RSS) as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlicensed device receive signal strength
                  (RSS)                         Maximum allowed EIRP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSS > -76 dBm............................  (not allowed)
-76 dBm >= RSS > -79 dBm.................  250 mW
-79 dBm >= RSS > -82 dBm.................  500 mW
-82 dBm >= RSS...........................  1 Watt
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) For systems having multiple devices operating under a central 
controller, only the central controller is required to detect FSS earth 
station uplink signals. The central controller must instruct all 
devices under its control to reduce transmit EIRP in accordance with 
the RSS and paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (d) No device in this band shall be operated within 80 kilometers 
of the three authorized Government radiolocation stations. See Sec.  
2.106, Footnote US348, of this chapter.
    (e) Operation in Border areas. Fixed devices must be located at 
least 8 kilometers from the U.S./Canada or U.S./Mexico border if the 
antenna of that device looks within the 160[deg] sector away for the 
border. The devices must be located at least 56 kilometers from each 
border if the antenna looks within the 200[deg] sector towards the 
border.
    (f) Within any one second interval of signal transmission, each 
unlicensed device must transmit a transmitter identification at least 
once. The identification must be confined to the 3650-3651 MHz portion 
of the band. Each application for equipment authorization must declare 
that the equipment contains the required transmitter identification 
feature and must specify a method whereby interested parties can obtain 
sufficient information, at no cost, to enable them to fully detect and 
decode this transmitter identification information. Upon the completion 
of decoding, the transmitter identification data block must provide the 
following fields.
    (1) User/owner contact information.
    (2) Current physical location of the unlicensed device.
    The grantee must implement a method that makes it possible for 
users to specify and update this data.

[FR Doc. 04-11007 Filed 5-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P