Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 00-32          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| The 4.9 GHz Band Transferred     | ) |                              |
| from                             | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Federal Government Use           |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

SECOND REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

**Adopted:** February 14, 2002 **Released:** February 27, 2002

**Comment Date:** 90 days after Federal Register Publication

**Reply Comment Date:** 120 days after Federal Register Publication

By the Commission: Commissioners Abernathy and Martin issuing separate
statements.

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. iNTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

II\. BACKGROUND 3

III\. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER 8

A. Allocation of the 4.9 GHz Band 8

B. Sharing with Passive Operations 12

C. Deletion of Part 26 of the Commission's Rules 20

D. Designation of the 4.9 GHz Band for Use in Support of Public Safety
23

IV\. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 31

A. Eligibility to Use the 4.9 GHz Band 31

B. Fixed and Mobile Use of the 4.9 GHz Band 39

C. Channel Plan 42

D. Licensing 45

1\. Mobile Licensing 46

a\. State Licensing 47

b\. Blanket Licensing or Unlicensed Operation 50

c\. Regional Planning Committees 53

d\. Band Managers 54

2\. Fixed Licensing 57

E. Interference 59

F. Technical Standards for Mobile Equipment 63

1\. Broadband Technologies 65

2\. Power limits 66

G. Technical Rules for Fixed Operations in the 4.9 GHz Band 67

V. CONCLUSION 69

VI\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 70

A. Ex Parte Rules - Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding 70

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 71

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 72

D. Comment Dates 73

APPENDIX A: FINAL RULES

APPENDIX B: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION (SECOND REPORT

AND ORDER)

APPENDIX C: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS (FURTHER NOTICE

OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING)

APPENDIX D: GEOGRAPHIC AREAS WHERE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY (CEC) WILL BE USED FOR TRAINING IN

ITS HIGH POWER, FULL BANDWIDTH MODE

# iNTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.  By this *Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking (Second R&O & FNPRM)*, we are allocating 50 megahertz of
    spectrum in the 4940-4990 MHz band (4.9 GHz band) for fixed and
    mobile services (except aeronautical mobile service) and designating
    this band for use in support of public safety.[^1] This allocation
    and designation will provide public safety users with additional
    spectrum to support new broadband applications such as high-speed
    digital technologies and wireless local area networks (WLANs) for
    incident scene management. The spectrum will also support dispatch
    operations and vehicular/personal communications. We believe this
    decision aligns with new national priorities focusing on homeland
    security, and will ensure that agencies involved in the protection
    of life and property possess the communications resources needed to
    successfully carry out their mission. Furthermore, we seek to
    transition to an environment in which the public safety community
    enjoys maximum access to emerging broadband technologies. This
    action effectuates the transfer of this spectrum from Federal
    Government (Government) to non-Federal Government
    (non-Government)[^2] use pursuant to statutory requirements of the
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.[^3] We also continue our
    ongoing effort to streamline our Rules and eliminate redundancy by
    deleting Part 26 of our Rules.

2.  In our *FNPRM*, we seek comment on the establishment of licensing
    and service rules for the 4.9 GHz band. Further, we solicit comment
    on defining eligibility to use the band. We seek to develop a record
    on specific segmentation or channeling plans for use of the band. We
    also request comment on the impact of adjacent band U.S. Navy
    operations on operations in the 4.9 GHz band. Finally, we solicit
    suggestions on how to utilize the band in a manner that will not
    interfere with adjacent band radio astronomy operations.

# BACKGROUND 

3.  In the United States, the 4.9 GHz band is allocated to Government
    fixed and mobile services on a co-primary basis.[^4] The band has
    been used for fixed services such as conventional point-to-point
    microwave, tactical radio relay, and high power tropospheric scatter
    systems, and for mobile services such as control of remote piloted
    vehicles, video and data telemetry links, target drone control
    links, fleet defense systems, and tethered aerostat systems.[^5]
    Radio astronomy observations are permitted in the sub-band 4950-4990
    MHz at certain Government/non-Government observatories that are
    listed in footnote US257.[^6] Footnote US257 states that, when
    assignments are made to stations of other services to which the
    sub-band 4950-4990 MHz is allocated, \"every practicable effort will
    be made to avoid the assignment of frequencies in this band to
    stations in the aeronautical mobile service. . . which may cause
    harmful interference to the listed observatories.\" In addition,
    international footnote S5.149 states that "administrations are urged
    to take all practicable steps to protect the radio astronomy service
    from harmful interference," because "emissions from spaceborne or
    airborne stations can be particularly serious sources of
    interference to the radio astronomy service."[^7] We note that the
    upper adjacent band 4990-5000 MHz is allocated to the
    Government/non-Government radio astronomy service on a primary
    basis.[^8] In addition, the sub-band 4950-4990 MHz is allocated to
    the Government/non-Government space research (passive) and earth
    exploration-satellite (passive) services (EESS) on a secondary basis
    by international footnote S5.339.[^9] Thus, the only non-Government
    services currently permitted in the 4.9 GHz band are passive and
    operate on a secondary (unprotected) basis. Finally, we note that
    the 4.9 GHz band is currently being studied internationally as a
    candidate band for global harmonization of spectrum for public
    protection and disaster relief, with band identification and
    regulatory provisions to be considered under Agenda Item 1.3 at the
    2003 World Radio Conference (WRC-03).[^10]

4.  OBRA-93 required that the Secretary of Commerce identify at least
    200 megahertz of spectrum then allocated for Government use to be
    transferred to non-Government use. Pursuant to these requirements,
    in its February 1995 *Final Report* on spectrum allocation, the
    Department of Commerce reallocated the 4660-4685 MHz band, and
    identified the lower adjacent 4635-4660 MHz band, among others, for
    additional transfer effective January 1, 1997.[^11] In March 1999,
    pursuant to Section 6001(a)(3) of OBRA-93,[^12] the Department of
    Commerce notified the Commission[^13] that the Government was
    reclaiming the 4635-4685 MHz band and identified the 4.9 GHz band as
    substitute spectrum for transfer to non-Government use.[^14] The
    Department of Commerce also stated that, upon completion of this
    rulemaking, all current Government assignments, except those for
    radio astronomy observatories, would be withdrawn or limited in the
    4.9 GHz band.[^15] In December 1999, the Commission issued a
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, in pertinent part revising the Table
    of Frequency Allocations to note that the band had become
    non-Government exclusive spectrum in March 1999.[^16]

5.  On February 29, 2000, the Commission released a *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking (First NPRM)* proposing to allocate the 4.9 GHz band to
    non-Government fixed and mobile services, excluding aeronautical
    mobile service, on a co-primary basis and to allow for flexible use
    of the spectrum.[^17] In the *First NPRM*, the Commission proposed
    to license the band for commercial services under Part 27 of the
    Commission's rules and to assign initial licenses for the band under
    the Commission's Part 1 competitive bidding rules.[^18] The
    Commission tentatively concluded not to designate the band, or any
    portion thereof, to exclusive public safety use, but requested
    comment on this proposal.[^19] The Commission noted that it had
    recently acted pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997[^20] to
    allocate the 764-776 MHz band and the 794-806 MHz band
    (collectively, "the 700 MHz band") to exclusive public safety
    use.[^21] Hence, the Commission tentatively concluded that its
    designation of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for exclusive public
    safety use constituted a significant commitment of spectrum to serve
    public safety needs into the next century, making it unnecessary to
    set aside additional spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band for exclusive
    public safety use.[^22] The Commission noted, however, that the 4.9
    GHz band could be used for public safety purposes provided that such
    use was consistent with the Commission's licensing scheme for the
    band.[^23] The Commission sought comment on its tentative
    conclusion.

6.  On October 24, 2000, the Commission released a *First Report and
    Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making (First R&O/Second
    NPRM)* [^24] that sought comment on the feasibility of pairing the
    4.9 GHz band with the 3650 MHz band. In the *First R&O/Second NPRM,*
    the Commission allocated the 3650-3700 MHz band (3650 MHz band) for
    fixed and mobile services, except aeronautical mobile service, on a
    co-primary basis, but limiting the mobile allocation to base station
    use only. As with the 4.9 GHz band, the *First R&O/Second NPRM*
    proposed to license the 3650 MHz band pursuant to Part 27 under a
    flexible allocation with wide area licensing by competitive bidding.
    The Commission sought comment on whether pairing the 4.9 GHz and
    3650 MHz bands would encourage synergies in the use of both
    bands.[^25]

7.  The Commission has received varied comments in this proceeding. Many
    of the comments focused on issues relating to the 3650 MHz
    band.[^26] Five commenters expressed open interest in use of the 4.9
    GHz band for commercial purposes.[^27] Two parties filed comments
    opposing the designation of this spectrum to public safety use.[^28]
    In contrast, six commenters opposed the Commission's tentative
    conclusion not to designate the 4.9 GHz band, or some portion
    thereof, to exclusive public safety use.[^29] These commenters
    request that the Commission designate the entire 4.9 GHz band for
    exclusive public safety use. Two commenters suggest, in the
    alternative, designation of at least a portion of the band for
    exclusive public safety use, but they do not quantify this
    amount.[^30] Furthermore, local police, fire, and rescue
    organizations from around the country have sent over one hundred
    letters to the Commission, urging allocation of the 4.9 GHz band to
    exclusive public safety use to support new broadband public safety
    applications.[^31] In addition, both the National Public Safety
    Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) and Motorola have met with
    Commission staff to discuss this issue.[^32] Motorola also has
    submitted a white paper to the Commission urging designation of the
    4.9 GHz band to public safety use.[^33] Generally, these parties
    assert that the public safety community is in great need of
    additional spectrum to utilize emerging, state of the art
    technologies, to meet their critical operations needs, and assert
    that the 4.9 GHz band is ideal for these emerging broadband
    technologies.[^34]

#  SECOND REPORT AND ORDER

## Allocation of the 4.9 GHz Band

8.  As noted above, the *First NPRM* proposed to allocate the 4.9 GHz
    band to non-Government fixed and mobile services, excluding
    aeronautical mobile service, on a co-primary basis.[^35] To permit
    flexibility and a wide range of fixed and mobile services, the
    Commission proposed to permit licensees to utilize this spectrum for
    any service permitted within any of the allocation categories of
    fixed and mobile, to include any fixed, land mobile, or maritime
    mobile service, but excluding aeronautical mobile service.[^36] The
    Commission proposed to exclude aeronautical mobile service from the
    entire 4.9 GHz band to protect radio astronomy operations in the
    4950-4990 MHz sub-band and the 4990-5000 MHz band, consistent with
    footnote US257 and with the Department of Commerce\'s request that
    the Commission protect such operations.[^37] Further, the Commission
    proposed to delete the Government fixed and mobile service
    allocations from the 4.9 GHz band, thus completing its transfer to
    exclusive non-Government use.[^38] The Commission also proposed to
    license the 4.9 GHz band under Part 27 of the Commission's rules,
    with wide area licensing and service rules fostering commercial use,
    and with initial licenses to be assigned under the Commission's Part
    1, Subpart Q, competitive bidding rules. Finally, the Commission
    also sought comment on its tentative conclusion that a flexible
    allocation would be in the public interest; would not deter
    investment in communications and services, or technology
    development; and would not cause harmful interference among users,
    as required by Section 303(y)(2) of the Communications Act
    (Act),[^39] as amended by the BBA-97, for flexible allocations.[^40]

9.  The record clearly supports allocating the band 4940-4990 MHz for
    fixed and mobile services, except aeronautical mobile service, on a
    co-primary basis. This allocation will allow a variety of fixed and
    mobile applications, including voice and high-speed data. In order
    to protect radio astronomy observations in this band, however, we
    are not allocating the band for aeronautical mobile service. The
    transfer of this spectrum from Government to non-Government use was
    conditioned on excluding air-to-ground or space-to-Earth links from
    the entire 4.9 GHz band, in order to protect radio astronomy
    operations in the 4950-4990 MHz sub-band and the upper adjacent
    4990-5000 MHz band.[^41] The National Academy of Sciences, through
    the National Research Council's Committee on Radio Frequencies,
    supports the exclusion of aeronautical mobile service, stating that
    such use would be destructive to scientific observations.[^42] While
    no commercial commenters oppose the exclusion of aeronautical mobile
    service, several *ex parte* comments from the public safety
    community support an aeronautical mobile allocation to allow real
    time video and imagery from surveillance helicopters and other
    communications from aircraft to ground command centers.[^43]
    However, these commenters did not demonstrate that aeronautical
    mobile operations could operate while protecting radio astronomy. A
    fixed and mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation is
    consistent with the international table of allocations, which
    excludes aeronautical mobile service from the 4950-4990 MHz sub-band
    and the 4990-5000 MHz band.[^44]

10. Consistent with the transfer of the 4.9 GHz band from Government to
    non-Government use, we are deleting the Government fixed and mobile
    allocations from the band. We are amending the Table of Frequency
    Allocations to revise Government footnote G122 to permit Government
    operations to continue on a non-interference basis in the 4.9 GHz
    band as of the effective date of the rules adopted in this *Second
    R&O*.[^45] Finally, as noted below, we are designating the 4.9 GHz
    band for use in support of public safety. Under similar
    designations, such as in the 700 MHz band, the rules allow
    Government users to operate on non-Government public safety
    frequencies if the Commission finds that such use is necessary for
    coordination of Government and non-Government activities.[^46]
    Therefore, to facilitate interoperability in support of joint
    Government/non-Government public safety and disaster relief
    operations, we will explore this issue in the attached *FNPRM* to
    establish service rules.

11. In view of our decision to designate use of the 4.9 GHz band for
    public safety, *infra*, we decline to pair the 4.9 GHz and 3650 MHz
    bands, and thus the 3650 MHz band will be free for other uses.[^47]
    We note that there was almost unanimous opposition to pairing the
    bands due to technological problems and associated implementation
    costs. Comments indicated that pairing could inhibit more feasible
    unpaired implementations, such as Time Division Duplexing (TDD)
    applications. The only reason advanced in support of coupling these
    two 50 megahertz bands is the prospect of their 100 megahertz
    aggregate bandwidth, with most commenters preferring that actual
    paired operation not be required.

## Sharing with Passive Operations

12. In the *First NPRM*, regarding radio astronomy use of the 4.9 GHz
    band, the Commission proposed to delete footnote US257 from the
    Table of Frequency Allocations, subsuming it into a revised footnote
    US311.[^48] Footnote US257 requires that every practical effort be
    made to protect radio astronomy observations in the 4950-4990 MHz
    band which operate on an unprotected basis at certain Radio
    Astronomy Observatories listed therein.[^49] Likewise, footnote
    US311 requires that every practical effort be made to protect radio
    astronomy observations in the 1350-1400 MHz band, which operate on
    an unprotected basis at certain Radio Astronomy Observatories listed
    therein.[^50] The Commission's proposal was in response to a
    National Science Foundation (NSF) request that the list of radio
    astronomy observatories identified in footnote US257 be updated to
    accurately reflect radio astronomy use of the sub-band 4950-4990
    MHz. Recognizing that the observatories currently observing in the
    sub-band 4950-4990 MHz were also listed in footnote US311, the NSF
    requested that the Commission add the sub-band 4950-4990 MHz to
    footnote US311 and delete footnote US257. In the *First NPRM*, the
    Commission also sought comment on whether frequency coordination or
    restrictions in power, area, or operations should be imposed in
    order to protect radio astronomy observations.[^51]

13. In response to the *First NPRM*, the National Academy of Sciences,
    through CORF, supports the proposed deletion of footnote US257 and
    the resultant inclusion of the band 4950-4990 MHz in footnote US311.
    CORF also indicates that footnote US311 should include the Owens
    Valley Radio Observatory at Big Pine, California, listed in current
    footnote US257 with a coordinate-rectangular geographic area.[^52]
    Similarly, in response to the *First R&O/Second NPRM*, CORF proposes
    the addition of two more observatories: the Allen Telescope Array, a
    joint project of the University of California and the Search for
    Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute, at Hat Creek,
    California, specified by a coordinate-rectangular geographic area,
    and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration\'s (NASA)
    Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex at Goldstone,
    California, specified by a circular, coordinate-point-and-radius
    geographic area. CORF points out that operations in other frequency
    bands used by the Allen Telescope Array and NASA Goldstone
    facilities are afforded protection by footnotes US203 and US257, and
    by footnotes US251, US262, and US338, respectively. CORF states that
    the Allen Telescope Array at the Hat Creek facility is designed for
    both SETI and astronomical research, and will be the most powerful
    radio telescope available for studies of early star formation,
    making possible many high-spatial-resolution measurements in the
    band 4950-5000 MHz.[^53] To protect radio astronomy observations in
    the 4950-5000 MHz band from terrestrial fixed and mobile operations,
    CORF also proposes that fixed stations within the radio astronomy
    zones listed in revised footnote US311 be required to coordinate
    with radio astronomy observatories, in a manner similar to that
    specified in Section 1.924 of our Rules, Quiet Zones.[^54] CORF
    proposes that mobile operations in the 4.9 GHz band be excluded from
    the radio astronomy zones.[^55]

14. In its comments responding to the *First NPRM* and *First
    R&O*/*Second NPRM*, CORF describes current and potential uses of the
    sub-band 4950-4990 MHz by the EESS. CORF explains that the band is
    used for remote sensing of ocean surface temperature and soil
    moisture, and has been shown to be useful for sensing ocean surface
    salinity, and, in addition, that the use of a non-U.S. EESS
    spaceborne sensor is expected to begin shortly. CORF notes that
    electromagnetic hot spots could result from a high density of
    terrestrial mobile stations with low-gain antennas emitting
    substantial radiation in the upward direction in the 4.9 GHz band.
    To protect EESS remote sensing measurements of the natural emissions
    of the surface and atmosphere from masking interference from
    terrestrial radiocommunications "hot spots," CORF urges that
    radiation levels produced by terrestrial stations into satellite
    receivers be maintained consistent with International
    Telecommunications Union Recommendation ITU-R SA.1029-1 (SA.1029),
    Interference Criteria for Satellite Passive Remote Sensing.[^56]

15. No commenters opposed the update and subsumption of footnote US257
    into footnote US311, as proposed in the *First NPRM,* or the
    inclusion of the three additional radio astronomy zones into
    footnote US311, as proposed in comments to the *First* NPRM and
    *First R&O/Second NPRM*. Motorola, in its White Paper, proposes that
    terrestrial mobile operations not be excluded from radio astronomy
    zones, as proposed by CORF, but rather that both fixed and mobile
    operations within 50 miles of radio astronomy sites be
    coordinated.[^57] No commenters replied to CORF's comments to the
    *First NPRM* and *First R&O/Second NPRM* urging that SA.1029
    protection be provided to EESS operations.

16. We find that merging footnote US257 into a revised footnote US311
    will make our Rules clearer and have no negative impacts. Further,
    adding the additional radio astronomy observatories that use the 4.9
    GHz band will ensure that spectrum users are aware of interference
    situations that should be avoided. Therefore, US257 will be deleted
    and US311 will be amended to include the additional sites.[^58]

17. We believe that, given the small number and remote locations of
    radio astronomy observatories, public safety deployment in the 4.9
    GHz band in their vicinity would be unlikely and any public safety
    operations that may occur would likely be short-term. Public safety
    use of the band within the vicinity of radio astronomy observatories
    could be easily accommodated on a case by case basis within the
    existing framework set forth in footnote US311, which requires
    parties to make every practicable effort to protect radio astronomy
    facilities that operate on an unprotected basis in the band. We
    therefore decline to exclude non-aeronautical mobile operations or
    to impose frequency coordination procedures on fixed or
    non-aeronautical mobile operations within the radio astronomy zones,
    as proposed by CORF.

18. We note that the upper adjacent 4990-5000 MHz band is allocated to
    radio astronomy service on a primary basis, both internationally and
    in the United States. Thus, such observations in the 4990-5000 MHz
    band are entitled to protection, as specified in the Table of
    Frequency Allocations and our service rules, from any prospective
    fixed and mobile service operations in the 4.9 GHz band.[^59]

19. Finally, we decline to require protection of EESS under SA.1029.
    While we remain sensitive to the need to protect the passive
    services in the 4.9 GHz band, the imposition of SA.1029 protection
    requirements for the secondary EESS could pose an onerous constraint
    on the utilization of this spectrum by primary terrestrial fixed and
    non-aeronautical mobile services.[^60] Moreover, such protection
    would be tantamount to giving EESS primary status. Thus, while we
    encourage prospective licensees to maintain such protection wherever
    feasible, we decline to mandate SA.1029 protection of EESS.[^61]

## Deletion of Part 26 of the Commission's Rules

20. On February 7, 1995, the Commission, in accordance with the
    provisions of OBRA-93, adopted the *GWCS First Report and Order and
    Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,[^62] in which, *inter alia,*
    the Commission proposed to create a new service, the GWCS. On August
    2, 1995, the Commission released the *GWCS Second Report and Order*
    that established the GWCS and adopted Part 26 of its Rules setting
    out licensing and operating rules for the service in the 4660-4685
    MHz band.[^63] On December 17, 1997, the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau (Bureau) announced that the auction for licenses in the
    4660-4685 MHz band would commence on May 27, 1998.[^64] In April
    1998, however, the Bureau postponed the commencement of the auction
    due to a demonstrated absence of demand for licenses in the
    4660-4685 MHz band.[^65]

21. On March 30, 1999, pursuant to Section 6001(a)(3) of OBRA,[^66] the
    Department of Commerce notified the Commission that the Federal
    Government was reclaiming the 4635-4685 MHz band and identifying, as
    substitute spectrum, the 4.9 GHz band.[^67] Partially in response to
    the Department of Commerce's decision to reclaim the 4635-4685 MHz
    band, on December 20, 1999, the Commission released a Memorandum
    Opinion and Order revising Part 2 of the Commission's Rules making
    non-substantive revisions to the Table of Frequency
    Allocations.[^68] In the *Part 2 MO&O*, the Commission, *inter
    alia*, returned the 4660-4685 MHz band to the *status quo ante*,
    *i.e.*, deleting the allocation to non-Federal Government fixed and
    mobile services, while retaining the prior allocation on a primary
    basis to fixed-satellite service.[^69]

22. With the return of the 4660-4685 MHz band to exclusive Federal
    Government use, Part 26 of the Commission's Rules serves no specific
    purpose. Accordingly, in the *First NPRM*, the Commission proposed
    to delete Part 26.[^70] Since we received no objections to this
    proposal, and as noted in the *First NPRM,* there are no Part 26
    licensees, we hereby delete this part from our Rules.[^71]

## Designation of the 4.9 GHz Band for Use in Support of Public Safety

23. After reviewing the record in this proceeding, we reject our
    tentative conclusion not to designate the 4.9 GHz band for public
    safety use, and conclude that the public interest would be best
    served by designating the 4.9 GHz band for use in support of public
    safety. In evaluating the commenters' positions, we are mindful of
    the Commission's statutory obligation to oversee wire and radio
    communications ". . . for the purpose of promoting safety of life
    and property through the use of wire and radio communication . . .
    "[^72] Numerous state, county, and local government and national
    public safety associations representing a diverse group of critical
    public safety activities (*e.g.,* law enforcement, fire fighting,
    SWAT/tactical team and bomb squad, hazardous materials handling,
    railroad passenger rescue, and emergency medical operations) argue
    persuasively that a public safety designation will enable responders
    to carry out critical and urgent missions in a way that ensures more
    effective and efficient service to their communities and provide a
    safer environment for emergency responders.[^73] The acts of
    terrorism committed against the United States on September 11^th^,
    2001 reinforce the critical nature of the public safety community's
    responsibilities to our Nation's safety and well being. Access to
    modern wireless communications is essential to ensuring that the
    public safety community can effectively fulfill these
    responsibilities. After considering these factors, we conclude that
    the 4.9 GHz band should be designated for use in support of public
    safety.

24. The emerging broadband technologies envisioned by the public safety
    community in the record of this proceeding for the 4.9 GHz band are
    generally categorized into three groups of broadband systems. The
    first group of systems are Personal Area Network/Vehicular Area
    Network systems ("PAN" or "VAN" systems respectively).[^74] PAN and
    VAN systems are wireless links between a portable or mobile
    transceiver and devices such as headsets, portable computing
    devices, video cameras, thermal imagers, and 3D locators.
    Manufacturers can integrate these devices into specialized helmets
    and suits to enable localized teaming and coverage around an officer
    or vehicle.[^75] The second group of systems is Wireless Local Area
    Network systems (WLAN), which enable simultaneous voice duplex,
    high-speed data and full motion video transfers between emergency
    workers at an incident scene and command center personnel using
    mobile computers. The third group is wireless fixed "hot spot"
    location devices, which provide automatic high-speed public safety
    intranet file downloading and uploading of very large data, image
    and video files at predetermined locations, as well as critical
    information transfer to and from public safety vehicular computers
    in the immediate vicinity of a "hot spot" transceiver.[^76]

25. As noted above, numerous public safety entities have filed in this
    proceeding supporting public safety use of the 4.9 GHz band to
    implement and utilize the technologies described above. In contrast,
    only a few commenters such as Adaptive expressed interest in
    commercial use of the 4.9 GHz band.[^77] Adaptive and Motorola
    believe that the interest of equipment manufacturers for commercial
    use in the 4.9 GHz band is "probably limited."[^78] Motorola also
    notes that many of the commercial technologies proposed for use in
    the 4.9 GHz band are currently being used in the 5 GHz Unlicensed
    National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) band.[^79]

26. The record does not support the Commission's previous tentative
    conclusion, set forth in the *First NPRM*, that the designation of
    spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety use obviates a need
    to allocate spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band for use in support of
    public safety. Commenters state that the 700 MHz band provides
    insufficient channel bandwidth and is not presently available for
    accommodating broadband, short-range communications supporting
    high-speed data and video traffic.[^80] They further explain that
    the 4.9 GHz band could be used for short-range broadband WLANs,
    involving distances not exceeding 1000 meters, so that this spectrum
    could be reused for different operations at different locations in
    the same city, thus multiplying its utilization. Further, these
    parties argue that flexible, standards-based broadband technology
    will be used for unlicensed operation in the nearby U-NII bands at
    5150-5350 MHz and 5725-5825 MHz and that such devices can be adapted
    for use in the 4.9 GHz band on a licensed basis in order to maintain
    the priority, reliability, and security of mission critical public
    safety communications. The International Association of Chiefs of
    Police (IACP) and Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) support
    these positions, as do numerous *ex parte* filings.[^81] Public
    safety commenters have shown a need for spectrum dedicated to
    high-speed data transmission. Inasmuch as these applications involve
    the transfer of large amounts of data, a large bandwidth, such as
    that provided by the 4.9 GHz band, would be ideal to ensure proper
    transmission. In contrast, while the 700 MHz band provides
    narrowband and wideband communications channels, only a limited
    amount of broadband use was contemplated for this spectrum through
    the aggregation of three wideband channels. Furthermore, because the
    currently contemplated usage of this band contemplates utilization
    in small service areas, such as incident scenes, the 4.9 GHz band is
    superior to the 700 MHz band in that it has propagation
    characteristics that are ideal for short-range communications.
    Conversely, the narrowband and wideband communications provided by
    the 700 MHz band are better suited for longer-range communications
    over larger service areas. As commenters have noted, broadband
    applications will become essential law enforcement and first
    responder tools in the 21^st^ century.[^82] We believe our decision
    today will provide the public safety community with the requisite
    spectrum to employ these emerging broadband technologies.

27. Global[^83] opposes the designation of the 4.9 GHz band to the
    public safety community. Global argues that the band is more
    appropriate for commercial use because it is suited for high-speed
    data transmission between fixed points while the public safety
    community tends to rely on voice transmission.[^84] While we agree
    with Global that the 4.9 GHz band is appropriate for high-speed data
    transmission, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates
    that the use of high-speed data transmissions is becoming
    progressively more common and will play an increasingly critical
    role in public safety operations. Furthermore, we reject Global's
    argument that designating the band to public safety would hinder
    interoperability by further fragmenting the public safety spectrum
    because this argument is based upon the assumption that the spectrum
    will be used primarily for voice communications. Moreover, we
    believe our actions in this proceeding will in fact further the goal
    of interoperability by providing different public safety agencies
    access to cutting edge technologies that will enhance their ability
    to share critical and time-sensitive information during emergencies
    and other critical situations.

28. We also reject the argument that we need not designate the spectrum
    for public safety use because the needs of public safety agencies
    can be met solely by acquiring service from commercial
    providers.[^85] We encourage public safety agencies to work with
    commercial telecommunications providers wherever possible. Indeed,
    in the *FNPRM, infra,* we seek comment on licensing schemes that
    will encourage innovative partnerships between public safety
    entities and commercial providers. The public safety commenters
    consistently state, however, that the spectrum will be used
    primarily in emergency situations, and they need dedicated spectrum
    that will be reliably available without delay.[^86] Moreover, public
    safety and commercial entities contemplate different uses for the
    band. For example, Global and Adaptive contemplate using the
    spectrum for high-speed Internet access.[^87] Accordingly, we
    believe that the needs of the public safety community are best
    served by designating the 4.9 GHz band for use in support of public
    safety.

29. Finally, we agree with Motorola that the Commission is not
    statutorily required to use competitive bidding to license the 4.9
    GHz band and therefore licensing this band for public safety is
    fully consistent with the Communications Act.[^88] As Motorola
    points out, OBRA-93 required the Commission to auction licenses for
    at least 10 megahertz of reassigned government spectrum by August
    10, 1998,[^89] but this requirement did not apply to any particular
    band and thus imposes no requirement to auction licenses for the 4.9
    GHz band. As a matter of history, we note that in April 1997, in
    partial fulfillment of OBRA-93's requirement to auction licenses for
    at least 10 megahertz of reassigned government spectrum, the
    Commission auctioned 5 megahertz of spectrum, the 2305-2310 MHz
    band.[^90] Thereafter, the Commission concluded that the 4660-4685
    band would fulfill the requirement to auction an additional 5
    megahertz of spectrum, and announced that this auction would
    commence on May 27, 1998. However, the auction was postponed due to
    a demonstrated lack of interest in that band, and NTIA subsequently
    identified the 4.9 GHz band as spectrum to be reallocated from
    government to non-government use in place of the 4635-4685 band.
    However, this substitution created no obligation to auction the 4.9
    GHz band. There was no specific statutory requirement that the
    4635-4685 MHz band be auctioned, nor does the Commission's earlier
    decision to auction the 4660-4685 MHz band, or its previous
    intention to use this spectrum to satisfy the requirement under
    OBRA-93 § 6002, now obligate the Commission to auction the 4.9 GHz
    band.[^91] Moreover, NTIA's substitution of the 4.9 GHz band for the
    4635-4685 band is unrelated to any of the Commission's statutory
    obligations to auction spectrum licenses, none of which is
    implicated here.

30. Therefore, based upon the record in this proceeding, we conclude
    that the 4.9 GHz band should be designated for use in support of
    public safety. We believe this action will complement our prior 700
    MHz allocation, and takes into account the varying benefits
    associated with different spectrum. Furthermore, this action will
    provide public safety users with access to state of the art
    technologies that will enhance their critical operations
    capabilities.

#  FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

## Eligibility to Use the 4.9 GHz Band

31. We seek comment on the criteria we can use to determine eligibility
    to operate equipment within the 4.9 GHz band. Acting pursuant to a
    Congressional directive in BBA-97, the Commission, in the 700 MHz
    band public safety allocation, restricted eligibility to use the 700
    MHz band to the entities described in Section 337(f) of the
    Act.[^92] Section 337(f) of the Act defines "public safety services"
    as services:

    \(A\) the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the
    safety of life, health, or property;

    \(B\) that are provided­

    \(i\) by State or local government entities; or

    \(ii\) by nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a
    government entity whose primary mission is the provision of such
    services; and

    \(C\) that are not made commercially available to the public by the
    provider.[^93]

    We seek comment on whether we should adopt the same eligibility
    standards for the 4.9 GHz band. Such a standard would generally
    limit uses of the spectrum to state and local emergency workers and
    non-governmental public safety providers authorized to provide
    public safety services by a governmental entity whose primary
    mission is to protect the safety of life, health, or property.[^94]

32. Unlike the 700 MHz band, however, the 4.9 GHz band is not subject to
    any statutory restrictions on eligibility to operate on the band. We
    note that Section 309(j)(2) of the Act exempts certain groups from
    the Commission's auction authority as "public safety radio
    services", which are defined as services, including private internal
    radio services, used by State and local governments and
    non-government entities, and including emergency road services
    provided by not-for profit organizations that are: (i) used to
    protect the safety of life, health, or property; and (ii) are not
    made commercially available to the public.[^95] This exemption
    extends to private internal radio services used by utilities,
    railroads, metropolitan transit systems, pipelines, private
    ambulances, volunteer fire departments, and not-for-profit
    organizations that offer emergency road services, such as the
    American Automobile Association (AAA).[^96]

33. We recognize that some of the public safety entities covered by
    Section 309(j)(2) of the Act, whose facilities may be directly
    involved in an emergency, and who provide essential services to the
    public at large, may also be interested in utilizing the 4.9 GHz
    band. The very nature of the services provided by these entities
    involve potential hazards whereby reliable radio communications is
    an essential tool in either avoiding the occurrence of such hazards,
    or responding to emergency circumstances. Furthermore, such entities
    need reliable communications in order to prevent or respond to
    disasters or crises affecting their service to the public. We also
    recognize that in the course of their duties, these entities will
    need to interact with the traditional public safety service
    providers, and the inability to do so may affect the ability of both
    groups of public safety entities to fulfill their missions.

34. Since we seek to define eligibility so as to ensure that all
    necessary parties can communicate with one another, we seek comment
    on whether we should use the broader description of "public safety
    radio services" contained in Section 309(j)(2) of the Act to define
    eligibility to use the band. Commenters should address whether the
    utilization of Section 309(j)(2) would broaden partnership
    opportunities between the more traditional public safety entities
    (i.e., police, fire and ambulatory entities), and critical
    infrastructure entities, such as utility companies, railroads, and
    others. This approach creates a larger group of eligible users,
    thereby resulting in greater use of the spectrum, with its attendant
    efficiencies of scale in the equipment market. Nonetheless, we
    recognize that expanding the universe of users on this spectrum may
    result in congestion on the band, hindering the communications of
    emergency workers, and causing the traditional public safety users
    to compete for valuable spectrum. We ask that commenters discuss
    other advantages and disadvantages of the approaches we have
    identified. We also seek comment on whether we should restrict
    either group of potentially eligible users to fixed or mobile use.

35. Additionally, we seek comment on the possibility of licensing part
    of the 4.9 GHz band pursuant to the Section 337 definition of
    eligibility, and part of the band pursuant to the Section 309(j)(2)
    definition of eligibility, or utilizing the Section 337(f)
    definition and allowing sharing agreements with Section 309(j)
    entities. Commenters should address the appropriate division of
    spectrum in their comments, and address whether the extent thereof
    would permit a larger group of users to utilize the band without
    impeding emergency operations.

36. Because of the novelty of this new service, we are also interested
    in exploring innovative and non-traditional means of employing
    public safety use of the band. A possible approach would be to allow
    commercial use in support of public safety in this band. For
    example, we could allow commercial licensees to utilize the band in
    order to serve public safety entities. We ask commenters to provide
    specific information on how such an approach could be implemented,
    including identifying potential classes of commercial providers and
    discussing the arrangements that would ensue between such providers
    and public safety entities. We could also allow commercial use to be
    licensed on a secondary basis. We seek comment on whether such an
    action would be in the public interest and result in the most
    efficient use of the 4.9 GHz band. We invite commenters to suggest
    other novel approaches and seek comment on the feasibility and
    desirability of adopting non-traditional means of employing public
    safety use of the band.

37. Consistent with our statutory obligations and Commission precedent,
    if our service rules permit commercial providers to be eligible for
    licenses in support of public safety entities, or if we allow
    secondary commercial use, then we will make a public interest
    determination of whether to adopt a licensing process whereby
    mutually exclusive applications could be accepted for filing and
    would be resolved by competitive bidding.[^97] We note that in the
    *First NPRM*, we tentatively concluded to adopt a geographic area
    licensing scheme for this band under which mutual exclusivity would
    be possible,[^98] and we sought comment on the use of our Part 1
    general competitive bidding rules, the use of small business bidding
    credits and the adoption of small business size definitions.[^99]
    Commenters may supplement the record regarding these issues.

38. Another issue that arises with regard to eligible users is whether
    we should permit Federal Government entities to use this spectrum.
    As noted above, the Commission does not license Federal entities to
    use non-Federal spectrum.[^100] Federal agencies, however, play a
    vital role in providing public safety related services to the
    American people.[^101] Considering the type of mobile use currently
    envisioned for this band, we tentatively conclude that both Federal
    and non-Federal public safety entities are potential participants in
    incident-scene emergency operations, and could benefit from the same
    broadband communications technologies discussed within this *FNPRM*.
    We note that the Commission reached a similar conclusion with regard
    to Federal use of frequencies in the 700 MHz public safety band, and
    required that Federal entities enter into agreements with the
    appropriate state or local government agency license holder in order
    to use that spectrum.[^102] We seek comment on our tentative
    conclusion to allow Federal use of the spectrum, as well as whether
    we should require sharing agreements between public safety entities
    and Federal users as a prerequisite to Federal use. We ask
    commenters to discuss our authority to permit such operations and to
    address the types of uses Federal Government entities might seek to
    employ in the band.

## Fixed and Mobile Use of the 4.9 GHz Band

39. Along with managing spectrum to promote the safety of life and
    property, the Commission is also charged with ensuring that spectrum
    is used efficiently.[^103] In the *Second Report and Order*, we
    allocated the 4.9 GHz band for both fixed and non-aeronautical
    mobile operations.[^104] The comments, letters and *ex parte*
    presentations we have received to date in this proceeding on behalf
    of the public safety community consistently advocate the use of
    spectrally-efficient low-power wireless portable or mobile
    technologies on the 4.9 GHz band. While the public safety community
    has not, heretofore, expressed any interest in utilizing the 4.9 GHz
    band for fixed operations, we are concerned that prohibiting such
    uses would restrict licensee flexibility and could prohibit future
    technologies that could benefit public safety. Furthermore, the
    mobile technologies currently envisioned for the band are intended
    for short-range communications at an incident scene, and allow for
    multiple reuse of the spectrum at other nearby locations. Since we
    do not expect that there will be many locations at which mobile,
    incident-scene specific, use of the spectrum will be needed at any
    given time, we are concerned that the limiting of operations on the
    spectrum to mobile uses could result in an inefficient use of this
    spectrum. Additionally, we are concerned that restricting the band
    to mobile operations would result in limited use of the band during
    non-emergency periods.

40. In order to prevent a spectrally-inefficient allocation, we seek
    comment on the circumstances under which we should permit fixed
    operations on the 4.9 GHz band. We further ask commenters to address
    whether permitting fixed operations would provide public safety
    entities with an additional tool for responding to emergency
    situations. We seek information on whether fixed applications on the
    band would consist of the traditional point-to-point microwave
    operations, more advanced point-to-multipoint services, or temporary
    fixed links that would allow communication between, for example, an
    incident scene and police headquarters, or both. We ask commenters
    to address whether fixed and mobile operations can co-exist on this
    band, and whether fixed use should be made secondary to mobile use,
    and to discuss the types of fixed public safety applications that
    could be employed thereon. We specifically seek comment on whether
    any proposed fixed operations would interfere with the use of the
    emerging mobile technologies discussed herein.

41. We must also address the question of how to regulate the band.
    Because the uses we anticipate for this band are unique, we could
    create a new mobile radio service covering the mobile uses
    envisioned for this band, and regulate the service via a new subpart
    within Part 90 of our Rules.[^105] We seek comment on this proposal,
    as well as suggestions on a name for this new service. We also
    request that commenters in favor of allowing fixed uses on this band
    suggest how such uses should be regulated. Specifically we seek
    comment on whether we should regulate primary fixed uses in this
    band pursuant to Part 101 of our Rules,[^106] as we have
    traditionally done for fixed, point-to-point, and
    point-to-multipoint microwave operations. In the alternative, if we
    allow fixed uses on a secondary basis, we could regulate such uses
    pursuant to Part 90 of our Rules. Another option is to regulate all
    uses of this band pursuant to Part 27 of our Rules, which governs
    Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services. We seek comment on
    this approach. We ask commenters to discuss the advantages and
    disadvantages of the approaches discussed herein. We also solicit
    suggestions on other methods to regulate the band, along with the
    advantages and disadvantages thereof. In particular, we invite the
    public safety community and all parties familiar with the WLAN and
    PAN uses envisioned for this band to comment on which subpart of our
    Rules is most appropriate for these services.

## Channel Plan

42. We recognize that there are a number of channelization plans we
    could employ to divide the 50 megahertz of spectrum at issue in this
    proceeding. We received several channel plan proposals in response
    to the *First NPRM.* Motorola recommends that we divide the spectrum
    into two 20-25 megahertz blocks, to accommodate the type of
    broadband application that the public safety community seeks to
    deploy in this band.[^107] Motorola asserts that such a channel plan
    will allow public safety users to leverage commercial technologies
    from the unlicensed, adjacent 5 GHz band.[^108] US West stated that
    the band could be divided into two unpaired 20 megahertz blocks and
    one 10 megahertz block.[^109] Rock Hill indicated that the 4.9 GHz
    band could be licensed using 10 megahertz blocks of spectrum with
    each block composed of two paired blocks of noncontiguous
    frequencies (*i.e.,* license A would be composed of the 4940-4945
    MHz and 4965-4970 MHz frequencies).[^110]

43. With the exception of Motorola, we realize that commenters based
    their proposals on our prior tentative conclusion to designate the
    4.9 GHz band for commercial use. To the extent that these
    suggestions are likewise applicable to our new designation of the
    spectrum for use in support of public safety, we seek comment on
    whether the Commission should adopt one of these band plans for the
    4.9 GHz spectrum. We also invite comment on whether the band would
    have to be segmented should we decide to permit fixed operations
    thereon. Commenters should be mindful of the specific mobile uses
    currently envisioned for the band, as outlined herein, and should
    also discuss the impact that fixed operations would have on the
    channel plan. Further, commenters in favor of the Motorola proposal
    should discuss how we should use the two proposed channel blocks.
    For example, should we designate the lower half of the block for
    fixed operations and the upper half for mobile operations, or
    vice-versa? If so, should we further divide the fixed band
    operations into five channel pairs of 2.5 megahertz bandwidth per
    path? Would blocks smaller than those proposed by Motorola
    accommodate the emerging broadband services discussed herein?
    Commenters supporting these or other band plans should provide
    specific rationales for why a particular band plan would meet public
    safety needs while, at the same time, maximizing user flexibility
    and spectral efficiency. Finally, we ask that commenters address the
    advantages and disadvantages associated with any of the proposed
    channel plans.

44. We recognize that if fixed uses are ultimately permitted on the 4.9
    GHz band, there may be interference between the fixed and mobile
    operations. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we should
    require coordination of fixed and mobile services. Commenters should
    specify the markets in which such coordination should be required,
    and discuss the factors considered in reaching such a determination.

## Licensing

45. Designating the 4.9 GHz band for use in support of public safety
    coupled with limiting user eligibility to public safety entities as
    discussed above, would mean licenses for this spectrum could not be
    auctioned.[^111] Accordingly, we seek comment on the appropriate
    means of licensing the 4.9 GHz spectrum. We seek suggestions for
    licensing schemes for both fixed and mobile uses. Below, we discuss
    various licensing approaches that we can utilize for the
    contemplated operations. We seek comment on these and other
    licensing approaches we could employ. Finally, we ask commenters
    advocating any particular licensing approach to address the best
    means of implementing the Commission's obligations with respect to
    radio astronomy stations under footnote US311 pursuant to such
    approach.

### Mobile Licensing

46. We believe that the licensing scheme we adopt for mobile operations
    on the band must be flexible enough to accommodate use at
    geographically dispersed areas. We note that one contemplated use of
    this band would involve use at emergency and incident scenes.
    Inasmuch as the locations of such scenes are not determinable in
    advance, we tentatively conclude that our licensing scheme should
    allow for maximum flexibility. Within the confines of these
    requirements, there is nevertheless a variety of licensing schemes
    we could employ. Below, we set forth the advantages and
    disadvantages of several licensing schemes and seek comment on
    whether we should adopt one of these approaches. We also seek
    alternative proposals for licensing mobile use. Commenters should
    also address traditional licensing issues such as license terms,
    restrictions and qualifications.

#### State Licensing

47. Large-scale public safety incidents often require multi-agency
    coordination of spectrum usage. This coordination is ancillary to
    coordination issues between fixed and mobile use in a particular
    band, and with adjacent band users. A mobile licensing scheme in
    which mobile units are licensed to specific entities could expedite
    this coordination. One possible licensing scheme that could
    adequately address these issues is the licensing of mobiles to
    states through a geographic area license. This mechanism is akin to
    awarding each state a 50 megahertz block grant that could be
    utilized for state-wide communications. Pursuant to this scheme, the
    state would be the licensee for all mobile units operating on the
    band. A state-level agency or organization responsible for
    administering state emergency communications would be responsible
    for authorizing local and other public safety entities to operate on
    the spectrum and coordinating spectrum use.

48. With respect to the 700 MHz public safety band, the Commission found
    that there were several advantages to a state-licensing scheme, all
    of which would be applicable to the instant case. For example, the
    Commission concluded that state-level organizations are usually in
    charge in emergency situations involving multiple agencies, which is
    the sort of use currently envisioned for this spectrum, and
    therefore constituted the ideal body to administer the
    spectrum.[^112] The Commission also concluded that states were in a
    better position to coordinate with Federal Government emergency
    agencies,[^113] which we have already tentatively concluded should
    be permitted to operate on the 4.9 GHz band. The Commission also
    found state licensing attractive because of the inherent ability to
    simplify system expansion.[^114] Another advantage of a state
    licensing scheme is that it reduces the administrative burden on
    both the Commission and the public safety community.[^115] Because
    the state licensing approach was used in the 700 MHz proceeding, we
    expect that states will have spectrum management capabilities
    already in place. Furthermore, in the event that we permit both
    fixed and mobile uses on the band, we believe that the states are in
    a better position to coordinate fixed and mobile interference
    issues.

49. State licensing, however, has certain potential drawbacks. State
    licensing would impose additional spectrum management duties upon
    state agencies. We therefore seek comment on whether this approach
    places cumbersome responsibilities upon the states, as well as on
    what alternative licensing mechanism we should employ if a state is
    unwilling or unable to administer such a license. Furthermore, such
    a licensing scheme may exacerbate tensions between state-level and
    local-level public safety agencies over spectrum use. Hence, we seek
    comment on whether we should establish guidelines to ensure that
    states do not unduly restrict the access of other eligible entities
    to this spectrum. We also seek comment on whether we should license
    this spectrum as was done in the 700 MHz band, in which states were
    given a window to apply for a state license and at the end of that
    period, unclaimed spectrum would revert to a Regional Planning
    Committee. Commenters should specifically address whether such an
    approach is feasible and appropriate, and if so, what entity should
    be designated the default licensee in those cases in which a state
    does not file for its license. Commenters should also discuss the
    other advantages and disadvantages of this scheme, as identified
    herein or otherwise.

#### Blanket Licensing or Unlicensed Operation

50. Another option for the licensing of mobile operations is blanket
    licensing mobile units by rule. Such licensing would be analogous to
    our licensing of interoperability mobiles used in the 700 MHz
    band.[^116] Under this approach, mobile operations would be
    permitted on the band without an individual license by entities
    if (1) such entities are eligible to operate on the band as
    discussed, *supra,* or (2) such entities are eligible for
    frequencies in the Public Safety Radio Pool set forth in Section
    90.15 of our Rules.[^117] Considering that the contemplated mobile
    use of this band would be incident-specific, this approach is
    advantageous in that it accounts for the fact that the service area
    for on-scene incident service is not determinable in advance.
    Furthermore, the small service contour contemplated minimizes
    interference concerns, thereby obviating the need for a more
    complicated licensing scheme. Moreover, blanket licensing alleviates
    the administrative burdens associated with traditional licensing,
    such as the filing and processing of applications.

51. There are certain drawbacks, however, to blanket licensing. We
    question whether, in the absence of named licensees, there will be
    adequate mechanisms for ensuring that there will be proper
    coordination concerning communications among the various agencies
    that may respond to an incident or emergency. Moreover, if both
    fixed and mobile operations are permitted on the band, the absence
    of individual mobile licensees may complicate coordination with
    fixed users or users in adjacent bands.

52. We seek comment on this licensing approach. Commenters should
    address whether, despite the small service contour for the
    envisioned mobile uses, such operations would affect fixed
    operations, thereby detracting from the desirability of this
    approach. We invite suggestions on what requirements we should set
    in order to qualify for operation on the band. We also invite
    discussion on management of the spectrum by an individual in charge
    at an incident scene, and whether we can rely on such an individual
    to adequately manage the spectrum under such circumstances.
    Alternatively, we also seek comment on allowing unlicensed operation
    pursuant to Part 15 of the Commission's Rules with sales and
    marketing restrictions to ensure that the equipment is used in
    support of public safety. Finally, we seek comment on whether such
    approaches would result in any abuses that might interrupt emergency
    communications operations on the band.

#### Regional Planning Committees

53. Another licensing scheme that would allow the designation of a
    licensee for coordination purposes with minimal administrative
    burden on end users would be to license mobile use through the use
    of regional planning committees. Under a regional planning licensing
    scheme, which the Commission used in both the 700 MHz and 800 MHz
    public safety bands, the nation is divided into regions that have
    the autonomy to develop plans that meet their different
    communications needs.[^118] Based on the experience gained from the
    implementation of this plan in the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands, we
    seek comment on whether we should employ regional planning committee
    licensing in the 4.9 GHz band.

#### Band Managers

54. Another licensing scheme that would allow the designation of a
    licensee for coordination purposes with minimal administrative
    burden on end users would be to license mobile use through the use
    of band managers. The Commission has defined band managers as \"a
    class of licensees that are specifically authorized to lease their
    licensed spectrum usage rights for use by third parties through
    private, contractual agreements, without having to secure prior
    approval by the Commission."[^119]

55. We seek comment as to whether we should employ a band manager
    licensing scheme for the administration of this spectrum. Commenters
    should address whether a band manger approach would permit more
    flexible use of this spectrum and would facilitate efficient
    spectrum management, especially considering this spectrum could
    conceivably be utilized for both fixed and mobile operations. In
    particular, we seek comment on whether our spectrum management
    policies would be enhanced by permitting band managers the expanded
    flexibility to use their spectrum internally or provide
    telecommunications services, in addition to leasing it.[^120] 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; and if so, how? For example, the Commission has previously
    prohibited band managers from using spectrum directly, and limited
    the amount of spectrum that they could lease to affiliated
    entities.[^121] We seek comment on the appropriate geographic area
    for a band manager license (*i.e.*, state, local, or nationwide
    licenses), as well as the respective advantages and disadvantages of
    using a band manager licensing scheme *vis-à-vis* the other
    licensing schemes mentioned herein. We ask commenters to address
    possible consideration for spectrum leases. We also seek comment on
    whether it is necessary to provide additional safeguards to prevent
    a band manager from discriminating among spectrum users.

56. Commenters should initially address whether we should restrict the
    role of band manager to public safety entities that are eligible to
    hold licenses pursuant to the standard of eligibility we ultimately
    define for this spectrum band. We ask commenters to address how we
    should resolve competing band manager applications. Alternatively,
    as proposed above, commenters should address whether we should allow
    all or some band managers to be commercial entities that lease
    spectrum to public safety entities.[^122]

### Fixed Licensing

57. We also seek comment on the appropriate means of licensing fixed use
    of the 4.9 GHz band by the public safety community. Because we
    anticipate that public safety entities will utilize this spectrum in
    a manner analogous to that used by private (including public safety)
    radio users in other fixed microwave bands, we believe that the
    licensing scheme should likewise be similar. Accordingly, we seek
    comment on whether we should license fixed use in this band pursuant
    to Part 27, Part 90 or Part 101 of the Commission's Rules.

58. We note that should we allow site-based fixed use of this spectrum,
    site-based licensing deprives licensees of the flexibility to
    relocate transmitter sites within a defined service area without
    obtaining the Commission's prior approval.[^123] We seek comment on
    whether public safety entities employing fixed operations on the 4.9
    GHz band would require flexibility in licensing. We solicit
    proposals on other innovative licensing approaches that will
    minimize burdens upon both the Commission and public safety users.
    Furthermore, we seek proposals for the setting of license terms, and
    comment on whether and under what circumstances should we impose
    construction requirements for fixed services. Commenters who believe
    that construction requirements are necessary in this proceeding
    should suggest proposed time periods for construction of stations.
    We also seek comment on the extent to which the choice of an
    appropriate licensing scheme for fixed services is dependent on how
    we define eligible public safety radio services in this band.
    Commenters are also invited to recommend other licensing
    restrictions and qualifications.

## Interference

59. The U.S. Navy conducts Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)
    operations in nine training areas in the band immediately below the
    4.9 GHz band. Operations of the U.S. Navy\'s CEC system,
    particularly its aeronautical mobile operations below the 4.9 GHz
    band, may inhibit use of the lower portion of the 4.9 GHz band in
    large areas along the East, West, and Gulf Coasts.[^124] We note
    that this system operates in accordance with the specifications
    detailed in a recent Department of Commerce letter,[^125] which
    differs from the description contained in the *First NPRM*. The CEC
    system may operate in full power mode, including airborne
    operations, in each of the nine training areas. These full power
    emissions abut the lower portion of the 4.9 GHz band. In addition,
    airborne use may impact systems operating in the 4.9 GHz band as far
    as 394 kilometers (245 miles) away.[^126] NTIA, in a letter dated
    March 31, 2001, stated that operational use of the CEC systems will
    occur outside of the training areas and such use will continue to
    evolve as national defense requirements for the CEC system are
    further defined. In areas where non-Government operations have not
    yet been authorized, the Department of Defense reserves the right,
    after coordinating with NTIA and the Commission, to expand
    permanently the designated training areas and utilize the full power
    mode and full band capability.[^127] In areas outside of the nine
    identified training areas where non-Government operations are
    authorized, the Department of Defense has agreed that any
    operational use of the CEC system will, except in the case of a
    National Defense Emergency,[^128] be limited to the medium power
    mode with a 50 megahertz guard band protecting the 4.9 GHz
    band.[^129] Emissions from these types of operations would be below
    the spurious emission limits normally imposed on mobile services and
    thus have limited potential to cause interference to non-Government
    systems.[^130]

60. Given the high power at which the CEC system operates, we do not
    anticipate that the currently contemplated low power public safety
    operations in the 4.9 GHz band would cause any interference to the
    CEC system. We are concerned, however, that the Navy's use of the
    CEC system, as set forth in NTIA's letter, could cause interference
    to public safety systems. In its comments to the *First NPRM*,
    Motorola estimates that if the top CEC channel is used and all of
    the CEC channels are used airborne at full power, the preclusion
    zones around the training areas will be 125-250 miles; if the CEC
    use is land or ship based, the preclusion zones around the training
    areas will be 25-30 miles.[^131] Furthermore, Motorola states that
    if the Navy uses the topmost channel of the CEC system, at least the
    lower 25 megahertz of the band will be unavailable.[^132] Motorola
    cautions that public safety and Federal users must work together to
    minimize the impact of CEC systems operating within the training
    areas, or else the full allocation will be unavailable in those
    areas.[^133] We seek comment on Motorola\'s analysis and
    conclusions, as well as on our conclusion that the low power
    operations contemplated for the band will not interfere with the CEC
    system. More generally, we seek comment on the Navy's plans for the
    CEC system in the band below the 4.9 GHz band and the impact that
    the CEC operations will have on provision of service in the 4.9 GHz
    band. We solicit comment on the effect CEC operations would have on
    any segmentation or channelization plans adopted for this band, and
    what steps public safety licensees in the 4.9 GHz band could take to
    minimize the impact of CEC operations on their services. We ask
    commenters to address whether there are any technical rules we could
    apply to 4.9 GHz band licensees that would minimize the impact of
    CEC operations on public safety licensees.

61. The issue of interference with public safety communications is of
    particular concern given the vital nature of public safety
    communications and the emphasis the public safety community has
    placed on ensuring that the services they utilize guarantee them
    immediate access, ubiquitous coverage, flawless reliability, and
    security.[^134] Given the CEC operations in the band below the 4.9
    GHz band, we seek comment on how to ensure that the 4.9 GHz spectrum
    can provide the public safety community with these types of
    benefits. Our aim is to develop a record on how the public safety
    community operations in the 4.9 GHz band can co-exist with the
    Navy's operations in the adjacent band.

62. Finally, protection of primary radio astronomy operations in the
    adjacent 4990-5000 MHz band may inhibit operation in the upper
    portion of the band in certain areas.[^135] We seek comment on what,
    if any, restrictions may be needed on new users in the 4.9 GHz band
    to protect these adjacent band uses.

## Technical Standards for Mobile Equipment

63. When contemplating the introduction of new technologies into an
    established regulatory framework, the anticipated use of these new
    technologies must be considered. In light of these considerations,
    we seek comment on whether to establish technical standards for
    mobile equipment operating in the 4.9 GHz band, and if so, what
    standards should be included in our Rules. As a general rule, the
    Commission has traditionally disfavored the specification of
    performance or quality standards for equipment,[^136] leaving the
    selection of technology entirely within the realm of the licensees.
    We seek comment on whether our Rules should specify particular
    standards. We also ask commenters to discuss regulatory goals that
    could warrant the use of particular standards, including incident
    scene interoperability and the accommodation of the peak demand that
    occurs during multiple emergencies. Commenters should address
    whether the specification of particular standards would promote
    these regulatory goals. We also seek comment on other means by which
    we can craft our Rules to permit operational flexibility while
    ensuring interoperability between different agencies. We ask
    commenters to discuss alternative regulatory approaches, including
    the operational factors (such as *ad hoc* and access point
    operations) that should be considered in the regulatory approach we
    adopt. We ask commenters to discuss these system requirements,
    particularly as they relate to emerging broadband technologies, as
    well as any other requirements necessary for effective and efficient
    operations by public safety agencies. Further, we seek comment on
    whether the setting of performance standards will delay the
    production of equipment that will be operated on this band, and if
    so, what we can do to prevent any production delays.

64. Prior to beginning our analysis of technical standards, we note that
    the current record in this proceeding reflects the public safety
    community's vision of a low-power mobile service. We stress that we
    generally seek comment on whether such a system would represent the
    best use of this spectrum. However, since we wish to develop as full
    a record as possible, we also seek comment on our analysis of the
    technologies envisioned by the current record.

### Broadband Technologies 

65. We note that there are two widely contemplated, spectrally efficient
    broadband standards available for WLAN: (1) Institute of Electrical
    and Electronics Engineering standard 802.11a (IEEE 802.11a); and (2)
    European Telecommunications Standardization Institute (ETSI)
    Broadband Radio Access Network (BRAN) High Performance Local Area
    Network number two (HiperLAN2).[^137] IEEE 802.11a technology takes
    advantage of more spectra to provide higher data rates and improves
    system capacity performance. IEEE 802.11a has been cleared in the
    United States for unlicensed use through the category of U-NII,
    described above. HiperLAN2 is a new, high performance, 5 GHz radio
    networking technology, specifically suited for operating in LAN
    environments. HiperLAN2 provides high-speed access to a variety of
    networks including 3G core networks, Asynchronous Transfer Mode
    (ATM) and Internet Protocol (IP) based networks, and also for
    private use as a wireless LAN. HiperLAN2 is very similar, at the
    physical level, to IEEE 802.11a. We seek comment on these standards.
    Additionally, the public safety community states that it can defray
    equipment costs by relying on equipment and technology being
    utilized in the nearby 5 GHz U-NII band.[^138] We seek comment on
    the viability of these technologies for public safety operations. We
    also seek comment on whether any cost savings public safety
    licensees might gain from relying on U-NII equipment and technology
    might be off-set by the expense involved in modifying this equipment
    and technology to include encryption and other security features
    characteristic of, or desirable for, public safety equipment.

### Power limits

66. As discussed above, the mobile broadband technologies that the
    public safety community seeks to deploy on the 4.9 GHz band involve
    the use of incident scene equipment. Inasmuch as these uses are
    expected to cover only a small radius, Motorola recommends that we
    adopt a 1-watt maximum transmitter power limit, and a 20-dB maximum
    antenna gain.[^139] Motorola asserts that on-scene broadband LAN
    operations will require a one-watt power level, but that PAN/VAN
    uses may actually operate at lower levels, depending upon the choice
    of public safety users. Motorola contends that adopting its
    recommended power levels as ceilings will allow public safety users
    the flexibility to accommodate all possible situations.[^140] We
    seek comment on whether we should adopt a power limit and what that
    level should be. Commenters should explain the basis for any
    suggested power limits.

## Technical Rules for Fixed Operations in the 4.9 GHz Band 

67. As noted above, we are considering whether to permit fixed
    operations on the 4.9 GHz band. While we reach no conclusion on this
    issue at this time, we nevertheless believe it is appropriate to
    solicit comment on possible technical requirements for fixed
    operations on the band. We believe that such comments will be
    valuable in that they will assist in the development of a record on
    which to base our ultimate decision. Accordingly, we discuss below
    various technical issues that should be considered for fixed uses.
    We invite comment on these and other technical issues related to
    such uses.

68. One of the technical issues that arise is the appropriate Effective
    Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) values for fixed operations. We ask
    whether fixed operations for the 4.9 GHz band should have an EIRP
    limit of 55 dBW, which is identical to the limit set for the
    3700-4200 MHz and 5925-6425 MHz bands.[^141] In particular, we ask
    commenters to address whether the proposed EIRP values are
    appropriate for the intended services, and whether it provides
    adequate power for stations to transmit over typical distances for
    various types of applications. We also ask whether we should apply
    the minimum path length contained in Section 101.143 of our
    Rules[^142] to operations in 4.9 GHz band. We tentatively conclude
    that applying the minimum path length would promote spectral
    efficiency by preventing the use of overpowered systems over short
    paths. Third, we seek comment on whether to make the emission mask
    requirements for fixed microwave services in the 4.9 GHz band
    consistent with the emission mask requirements for fixed microwave
    services in Part 101 of our Rules.[^143] We also seek comment on
    whether to allow fixed licensees in the 4.9 GHz band to use
    Automatic Transmitter Power Control (ATPC). ATPC is a function that
    typically provides for more efficient spectrum use.[^144] Finally,
    we ask whether we should adopt a frequency tolerance level of 0.005%
    for fixed equipment operating on the band. This approach is
    consistent with the frequency tolerance allowed in Part 101 of our
    Rules for the 3700-4200 MHz and 5925-6875 MHz bands.[^145] Since
    operations in these bands are technically similar to the fixed
    microwave services we anticipate will operate in the 4.9 GHz band,
    we believe the same frequency tolerance is appropriate for the 4.9
    GHz band.[^146] We seek comment on this approach.

# CONCLUSION

69. As stated in PSWAC's Final Report, "\[n\]o responsibility is more
    fundamental and reflective of the nation's values than that of its
    public safety agencies."[^147] Indeed, our public safety providers
    are critical to our nation's well being. Their missions should not
    be compromised by inadequate communications, or lack of access to
    state of the art technologies that can enhance their abilities to
    conduct critical operations. Our actions today are in keeping with
    one of our primary mandates; that is, to promote the use of spectrum
    to further safety of life and property.[^148]

#  PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Ex Parte Rules - Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

70. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making
    proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are permitted, except during
    the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided
    in our Rules.[^149]

## Regulatory Flexibility Act 

71. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)[^150] requires that an agency
    prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment
    rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that \"the rule will not,
    if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial
    number of small entities.[^151] Accordingly, we have prepared a
    Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification concerning the impact of
    the rule changes contained in the *Second R&O* on small entities.
    The Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification is set forth in
    Appendix B. Additionally, we have prepared an Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis concerning the impact on small entities of the
    policies and rules proposed by this *FNPRM*. The Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis is set forth in Appendix C.

## Paperwork Reduction Act

72. This *Further Notice* does not contain either a proposed or modified
    information collection.[^152]

## Comment Dates 

73. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of our Rules, interested
    parties may file comments on or before \[90 days after Federal
    Register publication\] and reply comments on or before \[120 days
    after Federal Register publication\].[^153] Comments may be filed
    using the Commission\'s Electronic Filing System (ECFS) or by filing
    paper copies.[^154]

74. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>.
    Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
    If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of
    this proceeding, however, then commenters must transmit one
    electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number
    referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen,
    commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing
    address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may
    also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To obtain
    filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an
    e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in
    the body of the message, \"get form \<your e-mail address\>.\" A
    sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

75. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
    appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit
    two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
    number. All filings must be sent to the Commission\'s Acting
    Secretary, William F. Caton, Office of the Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, 445 12th St., S.W., Room TW-A325,
    Washington, D.C. 20554.

76. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
    comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to:
    Genevieve Augustin, Esq., Public Safety and Private Wireless
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th St., S.W.,
    Room 3-A431, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on
    a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using
    Microsoft Word 97 or compatible software. The diskette should be
    accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in \"read
    only\" mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the
    commenter\'s name, proceeding (including the lead docket number in
    this case, WT Docket No. 00-32), type of pleading (comment or reply
    comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on
    the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase
    \"Disk Copy - Not an Original.\" Each diskette should contain only
    one party\'s pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In
    addition, commenters should send diskette copies to the
    Commission\'s copy contractor, Qualex International, Inc., 445 12th
    St., S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554.

> **E. Ordering Clauses**

77. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r),
    and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    154(i), 303(r), 403, this *Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making* IS HEREBY ADOPTED.

78. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 2 of the Commission\'s rules IS
    AMENDED as specified in Appendix A and such rule amendments shall be
    effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

79. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 4(i) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), that
    Part 26 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 26, is no longer
    in the public interest, and therefore is REMOVED, effective 30 days
    after publication of the text thereof in the Federal Register.

80. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    *Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, including the Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Certification and Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

> **F. Further Information**

81. For further information, contact Genevieve Augustin, Esq.,
    [gaugusti@fcc.gov]{.underline}, or Roberto Mussenden, Esq.,
    [rmussend@fcc.gov](mailto:rmussende@fcc.gov), Policy and Rules
    Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0680, or TTY (202) 418-7233.

82. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audiocassette
    and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
    contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or at
    bmillin@fcc.gov. This *Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* can
    also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov/dtf/.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Caton

Acting Secretary

# APPENDIX A: FINAL RULES {#appendix-a-final-rules .unnumbered}

Part 2 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

**PART 2 \-- FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS**

1\. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302(a), 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

2\. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as
follows:

a\. Revise page 55.

b\. In the list of United States (US) Footnotes, remove footnote US257
and revise footnote US311.

c\. In the list of Government (G) Footnotes, revise footnote G122.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

**[§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.]{.underline}**

\* \* \* \* \*

+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 3700-5650 |           |           |           |           | Page 55 |
| MHz (SHF) |           |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| Inte      |           |           | United    |           | FCC     |
| rnational |           |           | States    |           | Rule    |
| Table     |           |           | Table     |           | Part(s) |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| Region 1  | Region 2  | Region 3  | Federal   | No        |         |
|           |           |           | G         | n-Federal |         |
|           |           |           | overnment | G         |         |
|           |           |           |           | overnment |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| See       | 3700-4200 |           | 3700-4200 | 3700-4200 | Intern  |
| previous  |           |           |           |           | ational |
| page for  | FIXED     |           |           | FIXED     | Fixed   |
|           |           |           |           | NG41      | (23)    |
| 3600-4200 | FIXED-    |           |           |           |         |
| MHz       | SATELLITE |           |           | FIXED-    | Sa      |
|           | (space-   |           |           | SATELLITE | tellite |
|           | to-Earth) |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           | (space-   | Communi |
|           | MOBILE    |           |           | to-Earth) | cations |
|           | except    |           |           |           | (25)    |
|           | aer       |           |           |           |         |
|           | onautical |           |           |           | Fixed   |
|           | mobile    |           |           |           | Mi      |
|           |           |           |           |           | crowave |
|           |           |           |           |           | (101)   |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 4200-4400 |           |           | 4200-4400 |           | A       |
|           |           |           |           |           | viation |
| AER       |           |           | AER       |           | (87)    |
| ONAUTICAL |           |           | ONAUTICAL |           |         |
| RADION    |           |           | RADION    |           |         |
| AVIGATION |           |           | AVIGATION |           |         |
| S5.438    |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           | S5.440    |           |         |
| S5.437    |           |           | US261     |           |         |
| S5.439    |           |           |           |           |         |
| S5.440    |           |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 4400-4500 |           |           | 4400-4500 | 4400-4500 |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| FIXED     |           |           | FIXED     |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| MOBILE    |           |           | MOBILE    |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 4500-4800 |           |           | 4500-4800 | 4500-4800 |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| FIXED     |           |           | FIXED     | FIXED-    |         |
|           |           |           |           | SATELLITE |         |
| FIXED-    |           |           | MOBILE    |           |         |
| SATELLITE |           |           |           | (space-   |         |
| (space-   |           |           | US245     | to-Earth) |         |
| to-Earth) |           |           |           | 792A      |         |
| S5.441    |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           | US245     |         |
| MOBILE    |           |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 4800-4990 |           |           | 4800-4940 | 4800-4940 |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| FIXED     |           |           | FIXED     | S5.149    |         |
|           |           |           |           | US203     |         |
| MOBILE    |           |           | MOBILE    |           |         |
| S5.442    |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           | S5.149    |           |         |
| Radio     |           |           | US203     |           |         |
| astronomy |           |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| S5.149    |           |           | 4940-4990 | 4940-4990 | Private |
| S5.339    |           |           |           |           | Land    |
| S5.443    |           |           | S5.149    | FIXED     | Mobile  |
|           |           |           | S5.339    |           | (90)    |
|           |           |           | US311     | MOBILE    |         |
|           |           |           | G122      | except    | Fixed   |
|           |           |           |           | aer       | Mi      |
|           |           |           |           | onautical | crowave |
|           |           |           |           |           | (101)   |
|           |           |           |           | mobile    |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           | S5.149    |         |
|           |           |           |           | S5.339    |         |
|           |           |           |           | US311     |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 4990-5000 |           |           | 4990-5000 |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| FIXED     |           |           | RADIO     |           |         |
|           |           |           | ASTRONOMY |           |         |
| MOBILE    |           |           | US74      |           |         |
| except    |           |           |           |           |         |
| aer       |           |           | Space     |           |         |
| onautical |           |           | research  |           |         |
| mobile    |           |           | (passive) |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| RADIO     |           |           | US246     |           |         |
| ASTRONOMY |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| Space     |           |           |           |           |         |
| research  |           |           |           |           |         |
| (passive) |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| S5.149    |           |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 5000-5150 |           |           | 5000-5250 | 5000-5150 | Sa      |
|           |           |           |           |           | tellite |
| AER       |           |           | AER       | AER       |         |
| ONAUTICAL |           |           | ONAUTICAL | ONAUTICAL | Communi |
| RADION    |           |           | RADIO-    | RADIO-    | cations |
| AVIGATION |           |           |           |           | (25)    |
|           |           |           | N         | N         |         |
| S5.367    |           |           | AVIGATION | AVIGATION | A       |
| S5.444    |           |           | US260     | US260     | viation |
| S5.444A   |           |           |           |           | (87)    |
|           |           |           |           | S5.367    |         |
|           |           |           |           | S5.444    |         |
|           |           |           |           | S5.444A   |         |
|           |           |           |           | US211     |         |
|           |           |           |           | US344     |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+

\* \* \* \* \*

UNITED STATES (US) FOOTNOTES

\* \* \* \* \*

US311 Radio astronomy observations may be made in the bands
1350-1400 MHz and 4950-4990 MHz on an unprotected basis at the following
radio astronomy observatories:

  -------------------------------- --------------- ----------------------
  Allen Telescope Array, Hat       Rectangle       
  Creek, California                between         
                                   latitudes 40°   
                                   00\' N and      
                                   42° 00\' N and  
                                   between         
                                   longitudes      
                                   120° 15\' W and 
                                   122° 15\' W.    

  NASA Goldstone Deep Space        80 kilometers   
  Communications Complex,          (50 mile)       
  Goldstone, California            radius centered 
                                   on latitude     
                                   35° 18\' N,     
                                   longitude       
                                   116° 54\' W.    

  National Astronomy and           Rectangle       
  Ionosphere Center, Arecibo,      between         
  Puerto Rico                      latitudes       
                                   17° 30\' N and  
                                   19° 00\' N and  
                                   between         
                                   longitudes      
                                   65° 10\' W and  
                                   68° 00\' W.     

  National Radio Astronomy         Rectangle       
  Observatory, Socorro, New Mexico between         
                                   latitudes       
                                   32° 30\' N and  
                                   35° 30\' N and  
                                   between         
                                   longitudes      
                                   106° 00\' W and 
                                   109° 00\' W.    

  National Radio Astronomy         Rectangle       
  Observatory, Green Bank, West    between         
  Virginia                         latitudes 37°   
                                   30\' N and      
                                   39° 15\' N and  
                                   between         
                                   longitudes      
                                   78° 30\' W and  
                                   80° 30\' W.     

  National Radio Astronomy         80 kilometers   
  Observatory, Very Long Baseline  (50 mile)       
  Array Stations                   radius centered 
                                   on:             

                                   Latitude        Longitude (West)
                                   (North)         

  Brewster, WA                     48° 08\'        119° 41\'

  Fort Davis, TX                   30° 38\'        103° 57\'

  Hancock, NH                      42° 56\'        71° 59\'

  Kitt Peak, AZ                    31° 57\'        111° 37\'

  Los Alamos, NM                   35° 47\'        106° 15\'

  Mauna Kea, HI                    19° 48\'        155° 27\'

  North Liberty, IA                41° 46\'        91° 34\'

  Owens Valley, CA                 37° 14\'        118° 17\'

  Pie Town, NM                     34° 18\'        108° 07\'

  Saint Croix, VI                  17° 46\'        64° 35\'

  Owens Valley Radio Observatory,  Two contiguous  
  Big Pine, California             rectangles, one 
                                   between         
                                   latitudes 36°   
                                   00\' N and      
                                   37° 00\' N and  
                                   between         
                                   longitudes      
                                   117° 40\' W and 
                                   118° 30\' W and 
                                   the second      
                                   between         
                                   latitudes 37°   
                                   00\' N and      
                                   38° 00\' N and  
                                   between         
                                   longitudes      
                                   118° 00\' W and 
                                   118° 50\' W.    
  -------------------------------- --------------- ----------------------

Every practicable effort will be made to avoid the assignment of
frequencies in the bands 1350-1400 MHz and 4950-4990 MHz to stations in
the fixed and mobile services that could interfere with radio astronomy
observations within the geographic areas given above. In addition, every
practicable effort will be made to avoid assignment of frequencies in
these bands to stations in the aeronautical mobile service which operate
outside of those geographic areas, but which may cause harmful
interference to the listed observatories. Should such assignments result
in harmful interference to these observatories, the situation will be
remedied to the extent practicable.

\* \* \* \* \*

GOVERNMENT (G) FOOTNOTES

\* \* \* \* \*

G122 In the bands 2390-2400 MHz, 2402-2417 MHz, and 4940-4990 MHz,
Government operations may be authorized on a non-interference basis to
authorized non-Government operations, but shall not hinder the
implementation of any non-Government operations.

\* \* \* \* \*

Under the authority 47 U.S.C. § 154, amend 47 C.F.R. chapter I by
removing Part 26.

## APPENDIX B: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION (SECOND REPORT AND ORDER) {#appendix-b-final-regulatory-flexibility-certification-second-report-and-order .unnumbered}

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)[^155] requires that a regulatory
flexibility analysis be prepared for notice and comment 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).

This *Second R&O* allocates the band 4940-4990 MHz to the fixed and
mobile, except aeronautical mobile, services on a co-primary basis, to
be used exclusively by public safety. This allocation will thus provide
public safety users with additional spectrum to support new broadband
applications such as high-speed digital technologies and wireless local
area networks for incident scene management, dispatch operations, and
vehicular/personal communications, and thus enable public safety
providers to more effectively, efficiently and safely serve their
communities. In addition, our action may affect indirectly equipment
manufacturers by ultimately potentially increasing the demand for their
goods and services. Both of these effects are positive benefits, with no
associated additional compliance burdens. Also, an indirect affect of
this allocation on some small entities is the potential enhancement of
their protection from crime and hazards, and of their receipt of
emergency services.

Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this *Second R&O* will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Commission will send a copy of the *Second R&O,* 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 *Second R&O* 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).

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# APPENDIX C:  INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS (FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING) {#appendix-c-initial-regulatory-flexibility-analysis-further-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking .unnumbered}

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^156] 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 *FNPRM.* 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 *FNPRM* provided in paragraph
72 of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the *FNPRM*,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).[^157] In addition, the *FNPRM* and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[^158]

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

In this *FNPRM,* we solicit comment on: the establishment of licensing
and service rules for the 4.9 GHz band;[^159] defining eligibility to
use the band;[^160] segmentation or channeling plans for use of the
band;[^161] ways to mitigate interference on the 4.9 GHz band from
adjacent band U.S. Navy operations;[^162] and ways to utilize the band
in a manner that will not interfere with adjacent band radio astronomy
operations.[^163]

Our objectives for the Notice are to: (1) set the framework for the
establishment of a new public safety radio service in the 4.9 GHz band;
(2) encourage flexible and efficient use of the 4.9 GHz spectrum; (3)
encourage innovative applications in support of public safety; and (4)
improve access to communications and state of the art first responder
tools for entities engaged in public safety operations. The Commission
also seeks to ensure a regulatory plan for the 4.9 GHz band that will
allow for the efficient licensing and use of the band, and eliminate
unnecessary regulatory burdens.

B.  **Legal Basis**

> The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 10, 201,
> 202, 208, 214, 301, 303,

308, 309(j), and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 308,
309(j), 310.

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

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^164] The RFA generally
defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms
"small business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction."[^165] In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business
Act.[^166] 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).[^167]

Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small
organizations.[^168] \"Small governmental jurisdiction\" generally means
\"governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
50,000.\"[^169] As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such
jurisdictions in the United States.[^170] This number includes 38,978
counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or ninety-six percent,
have populations of fewer than 50,000.[^171] The Census Bureau estimates
that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities.
Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600
(ninety-one percent) are small entities.

The proposed radio service may affect users of public safety radio
services, the extent of which is not defined in this proceeding. This
service may also affect manufacturers of radio communications equipment.
An analysis of the number of small businesses that may be affected
follows. We also note that according to SBA data, there are
approximately 4.44 million small businesses nationwide.

*Public Safety Radio Services and Governmental entities*. As a general
matter, Public Safety Radio Services include police, fire, local
government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency
medical services.[^172] Non-Federal governmental entities, as well as
private businesses, are potential licensees for these services in this
proceeding. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
definition of small businesses directed specifically toward public
service licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small
business is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Cellular
and other Wireless Telecommunications. This provides that a small
business is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500
persons.[^173] According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve
radiotelephone firms from a total of 1,178 such firms which operated
during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.[^174] Therefore, even if all
twelve of these firms were public safety licensees, nearly all would be
small businesses under the SBA\'s definition, if independently owned and
operated.

*Equipment Manufacturers*. We anticipate that at least six radio
equipment manufacturers will be affected by our decisions in this
proceeding. According to the Small Business Administration's
regulations, a Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing businesses must have 750 or fewer
employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.[^175] Census
Bureau data indicate that there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture
radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that
778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be
classified as small entities.[^176] We do not have information that
indicates how many of the six radio equipment manufacturers associated
with this proceeding are among these 778 firms. Motorola and Ericsson,
however, are major, nationwide radio equipment manufacturers, and thus,
we conclude that they would not qualify as small businesses.

We invite comment on this analysis.

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities**

We note that in this FNPRM, we propose a variety of licensing approaches
we could employ on this band, but formulate no tentative conclusions on
this matter. Possible requirements under consideration in this Further
Notice include: recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and/or
third-party consultation, if state licensing is ultimately utilized;
compliance with part 101 of our Rules, in the event that fixed
operations are licensed on the 4.9 GHz band; compliance with part 90 of
our Rules, if mobile operations are licensed individually; compliance
with part 27 of our Rules, if 4.9 GHz band operations are licensed
pursuant thereto; and compliance with part 15 of our Rules, in the event
that mobile operations on the 4.9 GHz band are unlicensed.[^177]
Applicants and licensees would possibly be required to follow current
service rules for such approaches, if ultimately chosen.

**E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives
(among others): "(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 and reporting
requirements under the rule for such 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 such small
entities."[^178]

The possible regulatory burdens we have described above, such as
recordkeeping, recording, and filing requirements, if implemented, are
necessary in order to ensure that the public safety operations benefit
from the innovative new services described herein, in a prompt and
efficient manner. We will continue to examine alternatives in the future
with the objectives of eliminating unnecessary regulations and
minimizing any significant economic impact on small entities. We seek
comment on significant alternatives commenters believe should be adopted
in this proceeding.

**F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules**

None.

# APPENDIX D: GEOGRAPHIC AREAS WHERE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY (CEC) WILL BE USED FOR TRAINING IN ITS HIGH POWER, FULL BANDWIDTH MODE {#appendix-d-geographic-areas-where-department-of-defense-cooperative-engagement-capability-cec-will-be-used-for-training-in-its-high-power-full-bandwidth-mode .unnumbered}

***CEC TRAINING AREA 1***

Training Area 1 supports Atlantic Coast Exercises, and extends inland
from, seaward from, and along the low water mark of a portion of the
Mid-Atlantic and South-Atlantic coastline, and includes separate areas
in Maryland (MD) and Virginia (VA).

*[INLAND PORTION]{.underline}*: The inland portion of Training Area 1
extends westward from the low water mark of the Atlantic Ocean, and
includes all of the area contained within the boundaries of the
following counties and within the other identified areas in the
indicated state:

> Delaware: Sussex County
>
> Maryland: Wicomico, Somerset, and Worcester Counties
>
> Virginia: Accomack and Northampton Counties; all of the area east of
> the eastern most boundaries of Isle of Wight and Southampton Counties
> (includes the cities of Suffolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Virginia
> Beach, Norfolk, and others)
>
> North Carolina (NC): Currituck, Camden, Pasquotank, Perquimans,
> Tyrell, Dare, Hyde, Craven, Pamlico, Jones, Carteret, Onslow, Pender,
> New Hanover, and Brunswick Counties

Exercises within the above boundaries of the inland portion of Training
Area 1 will include aircraft operating at altitudes to 30 thousand feet
(kft), mobile ground based equipment, and permanent ground based
equipment. Aircraft and mobile ground based equipment can be positioned
anywhere in the defined area. Permanent ground based terminals are now
located at Wallops Island, VA; Eastville, VA; and Dam Neck Fleet Combat
Training Center-Atlantic, VA. Other permanent ground based terminals
will be added within the above defined area as required. Other specific
sites within the above defined area include, but are not limited to:
Norfolk Naval Base, VA; Norfolk Naval Air Station (NAS), VA; Little
Creek Naval Amphibious Base, VA; Oceana NAS, VA; Marine Corps Bogue
Field, NC; and Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), NC.

Permanent ground based terminals not within the above defined area
operate within the legal boundaries of the Naval Surface Warfare Center
at Dahlgren, VA; and the Patuxent River Naval Air Warfare Center, MD. A
permanent ground based terminal also operates within a 5 nm radius of
Reedville, VA.

*[SEAWARD PORTION]{.underline}*: The seaward portion of Training Area 1
is bounded on the north by the line that extends eastward from the low
water mark of the Atlantic Ocean along 38.914055 north decimal degrees
of latitude. The western boundary of the seaward portion of Training
Area 1 begins at the intersection of the low water mark of the Atlantic
Ocean with 38.914055 north decimal degrees of latitude, extends
generally southward and southwestward along the low water mark of the
Atlantic Ocean to the intersection of the low water mark with 78.660000
west decimal degrees of longitude, and then continues southward along
78.660000 west decimal degrees of longitude. There is no eastern or
southern boundary of the seaward portion of Training Area 1. Exercises
in the seaward portion of Training Area 1 will include aircraft
operating at altitudes to 30 kft and surface ships. These assets can be
positioned anywhere within the defined area.

***CEC TRAINING AREA 2***

Training Area 2 supports Gulf Coast exercises. Training Area 2 extends
inland from, seaward from, and along the low water mark of a portion of
the Florida (FL), Alabama (AL), and Mississippi (MS) Gulf coastlines,
and includes a separate area near Huntsville, AL and a separate area
encompassing Pinellas County, FL.

*[INLAND PORTION]{.underline}*: The inland portion of Training Area 2
extends northward from the low water mark of the Gulf of Mexico, and
includes all of the areas contained within the boundaries of the
following counties in the indicated state:

> Florida: Bay, Washington, Holmes, Walton, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and
> Escambia
>
> Alabama: Baldwin and Mobile
>
> Mississippi: George, Pearl River, Stone, Jackson, Harrison, and
> Hancock

Exercises within the boundaries of the inland portion of Training Area 2
identified above will include aircraft operating at altitudes to 30 kft,
mobile ground based equipment, and permanent ground based equipment.
Aircraft and mobile ground based equipment can be positioned anywhere
within the area defined above. Permanent ground based terminals will be
added within the above defined area as required. Specific sites within
the area identified above include, but are not limited to, Pensacola
NAS, FL; Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), FL; and Tyndall AFB, FL.

Redstone Arsenal, located in Madison County, AL is included in Training
Area 2. Mobile and ground based equipment will be located anywhere
within the legal boundaries of Redstone Arsenal. Aircraft operating in
the vicinity of Redstone Arsenal will maintain emissions at the lower
defined power level and reduced bandwidth.

Pinellas County, FL is included in Training Area 2. Mobile and ground
based equipment will be located anywhere within the legal boundaries of
Pinellas County. Permanent ground based terminals are now located in the
St. Petersburg, FL metropolitan area. Aircraft operating above Pinellas
County, FL will maintain emissions at the lower defined power level and
reduced bandwidth.

*[SEAWARD PORTION]{.underline}*: The seaward portion of Training Area 2
is bounded on the east by the line that extends southward from the low
water mark of the Gulf of Mexico along 85.400000 west decimal degrees of
longitude. The northern boundary of the seaward portion of Training Area
2 begins at the intersection of the low water mark of the Gulf of Mexico
with 85.400000 west decimal degrees of longitude, extends generally
westward along the low water mark of the Gulf of Mexico to the
intersection of the low water mark with 89.350000 west decimal degrees
of longitude. The seaward portion of Training Area 2 is bounded on the
west by the line that extends due southeast from the intersection of low
water mark of the Gulf of Mexico with 89.350000 west decimal degrees of
longitude. There is no southern boundary of the seaward portion of
Training Area 2. Exercises in the seaward portion of Training Area 2
will include aircraft operating at altitudes to 30 kft and surface
ships. These assets can be positioned anywhere within the defined area.

***CEC TRAINING AREA 3***

Training Area 3 supports Pacific Coast Exercises, and extends inland
from, seaward from, and along the low water mark of a portion of the
California (CA) mid and southern Pacific coastline.

*[INLAND PORTION]{.underline}*: The inland portion of Training Area 3
extends eastward from the low water mark of the Pacific Ocean, and
includes all of the land areas contained within the boundaries of
Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties in the state of California.

Exercises within the boundaries of the inland portion of Training Area 3
will include aircraft operating at altitudes to 30 kft, mobile ground
based equipment, and permanent ground based equipment. Aircraft and
mobile ground based equipment can be positioned anywhere within the area
identified above. Permanent ground based terminals will be added within
the area identified above as required. Specific sites within the
identified area include, but are not limited to, Vandenberg AFB, CA;
Point Magu NAS, CA; and Naval Surface Warfare Center at Port Hueneme,
CA.

*[SEAWARD PORTION]{.underline}*: The seaward portion of Training Area 3
is bounded on the north by the line that extends westward from the low
water mark of the Pacific Ocean along 34.960000 north decimal degrees of
latitude. The eastern boundary of the seaward portion of Training Area 3
begins at the intersection of the low water mark of the Pacific Ocean
with 34.960000 north decimal degrees of latitude, extends generally
southward and eastward along the low water mark of the Pacific Ocean to
the intersection of the low water mark with 119.000000 west decimal
degrees of longitude, then continues south along 119.000000 west decimal
degrees of longitude. There is no southern or western boundary of the
seaward portion of Training Area 3. Exercises in the seaward portion of
Training Area 3 will include aircraft operating at altitudes to 30 kft
and surface ships. These assets can be positioned anywhere within the
defined area.

***cec TRAINING AREA 4***

Training Area 4 supports Pacific Coast Exercises, and extends inland
from, seaward from, and along the low water mark of a portion of the
southern California Pacific coastline.

*[INLAND PORTION]{.underline}*: The inland portion of Training Area 4
extends eastward from the low water mark of the Pacific Ocean, and
includes all of the land areas contained within the boundaries of San
Diego County in the state of California. Exercises within the boundaries
of the inland portion of Training Area 4 will include aircraft operating
at altitudes to 30 kft, mobile ground based equipment, and permanent
ground based equipment. Aircraft and mobile ground based equipment can
be positioned anywhere within the area identified above. Permanent
ground based terminals will be added within the area defined above as
required. Specific sites within the area defined above include, but are
not limited to, Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, CA; Miramar NAS, CA;
Coronado Naval Amphibious Base, CA; U.S. Naval Air Station North Island,
CA; and at the Naval facilities located on the Point Loma, CA peninsula.

*[SEAWARD PORTION]{.underline}*: The seaward portion of Training Area 4
is bounded on the north by the line that extends westward from the low
water mark of the Pacific Ocean along 33.450000 north decimal degrees of
latitude. The eastern boundary of the seaward portion of Training Area 4
begins at the intersection of the low water mark of the Pacific Ocean
with 33.450000 north decimal degrees of latitude, extends generally
southward and eastward along the low water mark of the Pacific Ocean to
the intersection of the low water mark with 32.600000 north decimal
degrees of latitude. The seaward portion of Training Area 4 is bounded
on the south by the line that extends westward from the low water mark
of the Pacific Ocean along 32.600000 north decimal degrees of latitude.
There is no western boundary of the seaward portion of Training Area 4.
Exercises in the seaward portion of Training Area 4 will include
aircraft operating at altitudes to 30 kft and surface ships. These
assets can be positioned anywhere within the defined area.

***cec TRAINING AREA 5***

Training Area 5 includes all areas within the boundaries of the White
Sands Missile Range, New Mexico and the Fort Bliss Military Reservation,
Texas and New Mexico, to support the Joint Chiefs of Staff Roving Sands
Exercise. The exercises will include aircraft flying at altitudes to 30
kft, mobile ground based equipment, and permanent ground based
equipment. The assets can be positioned anywhere within the identified
areas.

***cec TRAINING AREA 6***

Training Area 6 includes the China Lake Naval Weapons Center, CA; Fort
Irwin Military Reservation, CA; and Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base,
CA. The exercises will include aircraft flying at altitudes to 30 kft,
mobile ground based equipment, and permanent ground based equipment. The
assets can be positioned anywhere within the identified areas.

***cec TRAINING AREA 7***

Training Area 7 supports Pacific training exercises. Training Area 7
includes all of the state of Hawaii and the Pacific Ocean waters
surrounding the islands of Hawaii.

Exercises within the land boundaries of Training Area 7 will include
aircraft operating at altitudes to 30 kft, mobile ground based
equipment, and permanent ground based equipment. Aircraft and mobile
ground based equipment can be positioned anywhere within the area.
Permanent ground based terminals will be added as required. Specific
sites within Training Area 7 include, but are not limited to, the
Pacific Missile Range Facility on the Island of Kauai.

Exercises in the Pacific Ocean waters will include aircraft operating at
altitudes to 30 kft and surface ships. These assets can be positioned
anywhere. The waters of the Pacific Missile Range Facility are included.

***cec TRAINING AREA 8***

Training Area 8 supports Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Ocean training
exercises. The area includes all of Puerto Rico; St. Thomas, Virgin
Islands; and the ocean waters surrounding Puerto Rico and The Virgin
Islands.

Exercises within the land boundaries of Training Area 8 include aircraft
operating at altitudes to 30 kft, mobile ground based equipment, and
permanent ground based equipment. Aircraft and mobile ground based
equipment can be positioned anywhere within the area. A permanent ground
based terminal is located on St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. Other permanent
ground based terminals will be added as required. Specific sites within
Area 8 include, but are not limited to, the Armed Forces Weapons Test
Facility and the Navy Reservation, Vieques Island.

Exercises in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Ocean waters will include
aircraft operating at altitudes to 30 kft and surface ships. These
assets can be positioned anywhere. The waters of the Armed Forces
Weapons Test Facility are included.

***cec TRAINING AREA 9***

Training Area 9 supports Atlantic Coast exercises. Training Area 9
extends inland from, seaward from, and along the low water mark of a
portion of the South Carolina (SC) and Georgia (GA) Atlantic coastlines,
and includes a separate area in the Jacksonville, FL metropolitan area.

*[INLAND PORTION]{.underline}*: The inland portion of Training Area 9
extends westward from the low water mark of the Atlantic Ocean, and
includes all of the areas contained within the boundaries of the
following counties and facilities in the indicated state:

> South Carolina: Beaufort and Jasper Counties
>
> Georgia: Chatham, Bryan, Liberty, Long, and McIntosh Counties; Ft.
> Stewart U.S. Army Facility

Exercises within the boundaries of the inland portion of Training Area 9
will include aircraft operating at altitudes to 30 kft, mobile ground
based equipment, and permanent ground based equipment. Aircraft and
mobile ground based equipment can be positioned anywhere within the area
defined above. Permanent ground based terminals will be added within the
above defined area as required. Specific sites within the above defined
area include, but are not limited to, Beaufort MCAS, SC; Wright Army Air
Field, GA; and Hunter Army Air Field, GA. All of the area within the
legal boundaries of Ft. Stewart U.S. Army Facility, GA is included.

Training Area 9 also includes the Jacksonville, FL metropolitan area.
Mobile and ground based equipment will be located anywhere within the
legal boundaries of the Jacksonville NAS, FL. Mobile, ground based, and
ship based equipment will be located anywhere within the legal
boundaries of the Mayport Naval Station, FL. Aircraft operating in the
vicinity of Jacksonville, FL will maintain emissions at the lower
defined level.

*[SEAWARD PORTION]{.underline}*: The seaward portion of Training Area 9
is bounded on the north by the line that extends eastward from the low
water mark of the Atlantic Ocean along 32.480000 north decimal degrees
of latitude. The western boundary of the seaward portion of Training
Area 9 begins at the intersection of the low water mark of the Atlantic
Ocean with 32.480000 north decimal degrees of latitude, extends
generally southward and southwestward along the low water mark of the
Atlantic Ocean to the intersection of the low water mark with 31.370000
north decimal degrees of latitude. The seaward portion of Training Area
9 is bounded on the south by the line that extends eastward from the low
water mark of the Atlantic Ocean along 31.370000 north decimal degrees
of latitude. There is no eastern boundary of the seaward portion of
Training Area 9. Exercises in the seaward portion of Training Area 9
will include aircraft operating at altitudes to 30 kft and surface
ships. These assets can be positioned anywhere within the defined area.

**CEC EMISSIONS ACROSS THE 4940-4990 MHz BAND**

![](media/image1.png){width="5.975in" height="3.7583333333333333in"}

> **SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN ABERNATHY**

***In re: The 4.9 GHz Band Transferred from Federal Government Use,
Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WT
Docket No. 00-32)(adopted February 14, 2002).***

Today's Order begins to deliver on the Commission's new homeland
security policy priorities. While public safety issues have always been
important to the Commission, there is no doubt that this fall's events
created a new sense of urgency. The allocation of the 4.9 GHz band, its
designation for public safety, and the initiation of a service rules
proceeding, signal this Commission's commitment to public safety and
homeland security. Our long-anticipated decision has three important
components: a national flexible allocation, broadband capability, and
possible international harmonization. For these reasons, I have
previously indicated my support for the policy approach taken today and
I reaffirm that support today.

**National Flexible Allocation:** The public safety community has long
suffered under a fragmented spectrum allocation and service rule regime
that limits the ability of various public safety entities to provide a
diverse range of services across national spectrum bands. Today's 50 MHz
allocation that will lend itself to operations across traditional state
and local boundaries and speed response times at emergency sites. I look
forward to developing service rules that, like our approach at 700 MHz,
emphasize the ability of emergency response service providers to
communicate in a variety of ways and inter-operate across jurisdictions.

**Broadband Capability:** For too long, the public safety community has
not had the spectrum capacity to deploy dedicated wireless broadband
facilities. The spectrum characteristics and bandwidth at 4.9 GHz will
allow the public safety community to utilize the latest technological
tools -- through real time video displays, Internet access, and other
capabilities -- in respond to emergency situations.

**International Considerations:** As we prepare for the 2003 World
Radiocommunication Conference in Caracas, the U.S. is examining the
value of a possible global allocation for public protection use. WRC
Agenda Item 1.3 is actually the topic of an ITU Working Group meeting in
Rome as we speak. Going forward, it is important that any international
allocation decision grant respective administrations significant
flexibility, while also identifying multiple possible bands for such
use. In this regard, the United States must be vigilant that the
international decisions reached include bands identified domestically --
such as the 4.9 GHz and 700 MHz bands. Global harmonization creates
significant advantages in the scale and scope of manufacturing for
public safety uses -- particularly vital because, by definition, this is
a fairly discrete market for manufacturers. In addition to the
commercial advantages, harmonization may also allow for possible
interoperability in anticipation of security threats with an
international scope.

Today is a good day for public safety -- and the Commission staff should
take considerable pride in our decision that helps public safety to
complete their vital mission for the American people.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN**

***In re: The 4.9 GHz Band Transferred from Federal Government Use,
Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WT
Docket No. 00-32)(adopted February 14, 2002).***

Recent events serve as an important reminder of just how critical public
safety and national security operations are to the welfare of our
society. The Commission must do its part to ensure that the
communications requirements for such operations are satisfied. I have
enjoyed working with the public safety community on these challenging
issues. I am very pleased to approve this allocation and public safety
designation, which reflects this Commission's dedication to promoting
safety of life and property by supporting such operations.

It is important for the Commission to ensure sufficient spectrum for the
public safety community, which requires spectrum that will be readily
available in times of emergencies. It is also important for the
Commission to facilitate interoperability, as well as multiple types of
uses. This is particularly true during crisis situations and for
incident scene management. The allocation here of an additional 50 MHz
of spectrum for the public safety community will help to further both of
these goals. Members of the public safety community have also emphasized
the importance of this band for emerging broadband technologies like
wireless local area networks to coordinate incident scene and command
center personnel. I look forward to seeing these and other sophisticated
applications, such as high speed on-site file transfers and specialized
headsets equipped with video cameras and environmental sensors, being
used to assist such operations.

This spectrum and these types of uses will help enable emergency
response service providers, such as law enforcement personnel, fire
fighters, SWAT teams, bomb squads, emergency medical providers, and
others whose livelihoods revolve around protecting our owns lives and
property, better carry out their missions. I look forward to reviewing
comments regarding the service rules portion of this proceeding, and to
a continuing dialogue regarding how the Commission can best advance and
support national security and public safety missions.

[^1]: *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. Part 90 (Private Land Mobile Radio
    Services) and Part 101 (Fixed Microwave Services).

[^2]: The use of spectrum by Federal Government agencies is regulated by
    the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    (NTIA) under the Department of Commerce. Non-Federal Government
    spectrum use, which is regulated by the Commission, refers to all
    other spectrum use, including use by state and local governments,
    businesses, and individuals.

[^3]: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66, 107
    Stat. 312 (1993) (OBRA-93).

[^4]: *See* Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^5]: *See* Letter to the Honorable William E. Kennard, Chairman,
    Federal Communications Commission, from Larry Irving, the Assistant
    Secretary for Communications, United States Department of Commerce
    (rel. Mar. 30, 1999) (*Reallocation Letter*) at Annex D. *See also
    The 4.9 GHz Band Transferred from Federal Government Use, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking,* WT Docket No. 00-32, 15 FCC Rcd 4778, 4788 ¶
    20 (2000) (*First NPRM*).

[^6]: *See* Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R § 2.106, footnote
    US257.

[^7]: *See* Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R § 2.106,
    international footnote S5.149. This international footnote has
    previously been added domestically to both the Government and
    non-Government Tables, thus effecting its protection to radio
    astronomy observatories domestically.

[^8]: *See* Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R § 2.106. The
    sub-band 4950-4990 MHz, together with the upper adjacent band
    4990-5000 MHz, is used in studying the brightness distributions of
    both galactic and extra-galactic objects such as ionized hydrogen
    clouds and supernova remnants. Further, radio astronomy is
    particularly vulnerable to potential interference from other
    services because it is a passive service that involves the reception
    of exceptionally weak cosmic radio waves emanating from a great
    distance from the Earth.

[^9]: *See* Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R § 2.106,
    international footnote S5.339. This international footnote has
    previously been added domestically to both the Government and
    non-Government Tables, thus effecting the allocation domestically.

[^10]: *See* ITU Document, Provisional Final Acts and Working Papers of
    the WRC-2000, Resolution 645, *Global Harmonization of Spectrum for
    Public Protection and Disaster Relief*. *See also* ITU Document
    C2000/88-E, Resolution 1156, *Agenda for the World Radio Conference
    (WRC-03)*, dated July 26, 2000.

[^11]: *See* *Spectrum Reallocation Final Report, Response to Title VI
    -- Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993*, U.S. Department of
    Commerce, NTIA Special Publication 95-32 (Feb. 1995) (*Final
    Report)*.

[^12]: *See* OBRA-93, § 6001(a)(3), as codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 924(b),
    926.

[^13]: *See* *Reallocation Letter*.

[^14]: From February 1995 to April 1998, the Commission had accomplished
    rulemaking and auction scheduling to allocate and license the
    4660-4685 MHz band to fixed and mobile services in the General
    Wireless Communications Service (GWCS) under Part 26. In April 1998,
    however, the Commission postponed the auction due to a lack of
    demand. *See First NPRM*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4780-83 ¶¶ 3-10 for a
    detailed review of the 4635-4685 MHz band allocation, rulemaking,
    and reclamation.

[^15]: *See Reallocation Letter* at Statement of Reasons, pp. 4-5. *See
    also First NPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 4788 ¶ 20. In its March 1999 letter,
    the Department of Commerce noted that the Departments of Justice,
    Treasury, and Energy had 35, five (5), and four (4) frequency
    assignments, respectively, in the band 4940-4990 MHz. The Department
    of Commerce anticipated that these agencies would explore retuning
    as the most cost-effective option. As we noted in the *First NPRM*,
    because the 4.9 GHz band was transferred from Government to
    non-Government use as a replacement for the band 4635-4685 MHz,
    which was transferred pursuant to the provisions of OBRA-93, the
    NTIA has concluded that new non-Government licensees will not be
    required to pay Government agencies vacating the band for the
    marginal cost of their relocation, as is required in spectrum
    transferred pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA-97),
    according to the provisions of the Defense Authorization Act of
    1998. *See* Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111
    Stat. 251 (1997) (BBA-97); Defense Authorization Act of 1998, Pub.
    L. No. 105-261 (1998) (amending 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)). *See also First
    NPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 4815 ¶ 96.

[^16]: *See* Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Make
    Non-Substantive Revisions to the Table of Frequency Allocations,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 3459, 3475 ¶ 39 (2000).

[^17]: *See First NPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 4786 ¶ 16.

[^18]: *Id.* at 4779-80 ¶ 2.

[^19]: *Id.* at 4790 ¶ 26.

[^20]: *See* BBA-97, § 3004, as codified at 47 U.S.C. § 337(a).

[^21]: *See* The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum
    Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
    Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010,
    Establishment of Rules and Requirements For Priority Access Service,
    WT Docket No. 96-86, *First Report and Order and Third Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 152 (1998) (*700 MHz First R&O* and
    *700 MHz Third NPRM* as appropriate).

[^22]: *First NPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 4790 ¶ 26.

[^23]: *Id.* at 4790 n.61.

[^24]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules With Regard to the 3650-3700
    MHz Government Transfer Band (ET Docket No. 98-237) and The 4.9 GHz
    Band Transferred from Federal Government Use (WT Docket No. 00-32),
    *First Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making*,
    15 FCC Rcd 20488 (2000) (*First R&O*/*Second NPRM*).

[^25]: *See First R&O/Second NPRM*, 15 FCC Rcd at 20507-8 ¶¶ 43-44.

[^26]: *See e.g.* Reply Comments of Adaptive Broadband Corporation
    (Adaptive) (May 17, 2000) (Adaptive Reply Comments); Comments of
    INMARSAT Ltd. (December 18, 2000); Comments of Lockheed Martin
    Corporation (December 18, 2000).

[^27]: *See* Comments of Global Frontiers, Inc. (Global) (Apr. 26, 2000)
    (Global Comments); Comments of Rural Telecommunications Group (Apr.
    26, 2000) (Rural Comments); Comments of Advanced TelCom, Inc. (Apr.
    26, 2000) (Advanced Comments); Comments of Coloma Partners, LLC
    (Apr. 26, 2000) (Coloma Comments); Reply Comments of Rock Hill
    Telephone Company, et al. (May 16, 2000) at 2 (Rock Hill Reply
    Comments).

[^28]: *See* Reply Comments of SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) (Jan. 16,
    2001) at 1-2 (SBC Reply Comments); Reply Comments of Global
    Frontiers, Inc. (May 17, 2000) at 3 (Global Reply Comments).

[^29]: Comments of Association of Public-Safety Communications
    Officials-International, Inc. ("APCO") (Dec. 18, 2000) at 5 (APCO
    *First NPRM* Comments); Comments of Federal Law Enforcement Wireless
    Users Group ("FLEWUG") (Apr. 26, 2000) at 3 (FLEWUG Comments);
    Comments of Major Cities Chiefs Association ("MCC") (Dec. 18, 2000)
    at 2 (MCC Comments); Reply Comments of International Association of
    Chiefs of Police ("IACP") (May 17, 2000) at 1 (IACP Reply Comments);
    Reply Comments of Motorola, Inc. (May 17, 2000) at 1 (Motorola Reply
    Comments); Reply Comments of Public Safety Wireless Network ("PSWN")
    (May 17, 2000) at 2 (PSWN Reply Comments). Two of these five
    commenters also filed comments in the related 3650 MHz band
    proceeding opposing the Commission's proposal to pair the 4.9 GHz
    band with the 3650 MHz band. APCO Comments at 2; Comments of
    Motorola, Inc. (Dec. 18, 2000) at 1 (Motorola Comments). *See also*
    MCC Comments at 2.

[^30]: *See* APCO *First NPRM* Comments at 8; FLEWUG Comments at 2.

[^31]: These letters have been placed in the record for WT Docket No.
    00-32.

[^32]: *See* Letter to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, from Robert M. Gurss, Shook, Hardy &
    Bacon, L.L.P. (Apr. 16, 2001); Letter to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, from John Lyons,
    Motorola, Inc. (May 31, 2001); Letter to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, from Robert L. Pettit,
    Counsel for Motorola, Inc., Wiley, Rein & Fielding (Apr. 19, 2001).

[^33]: *See* 4.9 GHz Allocation to Public Safety: Motorola White Paper
    for Submission to FCC (July 31, 2001) at 2 (Motorola White Paper).

[^34]: *See* Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory
    Committee to the Federal Communications Commission, September 11,
    1999, at 3 (PSWAC Final Report).

[^35]: *See First NPRM*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4786 ¶ 16.

[^36]: *Id*.

[^37]: *Id.* at ¶ 16, ¶ 19; *Reallocation Letter*, Statement of Reasons
    at n. 5 and Annex D.

[^38]: *See First NPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 4786 ¶ 16.

[^39]: 47 U.S.C. § 303(y)(2).

[^40]: *See First NPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 4788-89 ¶¶ 21-24.

[^41]: *See* *Reallocation Letter*, Statement of Reasons, at 4-5, n. 5.

[^42]: *See* Comments of the National Research Council's Committee on
    Radio Frequencies (CORF) (Apr. 26, 2000) at 4 (CORF *First NPRM*
    Comments).

[^43]: *See, e.g.,* City of Chesapeake *Ex Parte* Comments (Apr. 11,
    2001); Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association *Ex
    Parte* Comments (May 3, 2001); City and County of San Francisco *Ex
    Parte* Comments (May 14, 2001); City of Detroit *Ex Parte* Comments
    (Aug. 7, 2001); and Motorola White Paper at 7.

[^44]: *See* Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R. § 2.106,
    international footnote S5.442. We note that the aeronautical mobile
    service exclusion in S5.442 does not apply to the lower sub-band
    4940-4950 MHz.

[^45]: *See* Letter to Bruce Franca, Office of Engineering Technology,
    Federal Communications Commission, from William T. Hatch, NTIA,
    United States Department of Commerce (Dec. 19, 2001). This letter
    clarifies that footnote G122, which allows Government operations to
    be authorized on a non-interference basis in certain non-Government
    bands, applies to the 4.9 GHz band, which was substituted for the
    4660-4685 MHz band.

[^46]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.103(b) (setting forth conditions for
    Government use of non-Government frequencies in the 700 MHz band).

[^47]: The use of the 3650 MHz band will be addressed in a separate
    future proceeding.

[^48]: *See First NPRM*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4786-87 ¶ 18.

[^49]: *See* Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote
    US257.

[^50]: *See* Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote
    US311. All radio astronomy facilities listed in Footnotes US257 and
    US311 are represented by circular or rectangular geographic zones,
    specified by coordinate point with distance radius or by coordinate
    rectangle(s), respectively. We will refer to these zones as \"radio
    astronomy zones\".

[^51]: *See First NPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 4797, 4812 ¶¶ 44, 83.

[^52]: *See* CORF *First NPRM* Comments at 3.

[^53]: *See* CORF Comments (Dec. 19, 2000) at 7-9 (CORF *First
    R&O/Second NPRM* Comments). Although these comments were late-filed,
    we find it in the public interest to accept these comments in order
    to have a complete record.

[^54]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.924.

[^55]: *See* CORF *First R&O/Second NPRM* Comments at 5-7.

[^56]: *See* CORF *First NPRM* Comments at 2-3; CORF *First R&O/Second
    NPRM* Comments at 4-5.

[^57]: *See* Motorola White Paper at 24.

[^58]: *See* Appendix A: Final Rules.

[^59]: *See* Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote
    US74. Footnote US74 requires protection to radio astronomy
    observations in the band 4990-5000 MHz from stations operating
    outside the band only to the extent that the offending station
    operating outside the band complies with service band technical
    standards or criteria applicable to the service in which it
    operates.

[^60]: For example, SA.1029 requires that the level of interference
    received at the satellite not exceed -161 dBW. To protect an EESS
    passive receiver with an antenna gain of 36 dBi operating at an
    altitude of 1000 km in the 4.9 GHz band, SA.1029 would therefore
    limit the equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) from a
    terrestrial station within its beam to --30.6 dBW in the direction
    of the satellite. This skyward EIRP reduction would limit a typical
    point-to-point transmitting antenna with a gain of 36 dBi and a
    90-degree off-axis attenuation of 42 dB, consistent with a higher
    quality antenna conforming to Category A antenna standards specified
    in Part 101 for point-to-point systems in the nearby band 3700-4200
    MHz, to an on-beam EIRP of 11.4 dBW. The SA.1029 calculation is more
    limiting for EESS receivers with higher gain antennas and for
    terrestrial transmitters with omnidirectional and other
    wide-beamwidth antennas, with typical gains ranging from 0 to 12
    dBi, typically used in fixed point-to-multipoint and mobile systems.

[^61]: In the *FNPRM*, we seek comment on the best means of implementing
    the required protection of radio astronomy sites into our service
    rules. *See* *FNPRM* ¶ 61, *infra*.

[^62]: Allocation of Spectrum Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal
    Government Use, ET Docket No. 94-32, *First Report and Order and
    Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 10 FCC Rcd 4769 (1995) (*GWCS
    First Report and Order* and *GWCS Second Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* as appropriate*).*

[^63]: Allocation of Spectrum Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal
    Government Use, ET Docket No. 94-32, *Second Report and Order*, 11
    FCC Rcd 624 (1995) (*GWCS Second Report and Order).*

[^64]: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Auction Schedule for
    the General Wireless Communications Service, *Public Notice*, DA
    97-2634 (rel. Dec. 17, 1997); *see also* Auction Schedule for the
    General Wireless Communications Service Correction, *Public Notice*,
    DA 97-2662 (rel. Dec. 19, 1997).

[^65]: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Postponement of
    General Wireless Communications Service (GWCS) Auction, *Public
    Notice*, Report No. AUC-98-19-B (Auction No. 19), DA 98-792 (rel.
    Apr. 24, 1998).

[^66]: OBRA, § 6001(a)(3), as codified at 47 U.S.C. §§924(b), 926.

[^67]: *See Reallocation Letter.*

[^68]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Make
    Non-Substantive Revisions to the Table of Frequency Allocations,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, DA 99-2743, 15 FCC Rcd 3459 (rel.
    Dec. 20, 1999); 65 FR 4636 (Jan. 31, 2000) (*Part 2 MO&O)*.

[^69]: *Id. at* 3475 *¶*39.

[^70]: *First NPRM*, 15 FCC Rcd at 4791 ¶28.

[^71]: *Id.*

[^72]: 47 U.S.C. § 151. *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 332(a) ("In taking
    actions to manage the spectrum . . . the Commission shall consider,
    consistent with section 1 of this Act, whether such actions will - -
    promote the safety of life and property . . .").

[^73]: Commenters note, for example, the use of video for remote
    controlled robotics in highly dangerous terrorist situations or the
    live monitoring of officer or suspects in high risk situations.

[^74]: *See* Motorola White Paper at 2.

[^75]: *Id.*

[^76]: For additional information concerning these broadband
    technologies, see *id.* at 9-11.

[^77]: *See* Adaptive Reply Comments at 4. Other commenters also
    expressed interest in providing commercial services in the 4.9 GHz
    band. *See* Advanced Comments, Coloma Comments; Global Comments;
    Rock Hill Comments; and Reply Comments of US West Wireless, LLC (May
    17, 2000) (US West Reply Comments).

[^78]: Adaptive Reply Comments at 4.

[^79]: Motorola Reply Comments at 5-7.

[^80]: They state that the 150 kHz maximum bandwidth permitted in the
    700 MHz band is insufficient to accommodate high speed data for
    imaging and full-motion real-time video traffic and that the 700 MHz
    band will remain unavailable for public safety use in several
    locales until incumbent television broadcast stations vacate by the
    end of 2006, or later if such stations\' incumbency is extended.
    They also assert that the 700 MHz band is used for wide-area mobile
    coverage, so that use of this band for localized WLANs would be
    spectrally inefficient, as it would consume spectrum intended and
    better suited for wide-area use.

[^81]: *See* APCO *First NPRM* Comments at 2-7; FLEWUG Comments at 2-6;
    Motorola Comments at 3-9; IACP Reply Comments at 1-2; PSWN Reply
    Comments at 2-4; MCC *First NPRM* Comments at 1-2; and *Ex Parte*
    Comments of National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
    (NPSTC) (Aug. 7, 2000) at 2-4 (NPSTC *Ex Parte* Comments). *See
    also* Comments of APCO (Dec. 18, 2000) at 2-3 (APCO *First
    R&O/Second NPRM* Comments); MCC Comments at 2-3; and IACP Comments
    (Dec. 18, 2000) at 1-4 (IACP *First R&O/Second NPRM* Comments).

[^82]: *See, e.g.,* Motorola White Paper at 2.

[^83]: Global Reply Comments at 1. SBC opposes even a partial
    designation for public safety in the 4.9 GHz band, asserting that it
    would reduce the value of the band and that commenters urging such
    designation have not demonstrated why spectrum in addition to that
    designated in the 700 MHz band is needed. SBC Reply Comments at 2.

[^84]: Global Reply Comments at 7.

[^85]: *See* Global Reply Comments at 7; US West Reply Comments at 5.

[^86]: *See* Letter to the Honorable Michael K. Powell, Chairman,
    Federal Communications Commission, from Ralph Mendoza, Chief of
    Police, Fort Worth Police Department, dated May 9, 2001; Letter to
    the Honorable Michael K. Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission, from Gerald R. Whitman, Chief of Police, Denver Police
    Department, dated June 14, 2001; Letter to the Honorable Michael K.
    Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, from Al A.
    Philippus, Chief of Police, City of San Antonio Police Department,
    dated June 14, 2001.

[^87]: Adaptive Reply Comments at 2; Global Reply Comments at 1.

[^88]: Motorola Comments at 7, Motorola White Paper at 17-18, Motorola
    *ex parte* letter, dated April 11, 2001, at 2.

[^89]: OBRA-93 § 6002, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(9).

[^90]: NTIA identified and made available the 2300-2310 MHz band for
    exclusive non-government use by August 10, 1995. However, NTIA
    indicated that the 2300-2305 MHz band carried constraints necessary
    to protection of NASA's Deep Space Network and Planetary Radar
    operations at Goldstone, California. In addition, this band is used
    by radio amateurs for weak signal reception.

[^91]: As Motorola points out, pursuant to OBRA-93 § 6002, auctioning
    any 5 megahertz of OBRA-93 spectrum would fulfill this obligation.
    *See* Motorola *ex-parte* letter, dated April 11, 2001; Motorola
    Comments at 7.

[^92]: BBA-97 directed the Commission, by January 1, 1998, to reallocate
    24 megahertz of spectrum between 746 MHz and 806 MHz (inclusive) for
    public safety services as defined in Section 337(f) of the Act.
    *See* 47 U.S. C. § 337(a)(1).

[^93]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 337(f)(1).

[^94]: The Commission has previously concluded that state or local
    government entities whose primary mission is not the provision of
    public safety services fall within the definition of Section 337(f).
    *700 MHz First R&O*, 14 FCC Rcd at 180-81 ¶ 54; s*ee also* 47 C.F.R.
    § 90.523(a).

[^95]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2).

[^96]: See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-217, 105^th^ Cong., 1^st^ Sess., at
    572 (1997) (Conference Report).

[^97]: *See* 47 U.S.C.§ 309(j)(1); In the Matter of Implementation of
    Sections 309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended; Promotion of Spectrum Efficient Technologies on Certain
    Part 90 Frequencies; Establishment of Public Service Radio Pool in
    the Private Mobile Frequencies Below 800 MHz; Petition for Rule
    Making of The American Mobile Telecommunications Association,
    *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* 15
    FCC Rcd 22709, 22750 ¶ 83 (rel. Nov. 29, 2000) *(BBA Report and
    Order)* (stating that commercial service providers intending to
    serve public safety entities are ineligible to apply for
    auction-exempt spectrum).

[^98]: In the *First NPRM*, we sought comment on the appropriate size
    geographic licensing area and appropriate size spectrum block to be
    licensed. *See First NPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 4796-4798 ¶¶ 41-48.

[^99]: *See First NPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 4813-4818 ¶¶ 90-103. In the
    *First NPRM,* we proposed to define a \"small business\" as an
    entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding \$40 million
    for the three preceding years and a \" very small business\" as an
    entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million
    for the three preceding years. We further proposed to provide small
    businesses with a bidding credit of 15 percent and very small
    businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent. The SBA approved
    these definitions. *See* Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator,
    Small Business Administration, to Mark Bollinger, Acting Chief,
    Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated April 7, 2000.

[^100]: *See* n.2, *supra.*

[^101]: Comments of NTIA to *700 MHz First NPRM* at 5; *700 MHz First
    R&O,* 14 FCC Rcd at 183 ¶ 61.

[^102]: *See* In the Matter of the Development of Operational, Technical
    and Spectrum Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local
    Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year
    2010, Establishment of Rules and Requirements For Priority Access
    Service, WT Docket No. 96-86, *Fourth Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 16899, 16922 ¶ 60 (2000) (*700 MHz Fourth
    NPRM)*, citing In the Matter of the Development of Operational,
    Technical and Spectrum Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and
    Local Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the
    Year 2010, Establishment of Rules and Requirements For Priority
    Access Service, WT Docket No. 96-86, *Second Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 16844, 16865-68 ¶¶ 46-53 (2000) (*700 MHz Second
    MO&O)*.

[^103]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 332(a)(2).

[^104]: *See* *Second R&O, supra* at ¶ 9**.**

[^105]: Part 90 of the Commission's Rules governs the Private Land
    Mobile Radio Services.

[^106]: Part 101 of the Commission's Rules governs the Fixed Microwave
    Services.

[^107]: Motorola White Paper at 11. Motorola also suggests that dividing
    the band in this manner may help to ameliorate the Navy interference
    problem, discussed *infra* at Section H. Motorola White Paper at 20.
    Motorola does not state what uses it envisions for any unused
    spectrum should the channel blocks use less than the full 50 MHz we
    contemplate allocating to public safety.

[^108]: *Id.* at 23.

[^109]: US West Reply Comments at 2.

[^110]: Rock Hill Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^111]: Section 309(j)(2) of the Communications Act provides that the
    Commission does not have authority to award licenses or construction
    permits for public safety radio services by competitive bidding. 47
    U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(A). However, as discussed above, if we allow some
    commercial use of this band not all licenses would be exempt from
    auction. *See* *supra* ¶¶ 36-37, *infra* ¶ 56.

[^112]: *See* *700 MHz Fourth NPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 16909 ¶ 21.

[^113]: *Id*.

[^114]: *See 700 MHz Third R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 19867-68 ¶ 54.

[^115]: *Id.*

[^116]: *See* Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum
    Requirements For Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
    Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010,
    Establishment of Rules and Requirements For Priority Access Service,
    WT Docket No. 96-86, *Fourth Report and Order and Fifth Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 16 FCC Rcd 2020 ¶¶ 30-33 (2001) (*700 MHz
    Fourth R&O* and *700 MHz Fifth NPRM* as appropriate). We have also
    used this approach for mobile operation on the 800 MHz band. *See*
    In the Matter of Development and Implementation of a Public Safety
    National Plan and Amendment of Part 90 to Establish Service Rules
    and Technical Standards for Use of the 821-824/866-869 MHz Bands by
    the Public Safety Services, *Report and Order*, 3 FCC Rcd 905, 909
    ¶¶ 30, 33-34 (rel. Dec. 18, 1987) (800 MHz R&O).

[^117]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.15.

[^118]: *See 700 MHz First R&O*, 14 FCC Rcd at 190 ¶ 77 *citing 800 MHz
    R&O*, 3 FCC Rcd at 906.

[^119]: Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Eliminating Barriers
    to the Development of Secondary Markets, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking,* WT Docket No. 00-230, 15 FCC Rcd 24203, 24209 ¶ 17
    (2000).

[^120]: In the *BBA Report and Order,* we consider this issue in the
    context of whether to permit a band manager in a particular service
    to act as a spectrum broker that leases spectrum and as a user of
    its licensed spectrum, with respect to future allocations, such as
    the instant proceeding. *BBA* *Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    22734 ¶ 49.

[^121]: Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands and
    Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, *Second Report and
    Order*, WT Docket No. 99-168, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000).

[^122]: *See supra ¶ ¶* 36-37.

[^123]: *See 700 MHz Third R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 19868 ¶ 55.

[^124]: Appendix D details the nine CEC training areas as well as the
    emission characteristics of this system.

[^125]: *See* Letter to Bruce Franca, Acting Chief, Office of
    Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, from
    William T. Hatch, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum
    Management, National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration, United States Department of Commerce (rel. Jun. 27,
    2001) (*CEC Letter*).

[^126]: The ceiling altitude specified for aeronautical mobile
    operations in Appendix B is 30,000 feet. The radio horizon for that
    altitude, calculated assuming a standard worst case earth curvature
    of 4/3 earth radius, is 245 miles.

[^127]: *Id.*

[^128]: We note the neither NTIA nor the Navy expressly defines what
    would constitute a National Defense Emergency.

[^129]: *See* CEC Letter.

[^130]: *Id.*

[^131]: Letter to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, from John Lyons, Motorola, Inc., Attachment at 7 (May
    31, 2001).

[^132]: *Id*. at 8.

[^133]: Motorola White Paper at 21.

[^134]: *See, e.g.,* APCO *First NPRM* Comments at 6; Motorola Comments
    at 6.

[^135]: *See* Motorola White Paper at 17-25.

[^136]: *See, e.g., 700 MHz First* *R&O*, 14 FCC Rcd at 207-211 ¶¶ 118,
    121, 123, 124, 130, 132.

[^137]: We note that American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has
    not yet approved HiperLAN2.

[^138]: *See* Motorola Comments at 1.

[^139]: *Id.* at 23.

[^140]: *Id.*

[^141]: *See* 47 C.F.R § 101.113. The 3700-4200 MHz and 5925-6425 MHz
    bands are the next lower and upper bands below and above 4940-4965
    MHz band respectively.

[^142]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.143.

[^143]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.111.

[^144]: ATPC technology employs the minimum amount of power needed to
    transmit a signal, thereby minimizing interference within adjacent
    channels.

[^145]: *See* 47 C.F.R § 101.107.

[^146]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106

[^147]: PSWAC Final Report at 5.

[^148]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^149]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).

[^150]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^151]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^152]: At this time we do not have a sufficient record to address
    application filing procedures.

[^153]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

[^154]: *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
    GC Docket No. 97-113, *Report and Order,* 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).

[^155]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^156]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^157]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^158]: *Id*.

[^159]: *See* Sections IV-A through D, *supra.*

[^160]: *See* Section IV-A, *supra.*

[^161]: *See* Section IV-C, *supra.*

[^162]: *See* Section IV-E, *supra.*

[^163]: *See* ¶ 62, *supra.*

[^164]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^165]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^166]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^167]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^168]: 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.

[^169]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^170]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census
    of Governments.

[^171]: *Id.*

[^172]: *See* subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 90.1-90.22. Police licensees include 26,608 licensees that
    serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony
    (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed
    material). Fire licensees include 22,677 licensees comprised of
    private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units
    under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also
    include 40,512 licensees that are state, county, or municipal
    entities that use radio for official purposes. There are also 7,325
    forestry service licensees comprised of licensees from state
    departments of conservation and private forest organizations that
    set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground
    crews. The 9,480 state and local governments are highway maintenance
    licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid
    other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular
    traffic. Emergency medical licensees (1,460) use these channels for
    emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of
    emergency medical treatment. Another 19,478 licensees include
    medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, handicapped
    persons, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols,
    establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities,
    and emergency repair of public communications facilities.

[^173]: 13 C.F.R. 121.201, NAICS code 513322.

[^174]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, *1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series
    UC92-S-1*, at Table 5, SIC code 4812.

[^175]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^176]: U.S. Dep't of Commerce, *1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities* (issued May 1995), SIC category 3663.

[^177]: *See* Section IV-D, *supra.*

[^178]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -- (c)(4).