[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 18, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28463-28467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9933]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 90

[WT Docket No. 00-32; FCC 04-265]


The 4.9 GHz Band Transferred From Federal Government Use

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document the Commission considers a petition for 
reconsideration filed on July 30, 2003, by the National Public Safety 
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC). NPSTC requests the Commission to 
reconsider certain technical rules in which the Commission adopted 
licensing and service rules for the 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) band. The 
Commission endeavors to provide 4.9 GHz band licensees with the maximum 
operational flexibility practicable and to encourage effective and 
efficient utilization of the spectrum. The document makes significant 
strides towards ensuring that agencies involved in the protection of 
life and property possess the communications resources needed to 
successfully carry out their mission.

DATES: Effective July 18, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Maguire, [email protected], Public 
Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0680, or TTY (202) 418-7233.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal 
Communications Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 04-265, 
adopted on November 9, 2004, and released on November 12, 2004. The 
full text of this document is available for inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased 
from the FCC's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also 
be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available 
to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-
7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365 or at [email protected].
    1. The 4.9 GHz band was transferred from Federal Government to non-
Federal Government use in 1999, in accordance with the provisions of 
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. In 2000, the Commission released 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR 14230, March 16, 2000) proposing 
to allocate the 4.9 GHz band to non-Government fixed and mobile 
services, and to allow flexible use of this band. In 2002, the 
Commission adopted the fixed and mobile allocation, designated the band 
for use in support of public safety, and sought comment on the 
establishment of licensing and service rules for the 4.9 GHz band. In 
the Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted service rules for 
use of this band and addressed petitions for reconsideration of its 
decision to prohibit aeronautical mobile operations in this band.
    2. The current NPSTC petition urges us to adopt two different 
emission masks, one mask for low power operations, the other for high 
power operations. NPSTC also proposes a technology standard for general 
and interoperability use in the 4.9 GHz band, and seeks mandatory 
regional planning and the inclusion of a conflict resolution process in 
regional plans. We received comments on the NPSTC proposals from 
equipment manufacturers, standards organizations, public safety 
licensees and others.

[[Page 28464]]

    3. In the Second Report and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (67 FR 17038 April 9, 2002), the Commission sought comment 
on whether technical standards should be adopted for the 4.9 GHz band, 
and, if so, what standards would be appropriate. The Commission then 
adopted a flexible band plan suited to emerging broadband technologies 
that could enhance public safety operations. It also adopted an 
emission mask to minimize out-of-band emissions that could result in 
interference between 4.9 GHz devices. This mask, currently incorporated 
into Sec.  90.210 of the rules, is referred to herein as the Section 
90.210 Mask. The parameters of this mask were derived from 
recommendations from the two parties commenting on the emission mask, 
Motorola, Inc. (Motorola) and the Association of Public-Safety 
Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO).
    4. In the instant Petition, NPSTC submits that the Section 94.210 
Mask is unnecessarily restrictive and would add significantly to the 
cost of 4.9 GHz equipment, thereby potentially delaying public safety's 
use of the band. It argues that public safety must leverage currently 
available (i.e., ``commercial-off-the-shelf'' (COTS)) technologies used 
in adjacent bands, such as the 5.4. GHz Unlicensed National Information 
Infrastructure (U-NII) unlicensed band and the intelligent 
Transportation System (ITS) band, NPSTC indicates that the current mask 
would prohibit any significant transfer of technology from the 
equipment used in these bands. For example, NPSTC contends that the 
more restrictive mask would hamper the ability of 4.9 GHz equipment to 
use chipsets employed in equipment designed for the U-NII or ITS bands.
    5. As a substitute for the Section 90.210 Mask, NPSTC recommends 
that the Commission adopt the DSRC-A and DSRC-C masks applicable to ITS 
equipment. It proposes the DSRC-A mask for low power 4.9 GHz devices 
with transmitter output power of 20 dBm or less, and recommends the 
DSRC-C mask for higher power 4.9 GHz devices with transmitter power 
output greater than 20 dBm. It also contends that adoption of these 
emission masks could enable manufacture of devices that could operate 
in the 4.9 GHz band, the ITS band and the U-NII band, thus providing 
the public safety community access to these bands using a single, low-
cost device.
    6. In its comments, PacketHop, Inc. (PacketHop), a supplier of 
mobile broadband ad hoc networking and applications for public safety, 
states that adopting NPSTC's recommendations would create incentives 
for IEEE 802.11 manufacturers to leverage their current technical 
skills and manufacturing techniques to develop new, low cost, reliable 
devices built to a nationwide uniform technical standard. These 
devices, PacketHop claims, would give the public safety community 
access to affordable and interoperable equipment. The IEEE 802.18 Group 
submits that the mask identified in the amended rules 90.210(l), 47 CFR 
90.210 will explicitly preclude the use of widely available equipment 
compliant with IEEE 802.11a standards and that to meet the mask as 
currently specified would require the redesign of existing chipsets and 
equipment specifically for use in this band, creating a niche market 
that will result in much higher equipment costs with virtually no 
benefit to the Public Safety community. It further indicates that the 
use of the IEEE 802.11a channel mask [which is identical to the DSRC-A 
mask] will have minimal effect on in-band interference between channels 
and will permit the use of IEEE 802.11a compliant equipment.
    7. Motorola initially favored the use of the DSRC-C mask at power 
levels of 0 dBm, or more, indicating that there are relatively 
straightforward and inexpensive ways to meet standards such as the 
Section 90.210 Mask and the DSRC-C mask, while still being able to take 
advantage of COTS technology. It offered simulations purporting to show 
that use of the DSRC-A mask at power levels up to 20 dBm would result 
in excessive interference when multiple 4.9 GHz devices are used at the 
site of an incident. Later, however, Motorola reached a consensus with 
NPSTC that the DSRC-A and DSRC-C masks were a reasonable regulatory 
substitute for the Section 90.210 Mask, and that the DSRC-A mask should 
be used for low power devices while the more restrictive DSRC-C mask 
should be used for high power devices. However, NPSTC and Motorola 
reached no consensus on the definition of ``high power'' and ``low 
power'' in this context. Motorola argued that devices using powers 
greater than 8 dBm should be classified as high power, whereas NPSTC 
maintained that devices should be classified as ``low power'' if they 
employed powers of 20 dBm or less.
    8. Ultimately, on September 10, 2004, NPSTC filed an ex parte 
document that included a set of recommended rules that put the ``high 
power'' breakpoint at 20 dBm. On the next business day, Motorola filed 
an ex parte letter stating that while it continued to believe that an 8 
dBm breakpoint was more appropriate, ``Motorola and NPSTC concur on the 
rules needed if a 20 dBm breakpoint is used.''
    9. We recognize that benefits would accrue to public safety 
agencies if they could use 4.9 GHz devices adapted from COTS 
technologies in nearby bands. In particular, leveraging such 
technologies could result in savings for state and local governments 
and provide the potential for deployment of dual-band devices that make 
Internet access available via the U-NII band adjacent to the 4.9 GHz 
band. We are persuaded by the comments submitted that we may safely 
adopt the DSRC-A and DSRC-C masks in lieu of the Section 90.210 Mask 
currently in our Rules, and, therefore, will not burden public safety 
agencies with unnecessary costs for 4.9 GHz devices.
    10. We are encouraged that Motorola and NPSTC reached consensus on 
the rules proposed by NPSTC. However, after review of the submissions 
by all parties, we believe that 20 dBm is, in fact, the appropriate 
breakpoint. This power level strikes a reasonable balance between 
interference avoidance and 4.9 GHz equipment affordability.
    11. Our decision to adopt a 20 dBm breakpoint is also grounded on 
the fact that even consumer equipment in this frequency range is 
relatively tolerant of interference. The DSRC-A mask is identical to 
the mask defined in the widely-used 802.11 ``Wi-Fi'' standard for 
equipment used for in-home wireless LANs and found in consumer 
``hotspots'' in businesses ranging from coffee shops to airports. The 
adjacent channel rejection (ACR) of an 802.11 receiver, using 
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), is defined by data 
throughput as a function of the level of adjacent channel interference. 
For example, an 802.11 receiver can sustain data throughput of 48 
Mbits/s in the presence of an equal-power adjacent channel signal and a 
throughput of 6 Mbits/s when the adjacent channel signal is 16 dB 
higher. Thus, adjacent channel interference in these systems is a 
``graceful degradation'' of data throughput, although loss of service 
can eventually result at higher levels of adjacent channel 
interference. Moreover, the potential for interference can be 
anticipated and taken into account in the placement of 4.9 GHz devices 
at the scene of an incident.
    12. In assessing the proper breakpoint for requiring the more 
restrictive emission mask, we were mindful that, although 4.9 GHz 
equipment operating at power levels of 8 dBm or less may be adequate 
for consumer applications, the reliability requirements of public 
safety

[[Page 28465]]

communications favor higher power levels, especially given propagation 
characteristics at these frequencies. Accordingly, were we to preclude 
use of higher power on affordable units using the DSRC-A mask, such 
devices could have so few applications that they might be unattractive 
to public safety agencies, which then would have to resort to 
specialized higher power units employing the DSRC-C mask--if they could 
afford such units. By comparison, allowing the DSRC-A mask to be used 
for low-cost 4.9 GHz devices at power levels up to 20 dBm would provide 
enhanced reliability--notably when obstructions are present between 
devices--albeit with the possibility of some degradation in throughput 
if multiple systems are operated on adjacent channels in close 
proximity to one another. In sum, technical, economic and operational 
considerations have informed our decision that the DSRC-A mask should 
be permitted for power levels of 20 dBm and less, and that the DSRC-C 
mask should apply to all power levels in excess of 20 dBm.
    13. NPSTC contends that technology standards are necessary to 
provide roaming capability and requests us to develop a ``clear path'' 
toward identification and adoption of a technology standard for general 
and interoperability use within the 4.9 GHz band. NPSTC believes a 
standard could be developed within the next eighteen months and that, 
once the standard is established, users should be given approximately 
three years, to migrate to the standard.
    14. In the Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on the adoption of two widely 
contemplated broadband standards available for wireless: LAN-IEEE 
standard 802.11a, and European Telecommunications Standardization 
Institute (ETSI) Broadband Radio Access Network (BRAN) High Performance 
Local Area Network number two (HiperLAN2). In the comments, some 
parties recommended the adoption of the 802.11a standard because of its 
utility for mobile applications, and others urged adoption of a 
flexible band plan that would accommodate other emerging broadband 
technologies. Previously, the Commission found that considerations of 
minimal regulation and licensee flexibility outweighed any benefits 
that adoption of a single standard would confer. It thus declined to 
adopt technology standards and stated that potential interference 
between devices using different standards could be minimized if 
licensees cooperated in the selection and use of channels. NPSTC asks 
us to revisit that determination because, they maintain, differing 
technologies operating at the same site could generate interference 
that could disrupt communications. NPSTC believes this interference 
could be avoided by use of Internet Protocol-based (IP) applications 
that would allow users to ``roam seamlessly across infrastructures 
(their own and others), with their traffic routed appropriately to its 
destination across an Internet-type backbone.''
    15. We belive that there is an insufficient record to justify 
adoption of technical standards that would provide interoperability in 
the 4.9 GHz band. Moreover, the band is likely to be used for a variety 
of services that do not readily lend themselves to standardization or 
interoperability. Thus, for example, users may consider a fixed video 
camera and a mobile data terminal as distinctly separate applications 
without a need to interoperate: The video camera cannot display data 
and the mobile data terminal would not normally be used to display 
video from the camera. Also, were we to adopt a standard, it likely 
would cement the 4.9 GHz band in 2004 technology such that public 
safety would be denied the benefits of emerging broadband technologies. 
Finally, even were a standard realizable in eighteen months, as NPSTC 
suggests, we see no point in depriving the public safety community the 
use of the 4.9 GHz band in the interim in the hope that a useful 
standard could be adopted by that time. We therefore reaffirm our 
determination in the Third Report and Order that interoperability 
technical standards for the 4.9 GHz band would be counterproductive.
    16. NPSTC supports mandatory regional planning and the inclusion of 
a conflict resolution process in regional plans. We disagree and 
reaffirm our decision in the Third Report and Order. Our primary 
rationale for rejecting mandatory regional planning lies in the shared-
use structure we have established for the 4.9 GHz band. Applicants that 
meet eligiblity criteria will be granted a geographic area license for 
the entire fifty MHz of 4.9 GHz spectrum over a geographical area 
defined by the boundaries of their jurisdiction--city, county, state, 
etc. Licensees are required to coordinate their operations in the 
shared band to avoid interference, a common practice when joint 
operations are conducted.
    17. The functions served by Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) in 
the public safety segments of the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands entail the 
long-term planning for the use of specific channels by discrete 
licensees, in bands where public safety agencies are not granted a 
blanket license for the entire spectrum. Nontheless, the Commission 
directed each 700 MHz RPC to consider coordination procedures for the 
4.9 GHz band, and that each may submit to the Commission such a plan. 
It envisioned that the plans would specify best practices for efficient 
use of the 4.9 GHz band, including, for example, procedures to allow an 
incident commander to take control of emergency communications pursuant 
to compacts made with adjacent and overlapping jurisdictions. In the 
event an RPC does not submit such a plan, licensees must cooperate in 
the selection and use of channels in order to reduce interference and 
make the most effective use of authorized facilities.
    18. We continue to believe that the technical expertise resident in 
the RPCs may be quite useful to new 4.9 GHz licensees, and we encourage 
dialog between them. However, we have not been shown that coordination 
of 4.9 GHz operations will be facilitated by requiring 4.9 GHz 
licensees to make mandatory use of the RPCs. The principal task of RPC 
is to coordinate selection of specific channels for use at static base 
stations (and their associated mobiles). However, given the whole-band 
licensing structure that we have established and the likelihood that 
deployment of 4.9 GHz equipment is likely to be dynamic rather than 
static, it would appear impractical to formulate, in advance, an 
optimum distribution of channel assignments that would be universally 
suitable for each incident. This is not to suggest that agencies should 
not coordinate use of channels at an incident, or not have a process 
for doing so. However, we believe that that task is best undertaken by 
local jurisdictions, and we thus are not prepared to mandate use of 
RPCs for a purpose markedly different from that for which they were 
formed.
    19. Our decision essentially renders moot NPSTC's request that we 
require RPCs to establish procedures for resolving disputes over the 
use of 4.9 GHz frequencies. However, we are aware that 700 MHz and 800 
MHz RPCs do have procedures for resolution of disputes among licensees 
using those bands. Accordingly, these RPCs may be well-equipped to 
mediate disputes arising between 4.9 GHz licensees, should such 
licensees voluntarily elect to submit such disputes to mediation. We do 
not believe, however, that the possibility of such requests for 
voluntary mediation is a sufficient

[[Page 28466]]

reason to require RPCs to develop 4.9 GHz dispute resolution procedures 
and, accordingly, we decline NPSTC's request to do so.

I. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    20. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was incorporated in the Third 
Report and Order. In view of the fact that we have adopted further rule 
amendments in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we have included this 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. This Certification conforms 
to the RFA.
    21. The RFA requires that regulatory flexibility analysis be 
prepared for rulemaking proceedings unless the agency certifies that 
``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA generally defines 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the term ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business '' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    22. This Memorandum Opinion and Order relaxes the technical 
emission limits adopted in the Third Report and Order for devices 
operating in the band 4940-4990 MHz, to be used exclusively for public 
safety services. Our action may affect equipment manufacturers since 
technical equipment parameters are being changed. However, as service 
rules for the 4.9 GHz band have been recently adopted, equipment has 
not yet been developed and certified under the Commission's rules.
    23. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this Memorandum 
Opinion and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy 
of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, including a copy of this final 
certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Memorandum 
Opinion and Order and this certification will be sent to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be 
published in the Federal Register. See U.S.C. 605(b).

II. Ordering Clauses

    24. Part 90 of the commission's rules is amended as specified in 
appendix B, effective July 18, 2005.
    25. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), 405, 
and Sec.  1.429 of the commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that the 
petition for reconsideration filed by the National Public Safety 
Telecommunications Council is granted in part and denied in part, to 
the extend set forth above.
    26. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subject in 47 CFR Part 90

    Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rule

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR part 90 as follows:

PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r) and 332(c)(7) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 
303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).

0
2. Section 90.210 is amended by revising the entry in the table for the 
4940-4990 MHz frequency band in the undesignated paragraph, by revising 
paragraph (l), redesignating paragraphs (m) and (n) as paragraphs (n) 
and (o) and by adding a new paragrah (m) to read as follows:


Sec.  90.210  Emission masks.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Mask for equipment  Mask for equipment
      Frequency band (MHz)       with audio low pass   without audio low
                                        filter           pass  filter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
4940-4990 MHz..................  L or M.............  L or M.
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (l) Emission Mask L. For low power transmitters (20 dBm or less) 
operating in the 4940-4990 MHz frequency band, the power spectral 
density of the emissions must be attenuated below the output power of 
the transmitter as follows:
    (1) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency between 0-
45% of the authorized bandwidth (BW): 0 dB.
    (2) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency between 
45-50% of the authorized bandwidth: 219 log (% of (BW)/45) dB.
    (3) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency between 
50-55% of the authorized bandwidth: 10 + 242 log (% of (BW)/50) dB.
    (4) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency between 
55-100% of the authorized bandwidth: 20 + 31 log (% of (BW)/55) dB 
attenuation.
    (5) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency between 
100-150% of the authorized bandwidth: 28 + 68 log (% of (BW)/100) dB 
attenuation.
    (6) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency above 150% 
of the authorized bandwidth: 50 dB.
    (7) The zero dB reference is measured relative to the highest 
average power of the fundamental emission measured across the 
designated channel bandwidth using a resolution bandwidth of at least 
one percent of the occupied bandwidth of the fundamental emission and a 
video bandwidth of 30 kHz. The power spectral density is the power 
measured within the resolution bandwidth of the measurement device 
divided by the resolution bandwidth of the measurement device. Emission 
levels are also based on the use of measurement instrumentation 
employing a resolution bandwidth of at least one percent of the 
occupied bandwidth.
    (m) Emission Mask M. For high power transmitters (greater that 20 
dBm) operating in the 4940-4990 MHz frequency band, the power spectral 
density of the emissions must be attenuated below the output power of 
the transmitter as follows:

[[Page 28467]]

    (1) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency between 0-
45% of the authorized bandwidth (BW): 0 dB.
    (2) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency between 
45-50% of the authorized bandwidth: 568 log (% of (BW)/45) dB.
    (3) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency between 
50-55% of the authorized bandwidth: 26 + 145 log (% of BW/50) dB.
    (4) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency between 
55-100% of the authorized bandwidth: 32 + 31 log (% of (BW)/55) dB.
    (5) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency between 
100-150% of the authorized bandwidth: 40 + 57 log (% of (BW)/100) dB.
    (6) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency between 
above 150% of the authorized bandwidth: 50 dB or 55 + 10 log (P) dB, 
whichever is the lesser attenuation.
    (7) The zero dB reference is measured relative to the highest 
average power of the fundamental emission measured across the 
designated channel bandwidth using a resolution bandwidth of at least 
one percent of the occupied bandwidth of the fundamental emission and a 
video bandwidth of 30 kHz. The power spectral density is the power 
measured within the resolution bandwidth of the measurement device 
divided by the resolution bandwidth of the measurement device. Emission 
levels are also based on the use of measurement instrumentation 
employing a resolution bandwidth of at least one percent of the 
occupied bandwidth.

    Note to paragraph m: Low power devices may as an option, comply 
with paragraph (m).

* * * * *

0
3. Section 90.1215 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1215  Power limits.

    The transmitting power of stations operating in the 4940-4990 MHz 
band must not exceed the maximum limits in this section.
    (a) The peak transmit power should not exceed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Low power
                                                    peak      High power
            Channel bandwidth (MHz)             transmitter      peak
                                                   power     transmitter
                                                   (dBm)     power (dBm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................          7           20
5.............................................         14           27
10............................................         17           30
15............................................         18.8         31.8
20............................................         20           33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    High power devices are also limited to a peak power spectral 
density of 21 dBm per one MHz. High power devices using channel 
bandwidths other than those listed above are permitted; however, they 
are limited to a peak power spectral density of 21 dBm/MHz. If 
transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 9 dBi are used, 
both the peak transmit power and the peak power spectral density should 
be reduced by the amount in decibels that the directional gain of the 
antenna exceeds 9 dBi. However, high power point-to-point or point-to-
multipoint operation (both fixed and temporary-fixed rapid deployment) 
may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain up to 26 dBi 
without any corresponding reduction in the transmitter power or 
spectral density. Corresponding reduction in the peak transmit power 
and peak power spectral density should be the amount in decibels that 
the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 26 dBi.
    (b) Low power devices are also limited to a peak power spectral 
density of 8 dBm per one MHz. Low power devices using channel 
bandwidths other than those listed above are permitted; however, they 
are limited to a peak power spectral density of 8 dBm/MHz. If 
transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 9 dBi are used, 
both the peak transmit power and the peak power spectral density should 
be reduced by the amount in decibels that the directional gain of the 
antenna exceeds 9 dBi.
    (c) The peak transmit power is measured as a conducted emission 
over any interval of continuous transmission calibrated in terms of an 
RMS-equivalent voltage. If the device cannot be connected directly, 
alternative techniques acceptable to the Commission may be used. The 
measurement results shall be properly adjusted for any instrument 
limitations, such as detector response times, limited resolution 
bandwidth capability when compared to the emission bandwidth, 
sensitivity, etc., so as to obtain a true peak measurement conforming 
to the definitions in this paragraph for the emission in question.
    (d) The peak power spectral density is measured as conducted 
emission by direct connection of a calibrated test instrument to the 
equipment under test. If the device cannot be connected directly, 
alternative techniques acceptable to the Commission may be used. 
Measurements are made over a bandwidth of one MHz or the 26 dB emission 
bandwidth of the device, whichever is less. A resolution bandwidth less 
than the measurement bandwidth can be used, provided that the measured 
power is integrated to show total power over the measurement bandwidth. 
If the resolution bandwidth is approximately equal to the measurement 
bandwidth, and much less than the emission bandwidth of the equipment 
under test, the measured results shall be corrected to account for any 
difference between the resolution bandwidth of the test instrument and 
its actual noise bandwidth.

[FR Doc. 05-9933 Filed 5-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M