**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | ET Docket No. 01-278         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Review of Part 15 and other      | ) | RM-9375                      |
| Parts of the Commission's Rules  | * |                              |
|                                  | * | RM-10051                     |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**THIRD REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: April 15, 2004 Released: April 23, 2004**

By the Commission: Chairman Powell issuing a statement.

# Introduction

1.  In this Third Report and Order, we are adopting regulations to allow
    for operation of improved radio frequency identification (RFID)
    systems in the 433.5-434.5 MHz ("433 MHz") band. Specifically, we
    are increasing the maximum permitted field strength and transmission
    duration for 433 MHz RFID systems used to identify the contents of
    commercial shipping containers in commercial and industrial areas to
    allow more rapid and reliable data transmission. Such improved RFID
    systems could benefit commercial shippers and have significant
    homeland security benefits by enabling the entire contents of
    shipping containers to be easily and immediately identified, and by
    allowing a determination of whether tampering with their contents
    has occurred during shipping.

# BACKGROUND

2.  RFID systems use radio signals to track and identify items such as
    shipping containers and merchandise in stores. A system typically
    consists of a tag mounted on the item to be identified, and a
    transmitter/receiver unit that interrogates the tag and receives
    identification data back from the tag. The tag may be a self-powered
    transmitter, or it may receive power from the interrogating
    transmitter and re-radiate an RF signal to the receiver. RFID
    systems can operate in a number of frequency bands under Part 15 of
    the rules, such as the 13.110-14.010 MHz (13.56 MHz) and 902-928 MHz
    bands.[^1] RFID systems can also operate in the 40.66-40.70 MHz band
    and above 70 MHz.[^2]

3.  On October 15, 2001, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making and Order* in this proceeding that proposed a number of
    changes to Part 15 and other parts of the rules.[^3] These proposals
    were based on recommendations contained within the *Biennial
    Regulatory Review 2000 Updated Staff Report*,[^4] staff
    recommendations, and two petitions for rule making concerning RFID
    systems.[^5] The petitions for rule making were filed by the
    National Council for Information Technology Standardization
    Technical Committee B10 ("NCITS B10") and Savi Technology, Inc.
    (Savi).[^6] The NCITS B10 petition requested rule changes for RFID
    systems operating in the 13.56 MHz band, and the Savi petition
    requested rule changes for RFID systems operating at 433 MHz.

4.  On July 12, 2002, the Commission adopted a *First Report and Order*
    in this proceeding that required radar detectors to comply with the
    Part 15 emission limits for unintentional radiators with regard to
    emissions in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band to protect very small aperture
    satellite terminals (VSATs) from interference.[^7] On June 25, 2003,
    the Commission adopted a *Second Report and Order and Memorandum
    Opinion and Order* ("*Second Report and Order*") that addressed many
    of the issues raised in the *Notice* that were not addressed in the
    *First Report and Order,* including RFID systems operating in the
    13.56 MHz band*.*[^8] In the *Second Report and Order*, the
    Commission stated that it would address rule changes for radio
    frequency identification systems in the 433 MHz band at a later
    date.[^9]

# DISCUSSION

5.  Savi requests that the Commission modify the requirements in Section
    15.231 of the rules for RFID systems operating at 433 MHz. This
    section allows the operation of intentional radiators, including
    RFID systems, in the 40.66-40.70 MHz band and at any frequency above
    70 MHz, except in designated restricted bands.[^10] There are two
    separate provisions for operation under this section. The first
    provision, in paragraph (a) of this rule section, contains
    operational requirements for devices that transmit control signals,
    such as those used with alarm systems, door openers and remote
    switches. A device operated under this paragraph must cease
    transmission within 5 seconds after being activated automatically or
    after a manually operated switch is released. Continuous
    transmissions such as voice and video are not permitted. Data is
    permitted to be transmitted with a control signal.[^11] Periodic
    transmissions at regular predetermined intervals are not permitted
    except for transmissions of not more than two seconds per hour per
    transmitter to verify the integrity of security transmitters in a
    system.[^12] The second provision, in Section 15.231(e), allows any
    type of transmission, including data and transmissions at regular
    periodic intervals. However, the field strength limits for devices
    operating under the provisions of paragraph (e) are lower than the
    field strength limits for devices operating under the provisions of
    paragraph (a). In addition, the provisions of paragraph (e) limit
    transmissions to no more than one second, with a silent period
    between transmissions of at least 30 times the duration of the
    transmission, but in no case less than 10 seconds. The field
    strength limits for intentional radiators operating under either
    provision in this section are based on the average value of the
    measured emissions. The peak level of emissions must comply with a
    limit of 20 dB (ten times) higher than emission limits specified in
    Section 15.231.[^13]

6.  RFID devices such as tags that send data not associated with a
    control signal are permitted to operate at 433 MHz under the
    provisions of Section 15.231(e) of the rules.[^14] For devices
    operating at this frequency, the maximum permitted average field
    strength is 4,383 µV/m and the maximum permitted peak field strength
    is 43,833 µV/m, measured at a distance of 3 meters.[^15] Devices
    operating under this section must comply with the timing
    requirements described above that limit transmissions to no more
    than one second.[^16] Transmitters that send a control signal to
    interrogate RFID tags may operate at the higher field strength
    levels permitted for devices operating under Section 15.231(a),
    which are an average field strength of 11,000 µV/m and a peak field
    strength of 110,000 µV/m at 3 meters at a frequency of 433 MHz.[^17]

7.  Savi states that is has developed RFID tags for operation at 433 MHz
    because unlicensed operation is permitted at that frequency in many
    countries around the world, and because signals propagate better
    through objects at 433 MHz than at higher frequencies such as 900
    MHz. Savi requests that the Commission increase the maximum field
    strength and transmission duration for 433 MHz RFID systems above
    the current limits in Section 15.231(e).[^18] It states that a rule
    change to allow transmissions of longer duration is necessary
    because the current timing limit in Section 15.231(e) results in a
    slow transfer of data from the identification tag, and that
    transferring the full 128 kilobytes of data needed to identify all
    the contents of a shipping container could take up to 30 minutes
    under the current rules, but would take no more than two minutes
    with its proposed changes. Savi requests that the maximum
    transmission duration be increased to 120 seconds, while maintaining
    the current ten second minimum silent period between transmissions.
    In addition, it states that the maximum field strength limit under
    Section 15.231(e) is not sufficient to ensure reliable transmissions
    in all circumstances. It requests that the field strength limit for
    433 MHz RFID tags be increased to the higher level permitted for
    control signals. Savi requests that the Commission implement the
    requested rule changes through one of three alternatives: 1)
    modifying Section 15.231, 2) adding a new section for RFID devices
    operating in the 420-450 MHz band that specifies higher field
    strength limits but no timing restrictions, or 3) adding a new
    section for RFID devices operating in the 425-435 MHz band with
    higher field strength limits and a 120 second transmission duration
    with a ten second silent period between transmissions. Savi asserts
    that these changes would enable use of improved RFID technology that
    would provide benefits including easier identification of the
    contents of shipping containers, the ability to detect tampering of
    shipping containers in transit and improved inventory control at
    commercial facilities.

8.  In the *Notice,* the Commission proposed to create a new rule
    section for RFID systems operating in the 425-435 MHz band.[^19] The
    proposed rule would allow RFID tags to transmit data at the higher
    level normally permitted for control signals, with an average field
    strength of 11,000 µV/m and a peak field strength of 110,000 µV/m
    measured at a distance of 3 meters. Out-of-band emissions would have
    to meet the current limit in Section 15.209. The Commission proposed
    to limit transmissions to 120 seconds with at least a 10 second
    silent period between transmissions, and to permit retransmissions
    in case of data errors. It also proposed to allow powered tags and
    readers to be approved either separately or under a single
    application, as proposed in the *Notice* for RFID devices operating
    in the 13.56 MHz band. These proposals were intended to allow
    greater range for 433 MHz RFID systems and to allow data to be
    transferred from an RFID tag more quickly.

9.  Comments in favor of the proposal to increase the field strength
    limit and maximum transmission duration for 433 MHz RFID devices
    were received from Interlogix, Mattel, Savi, and VYTEK Solutions,
    Inc. (VYTEK).[^20] Interlogix states that the 433 MHz band is widely
    used in Europe and other Region 1 countries for radio control and
    short-range operations, and that the Commission should consider
    raising the power level in this band to harmonize with the ITU
    regulations.[^21] It believes that the considerable savings to
    manufacturers in producing one model of device for sale in both the
    United States and Europe would enhance manufacturers' ability to
    better compete in world markets.[^22] VYTEK states that increasing
    the permitted RFID device transmission time would increase the
    utility of such devices by allowing them to transmit greater amounts
    of data. VYTEK states that this would increase the efficiency and
    speed in handling materials and has the potential for increasing
    throughput at United States ports without the need for costly
    expansions.[^23] Savi states that authorization of advanced RFID
    products would provide public benefits, including greater transfer
    of data, new and more robust services, lower costs, and increased
    homeland security.[^24] It states that its system operates with low
    power and that operations will be restricted to
    commercial/industrial environments that severely restrict
    propagation.[^25]

10. A number of parties object to the proposed rule changes for RFID
    systems in the 425-435 MHz band, stating that such changes would
    result in interference to remote control door openers, although no
    parties provided an interference analysis.[^26] Operator Specialty
    Company, Inc. (OSCO) states that the proposed changes would allow
    new devices of unproven reliability to overpower the signals of
    millions of existing door and gate openers and render them
    unreliable.[^27] Genie states that the Savi devices would transmit
    virtually a continuous signal that could reduce the effective range
    of remote control transmitters, and they would most likely be used
    outside commercial areas, making homeowners' remote controls
    inoperative for two minutes without an identifiable cause.[^28]
    Chamberlain believes that 433 MHz RFID devices would interrupt
    commercial and residential use of access devices such as door and
    entry control systems and would create interference on a scale far
    beyond that typically introduced by new Part 15 devices.[^29]

11. ARRL alleges that operation of unlicensed RFID devices at 433 MHz
    will cause substantial interference to licensed amateur radio
    operations in the 425-435 MHz amateur band, which it states is
    heavily used for terrestrial weak-signal communications in most
    parts of the country.[^30] It alleges that interference could occur
    to amateur operations even beyond 1000 meters from an RFID
    system.[^31] ARRL believes that RFID systems would be used outside
    commercial areas, so that geographic separation could not be relied
    upon for interference mitigation.[^32] It claims that Savi could
    manufacture equipment to operate in the 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz ISM bands
    for the data throughput it needs, and that the only basis for the
    use of 433 MHz is to reduce hardware costs because cheaper
    components are readily available for that frequency.[^33] ARRL does
    not believe that global standardization of RFIDs can be achieved at
    433 MHz because of varying frequency allocations between
    countries.[^34] It further claims that the Commission lacks
    authority under the Communications Act to authorize devices with a
    substantial potential for interference on an unlicensed basis.[^35]
    It states that the rationale for allowing unlicensed devices under
    Part 15 is based on the assumption that such devices will not, in
    general, interfere with licensed radio services, and that Section
    302 of the Act, which gives the Commission authority to regulate
    unlicensed devices, does not constitute an exception to the license
    requirement in Section 301.[^36] A large number of comments were
    also received from individual amateur operators and groups of
    amateurs expressing concerns similar to those of ARRL.

12. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    (NTIA) initially opposed the rule changes proposed in the *Notice*
    for 433 MHz RFID devices. It stated that the 425‑435 MHz band is
    within the 420-450 MHz band that is allocated to the Federal
    Government on a primary basis, and that this band contains
    ground-based, shipborne and airborne radars that are essential for
    the nation's homeland defense.[^37] NTIA claims that RFID devices
    operating under the proposed parameters would cause interference to
    federal radar operations in the 425-435 MHz band.[^38] In response
    to the interference concerns raised by NTIA, Savi states that a
    number of adjustments could be made to the proposed operational
    requirements that would alleviate NTIA's interference concerns yet
    still allow for improved RFID operation at 433 MHz. Specifically,
    Savi states that the following adjustments could be made:[^39]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  Narrow the permissible frequency band of operation from 425-435 MHz
    to 433-435 MHz

2)  Lower the peak field strength limit from 110,000 µV/m to 55,000 µV/m
    at 3 meters

3)  Reduce the maximum transmission duration from 120 seconds to 60
    seconds

4)  Adopt a narrower definition of RFID systems, including adding a
    prohibition on voice transmissions

5)  Restrict operation of RFID systems at 433 MHz to commercial or
    industrial areas

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
13. After further study, NTIA concluded that RFID systems could be
    operated at 433 MHz without interference to Federal Government radar
    systems if the frequency band were further narrowed, the conditions
    proposed by Savi were met and certain additional conditions were
    met.[^40] These modified and additional conditions are:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  Narrow the permissible frequency band of operation to 433.5-434.5
    MHz

2)  Prohibit operation within 40 kilometers of the five Federal
    Government radar sites listed in Appendix A.

3)  Register the locations where 433 MHz RFID systems operate

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
14. Based on the record in this proceeding, we find that the public
    interest would be served by allowing operation of improved 433 MHz
    RFID systems. Accordingly, we are adopting the proposal to increase
    the maximum field strength and transmission duration for RFID
    systems operating at 433 MHz, subject to the requirements that NTIA
    states are necessary to prevent interference to Federal Government
    radar systems. These changes will allow the development of RFID
    systems with greater range and faster, more reliable data
    transmission. Such RFID systems could enable the entire contents of
    shipping containers to be easily and immediately identified, and
    could interface with sensors that indicate whether tampering with a
    container had occurred in shipment. These capabilities could help
    increase homeland security and improve inventory control.

15. We are implementing these changes by adding a new rule section
    specifically for RFID systems operating in the band 433.5-434.5 MHz
    that contains the technical and operational requirements for these
    devices. The field strength limits will be 11,000 µV/m average and
    55,000 µV/m peak, measured at a distance of 3 meters. The maximum
    permitted transmission duration will be 60 seconds rather than 120
    seconds as proposed in the *Notice*, with a ten second silent period
    between transmissions. While this change will result in somewhat
    slower data transmission speeds in cases where all the data in a
    device can not be transmitted within 60 seconds, it represents a
    substantial improvement in speed over that which the current rules
    allow. In recognition of the fact that data transmission errors may
    occasionally occur, re-transmission of data will be permitted in
    case of transmission error without the need for a ten second silent
    period. As proposed in the *Notice*, we are adopting the current
    out-of-band emission limits in Section 15.209 for 433 MHz RFID
    devices because these limits have a long and successful history of
    controlling interference.

16. We recognize that the interference concerns raised with respect to
    433 MHz RFID systems can be largely ameliorated by restricting the
    locations where they operate and the types of uses permitted. Such
    restrictions will limit the use of 433 MHz RFID systems to locations
    where they will not operate in close proximity to other users on the
    same frequency. Accordingly, we are restricting operation under the
    new RFID rule to the identification of the contents of commercial
    shipping containers. Voice communications will not be permitted.
    Further, we will require that operations be limited to commercial
    and industrial areas such as ports, rail terminals and warehouses.
    These requirements are essentially consistent with the conditions
    that Savi proposed and with which NTIA agreed that limit the types
    of devices and their operating locations to RFID systems used in
    commercial and industrial areas.[^41] We do not believe that these
    restrictions will inhibit the development of this technology for
    important homeland security applications. We are permitting two-way
    operation by 433 MHz RFID devices as currently allowed for remote
    control devices.[^42] Two-way operation will make RFID devices more
    useful by allowing a single device to both read data from, and write
    data to, remote devices. For example, an interrogator that reads
    data from a tag in a shipping container could also be used to update
    the data stored in the tag when items are added to or removed from
    the container. As proposed in the *Notice* and consistent with our
    actions in the *Second Report and Order* for 13.56 MHz RFID tags, we
    will allow 433 MHz RFID tags to be approved either as part of a
    system with a tag reader under one FCC identification number, or
    under separate FCC identification numbers. Allowing powered tags and
    readers to be approved together will simplify the filing
    requirements in cases where the devices are always sold together,
    and permitting tags and readers to be approved separately will
    provide increased flexibility to manufacturers by permitting the
    sale of different combinations of tags and readers.

17. In the *Notice,* the Commission proposed to require that 433 MHz
    RFID devices be self-contained with no external or readily
    accessible controls that may be adjusted to cause operation out of
    compliance with the rules, and proposed to require that devices have
    permanently attached antennas that are not readily modifiable by the
    user.[^43] Upon further consideration, we find that it is not
    necessary to specify these requirements in the final rules. Section
    15.15(b) already prohibits readily accessible controls that can
    cause a device to operate in violation of the rules.[^44] Further,
    Section 15.203 specifies that intentional radiators must have either
    a permanently attached antenna or other means to prevent a user from
    installing an antenna that causes a device to operate in violation
    of the rules. Because the existing rules provide adequate safeguards
    against these types of changes, the proposed requirements concerning
    external adjustments and antenna substitutions are not necessary.

18. NTIA requests that operation of 433 MHz RFID systems be prohibited
    for a distance of 40 kilometers around five Federal Government radar
    sites to prevent harmful interference to radar operations. NTIA
    supplied a list of these locations and their geographic coordinates
    that is shown in Appendix A. None of the five sites are within 40
    kilometers of large metropolitan areas. Such a prohibition will
    still allow 433 MHz RFID tags to be used in the vast majority of
    commercial and industrial areas in the United States. In light of
    the need to protect government radar operations from interference,
    we are prohibiting 433 MHz RFID operation within 40 kilometers of
    these five radar sites. The coordinates of these sites are specified
    in Appendix A.

19. NTIA also requests that the operating locations of 433 MHz RFID
    systems be registered to assist in locating the source of any
    interference to Federal Government operations that may arise. While
    we generally do not require users of unlicensed devices to register
    their location, we have required users of certain ultra-wideband
    (UWB) transmitters to do so to protect Federal Government operations
    from interference. Specifically, we require users of UWB imaging
    systems to supply operational details to the Commission's Office of
    Engineering and Technology, which submits this information to
    NTIA.[^45]

20. Consistent with NTIA's letter stating the need to protect critical
    government radar operations from interference, we are requiring
    grantees to register the locations of users of 433 MHz RFID systems
    with the Commission.[^46] Registration of 433 MHz RFID systems is
    not a coordination, pre-approval, or licensing process, and it is
    not intended to give unlicensed devices protection from interference
    from other unlicensed devices. Rather, registration will allow the
    Commission and NTIA to monitor the deployment of 433 MHz RFID
    systems and help pinpoint the source of interference to government
    operations in case such interference occurs. The information that
    the grantee must supply to the Commission in registering the devices
    shall include the name, address, telephone number and e-mail address
    of the user, the address and geographic coordinates of the operating
    location, and the FCC identification number of the device. The user
    will be responsible for submitting updated information in the event
    the operating location or other information changes after the
    initial registration. The registration information must be submitted
    to the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology at the
    address provided in Appendix A. The Commission will provide this
    information to NTIA. As a condition of the grant, we will require
    the grantee of an equipment authorization for a 433 MHz RFID device
    to inform purchasers of the locations where the devices may and may
    not be used, *i.e.,* that they may be used only in commercial and
    industrial areas, and that they may not be used within 40 kilometers
    of the five Federal Government radar sites specified in the rules.
    We are also requiring grantees to notify users of their
    responsibility to register any changes in the operating location of
    devices or other registration information with the Commission.

21. Requiring grantees to register the locations of 433 MHz RFID system
    users as NTIA requests raises confidentiality issues for grantees.
    Savi states that a list of users and locations where equipment is
    used would likely be company sensitive information and that access
    should be restricted by password protection or otherwise limited to
    personnel at NTIA, the Department of Defense (DoD) or the
    Commission.[^47] We recognize Savi's concern that such a list would
    be commercial and/or financial information that a manufacturer would
    want to remain confidential because it would be the manufacturer's
    customer list and could indicate approximately how many units of a
    device have been sold. Consistent with statute, the Commission does
    not make certain information available for public inspection,
    including trade secrets and commercial and financial information
    that are privileged and confidential.[^48] The rules explicitly list
    certain types of materials in the category of trade secrets and
    commercial and financial information that are automatically afforded
    certain degrees of protection from public inspection.[^49] If
    material in this category is not explicitly listed as being
    protected from public inspection, the party submitting the material
    to the Commission must accompany it with a request for
    non-disclosure if it wants the material to remain confidential.[^50]

22. Because 433 MHz RFID registration information does not fall into a
    category that is explicitly listed as being protected from public
    inspection, the party supplying registration information would have
    to submit a request for confidentiality each time it files with the
    Commission, and the Commission would have to act upon each
    individual request. We expect that grantees would routinely request
    confidentiality for registration information filed with the
    Commission because they would consider this to be commercial and
    financial information that they do not want made available for
    public inspection. Each of these requests would be essentially
    identical and we expect that the Commission would grant them because
    the required registration information would fall into a category of
    information that the rules allow to be held confidential. Rather
    than process individual confidentiality requests each time a grantee
    registers a user's location or submits updated information, we find
    that it would be more efficient to adopt a change to Section
    0.457(d) of the rules to state that 433 MHz RFID registration
    information is not routinely available for public inspection. This
    action would save Commission resources that would be used for
    processing numerous confidentiality requests and would be less
    burdensome on grantees because grantees will not have to file a
    request for confidentiality each time new or updated registration
    information is submitted to the Commission. Therefore, we are adding
    433 MHz RFID registration information to the list of materials that
    are automatically afforded protection from public inspection. We
    will, however, make this information available to NTIA, DoD or other
    Federal Government entities with a need for it.

23. We have made a number of adjustments from our proposal that will
    eliminate any significant risk of interference to garage door
    controls. First, as noted above, we have restricted installation to
    use at only commercial and industrial areas for the express purpose
    of identifying the contents of shipping containers. Therefore, we do
    not anticipate widespread deployment in close proximity to door
    opener controls. Further, we have narrowed the frequency range for
    RFID systems from the proposed 10 MHz to 1 MHz. We note that garage
    door controls can operate anywhere in the 425-435 MHz band where we
    originally proposed operation for RFIDs, thus reducing the
    likelihood of interference to such controls.[^51] In addition, we
    have reduced both the peak signal level and the maximum permitted
    transmission duration for 433 MHz RFID systems by a factor of two
    from the proposed levels, further reducing the likelihood of
    interference. We find the arguments that 433 MHz RFID systems would
    cause interference unpersuasive in any event because the signal
    levels proposed in the *Notice* are no greater than the rules permit
    for garage door controls.[^52] Further, users of unlicensed devices
    have no protection from interference from other devices and no
    vested right to the continued use of any frequency by virtue of
    prior certification of equipment.[^53] Because operation of 433 MHz
    RFID systems will be limited to commercial and industrial areas such
    as ports, rail yards and warehouses, there will generally be
    substantial geographic separation between 433 MHz RFID devices and
    most other devices such as residential garage door openers that
    could receive interference. Door opener controls used in close
    proximity to 433 MHz RFID devices would most likely be under the
    control of the party operating the RFID devices, who could take
    appropriate steps in the event interference occurs, including
    changing the frequency of a door opener control, if possible, or
    ceasing operation a device that causes interference.

24. We observe that any potential interference to amateur operations is
    mitigated for the same reasons discussed above for door opener
    controls. ARRL expressed concern that the 425-435 MHz band
    originally proposed for RFID systems encompasses several bands that
    it has designated for weak signal use in its band plan.[^54]
    However, the rules we are adopting limit 433 MHz RFID systems to the
    433.5-434.5 MHz band. This band is separated by 500 kHz from the
    nearest weak signal band listed in ARRL's band plan, thus addressing
    ARRL's concern about RFID operation in weak signal bands.[^55]

25. The 433.5-434.5 MHz RFID band we are adopting falls within the
    433-435 MHz band that ARRL has designated for auxiliary and repeater
    links. Auxiliary stations are required by the Commission's rules to
    operate on a point-to-point basis and are permitted to operate with
    a maximum power of 50 watts.[^56] Because point-to-point operations
    typically use directional antennas, there is less likelihood of
    interference from other sources. The rules we are adopting for 433
    MHz RFID systems reduce the peak transmit level by a factor of 6 dB
    (two times) from the proposal, to a level 47 dB (55,000 times) lower
    than the level permitted for amateur auxiliary stations, further
    reducing the likelihood of interference. Additionally, the rules we
    are adopting limit operation to commercial and industrial area such
    as ports and rail yards, so operation will not be permitted in
    residential areas and on delivery trucks as many parties expressed
    concern. While there are other bands besides 433 MHz where RFID
    systems could operate, such as the 902-928 MHz and 2400-2483.5 MHz
    bands, we recognize that there are advantages to allowing operation
    in the 433 MHz band. Signals at lower frequencies, *i.e.*, 433 MHz,
    are attenuated less passing through objects, thus allowing more
    reliable operation. Further, although the 433 MHz band may not be
    available for use by unlicensed devices worldwide with the same
    technical parameters we are adopting for RFID systems, operation in
    the 433.05-434.79 MHz band is permitted in Europe, potentially
    allowing the development of RFID systems that are capable of
    operating in multiple countries.

26. We disagree with ARRL that the Commission lacks authority under
    Section 301 of the Communications Act to authorize 433 MHz RFID
    devices to operate at the power levels adopted herein on an
    unlicensed basis because they will pose a significant potential for
    interference to licensed services. ARRL advanced a similar argument
    in a proceeding concerning certification of transmitters in the
    24.05-24.25 GHz band.[^57] The Commission stated in that proceeding
    that it need not reach this statutory argument when it finds no
    significant interference potential.[^58] It also noted that ARRL
    concurs that it is appropriate for the Commission to make reasonable
    regulations regarding Part 15 devices pursuant to Section 302(a) of
    the Act. Because we find that the rules we are adopting for 433 MHz
    RFID systems will not result in an interference risk to amateur
    services, we reject ARRL's argument in this proceeding that the
    Commission lacks legal authority to adopt such rules.

# Procedural Matters

27. [Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis]{.underline}. The Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this Third Report and Order,
    pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, *see 5* U.S.C. § 604, is
    contained in Appendix C.

28. This Third Report and Order contains new or modified information
    collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
    Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB,
    the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to
    comment on the new or modified information collection(s) contained
    in this proceeding.

29. To make cited sources more easily available to the readers, we are
    testing the use of hyperlinks to some FCC documents that are cited
    in this document. The World Wide Web addresses/URLs that we give
    here were correct at the time this document was prepared but may
    change over time. We do not have staff dedicated to updating these
    URLs, however, so readers may find some URLs to be out of date as
    time progresses. We also advise that the only definitive text of FCC
    documents is the one that is published in the FCC Record. In case of
    discrepancy between the electronic documents cited here and the FCC
    Record, the version in the FCC Record is definitive.

30. For further information regarding this Second Report and Order and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, contact Mr. Hugh L. Van Tuyl, Office
    of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-7506, e-mail
    [Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov](mailto:Hugh.Vantuyl@fcc.gov).

# ordering clauses

31. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained
    in Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC Sections 154(i), 301,
    302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), this Third Report and Order IS
    ADOPTED and Part 15 of the Commission's Rules IS amended as set
    forth in Appendix A effective 30 days after publication in the
    Federal Register.

32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
    the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

# Appendix A: FINAL Rule Changes {#appendix-a-final-rule-changes .unnumbered}

Part 0 of Title 47 the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

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

**AUTHORITY: Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155.**

2.  Section 0.457 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d)(1)(vii)

**§ 0.457 Records not routinely available for public inspection.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(vii\) Information on the users and locations of radio frequency
identification systems submitted to the Commission pursuant to § 15.240
will be made available to other Federal Government agencies but will not
otherwise be made available for inspection.

Part 15 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

3.  The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.**

4.  A new section 15.240 is added to read as follows.

**§ 15.240 Operation in the band 433.5-434.5 MHz.**

\(a\) Operation under the provisions of this section is restricted to
devices that use radio frequency energy to identify the contents of
commercial shipping containers. Operations must be limited to commercial
and industrial areas such as ports, rail terminals and warehouses.
Two-way operation is permitted to interrogate and to load data into
devices. Devices operated pursuant to the provisions of this section
shall not be used for voice communications.

\(b\) The field strength of any emissions radiated within the specified
frequency band shall not exceed 11,000 microvolts per meter measured at
a distance of 3 meters. The emission limit in this paragraph is based on
measurement instrumentation employing an average detector. The peak
level of any emissions within the specified frequency band shall not
exceed 55,000 microvolts per meter measured at a distance of 3 meters.
Additionally, devices authorized under these provisions shall be
provided with a means for automatically limiting operation so that the
duration of each transmission shall not be greater than 60 seconds and
be only permitted to reinitiate an interrogation in the case of a
transmission error. Absent such a transmission error, the silent period
between transmissions shall not be less than 10 seconds.

\(c\) The field strength of emissions radiated on any frequency outside
of the specified band shall not exceed the general radiated emission
limits in § 15.209.

\(d\) In the case of radio frequency powered tags designed to operate
with a device authorized under this section, the tag may be approved
with the device or be considered as a separate device subject to its own
authorization. Powered tags approved with a device under a single
application shall be labeled with the same identification number as the
device.

\(e\) To prevent interference to Federal Government radar systems,
operation under the provisions of this section is not permitted within
40 kilometers of the following locations:

  --------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
  DoD Radar Site              Latitude             Longitude

  Beale Air Force Base        39º 08' 10" N        121º 21' 04" W

  Cape Cod Air Force Station  41º 45' 07" N        070º 32' 17" W

  Clear Air Force Station     64º 55' 16" N        143º 05' 02" W

  Cavalier Air Force Station  48º 43' 12" N        097º 54' 00" W

  Eglin Air Force Base        30º 43' 12" N        086º 12' 36" W
  --------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------

\(f\) As a condition of the grant, the grantee of an equipment
authorization for a device operating under the provisions of this
section shall provide information to the user concerning compliance with
the operational restrictions in paragraphs (a) and (e) of this section.
As a further condition, the grantee shall provide information on the
locations where the devices are installed to the FCC Office of
Engineering and Technology, which shall provide this information to the
Federal Government through the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration. The user of the device shall be responsible
for submitting updated information in the event the operating location
or other information changes after the initial registration. The grantee
shall notify the user of this requirement. The information provided by
the grantee or user to the Commission shall include the name, address,
telephone number and e-mail address of the user, the address and
geographic coordinates of the operating location, and the FCC
identification number of the device. The material shall be submitted to
the following address:

> Experimental Licensing Branch, OET
>
> Federal Communications Commission
>
> 445 12^th^ Street, S.W.
>
> Washington, D.C. 20554
>
> ATTN: RFID Registration

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# Appendix B: LIST OF COMMENTING PARTIES {#appendix-b-list-of-commenting-parties .unnumbered}

**[Parties filing comments]{.underline}**

1.  ADEMCO Group

2.  AdvaMed

3.  Al Brittain

4.  Albert Deshotel

5.  Armadillo Intertie, Inc.

6.  ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio

7.  Bernard K. Skoch

8.  Brian D. Allen

9.  Brian James Jarchow

10. Britain Rothrock

11. Bruce Perens

12. Bryan King

13. Central States VHF Society

14. Chamberlain Group, Inc.

15. Charles Byers

16. Charles P. Adkins

17. Chester Piotrowski

18. Christian O. Hunt

19. Christopher Howard

20. Christopher J. Osburn

21. Cisco Systems, Inc.

22. Cobra Electronics Corporation

23. Comsearch

24. Consumer Electronics Association

25. Cubic Corporation

26. Dale Drake

27. Daniel Kane

28. DataBrokers, Inc.

29. David A. Merriweather

30. David Batzle

31. David C. Counce

32. David Clark

33. David Donnelly

34. David HM Spector

35. David Wilkinson

36. Deerik W. Shryock

37. Dennis Swanson

38. Derwood Eadie

39. Donald C. Karon

40. Doran S. Platt III

41. Dr. Andrew E. Mossberg

42. Dwight B. Hill

43. Enalasys Corporation

44. Eric M. Funderburk

45. Eric Schmidt

46. Escort, Inc. and BEL, Inc.

47. Flash Parlini

48. Fred C. Jensen

49. Frederick C. Gantzer

50. Frederick Patton

51. Galen K. Watts

52. Gap, Inc.

53. Gary Rotter

54. George Washburn

55. Harold Tate

56. HID Corporation

57. Howard Malone

58. Hughes Network Systems, Inc.

59. IBM Corporation

60. Information Technology Industry Council

61. Interlogix, Inc.

62. Jack Daane

63. James A. Talbot, Jr.

64. James E. Reynolds

65. James Edwin Whedbee

66. James Hayes

67. Jeff Ballif

68. Jeff Stidham

69. Jeffrey D. Taylor

70. Jeffrey P. LaCosse

71. Jeffrey Peter Kershaw

72. John Douglas Lamb

73. John L. D'Ausilio

74. John Paul Dooley

75. John Robert Foulks

76. Johnson Controls, Inc.

77. Jose Cadrecha

78. Joseph A. Elcavage

79. Joseph A. Naujokas

80. Joseph H. Underwood

81. Joseph R. Semer

82. Joseph S. Keer

83. Kenneth P. Eckel, Jr.

84. Kevin Gibson

85. Kyle A. Yoksh

86. Lifeline Systems, Inc.

87. Linear Corporation

88. Loral Skynet

89. MagTek, Inc.

90. Mark S. Seidler

91. Martin Shinko

92. Mattel, Inc.

93. Matthew Becker

94. Melvyn L. Bernstein

95. Michael Brooks

96. Michael J. Linden

97. Michael M. Bradley

98. Michael Swiderski

99. Mike Baugh

100. Mike Moreken

101. Miller Edge, Inc.

102. MOBA Systeme

103. Morris Jones

104. Motorola, Inc.

105. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

106. Nicholas S. Frost

107. Nickolaus E. Leggett

108. Operator Specialty Company, Inc.

109. PanAmSat Corporation

110. Paul J. Tringas

111. Pete Myers

112. Philips Semiconductors

113. Polhemus, Inc.

114. Power Line Communications Association

115. RADAR Members

116. Ray Todd Stevens

117. Richard Adamo

118. Richard Lourette

119. Rick Eastwood

120. Roadrunners Microwave Group

121. Robert Brown

122. Robert S. Bennett

123. Robert Winkworth

124. Safety Warning System, L.C.

125. Sanjay Kapur

126. Satellite Industry Association

127. Savi Technology, Inc.

128. SES Americom, Inc.

129. Short Range Automotive Radar Frequency Allocation Group

130. Shure Incorporated

131. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc.

132. Spacenet, Inc. and StarBand Communications, Inc.

133. Steven Bryant

134. Telecommunications Industry Association

135. Texas Instruments

136. Texas VHF-FM Society, Inc.

137. The Genie Company

138. The Whistler Group, Inc.

139. Tighe W. Kuykendall

140. Tom Masterson

141. TRP, Inc.

142. Uniden America Corporation

143. United Telecom Council

144. Verlin E. Reiter

145. Vincent F. DiMalta

146. VYTEK Solutions, Inc.

147. Wacom Technology Corp.

148. Warren Bruene

149. Warren J. Dickie

150. William A. Tynan

151. William F. Osler

152. William Owens

153. XM Radio, Inc.

> **[Parties filing reply comments]{.underline}**

1.  Ademco Group

2.  Amateur Television Network

3.  American Council of Independent Laboratories

4.  ARRL, The National Association of Amateur Radio

5.  Arthur T. Farrand

6.  Brent D. Oots

7.  Brice D. Hornblack

8.  Calvin Keli Lunny

9.  Charles E. Quentel, III

10. Christopher Nelson

11. Current Technologies

12. Curtis V. Rocke

13. Daniel J. Serafini

14. Duane Whittingham

15. Edwin S. Toal

16. Escort Incorporated and BEL Incorporated

17. Gerald W. Murray

18. Glenn Pederson

19. Harold C. Arnold

20. Hughes Network Systems, Inc.

21. Illinois Repeater Association, Inc.

22. Indiana Repeater Council

23. Interlogix, Inc.

24. Intersil Corporation

25. James Anderson

26. John A. Weeks

27. Kevin D. Adam

28. Lloyd W. Fink

29. Martin H. Leider

30. Martin Wilcoxson

31. Matthew Hamm

32. Matthew T. Weeks

33. Michael J. Borowiec

34. Moody Law

35. Motorola, Inc.

36. Patrick T. Weeks

37. RADAR Members

38. Ray Todd Stevens

39. Retlif Testing Laboratories

40. Richard Kelly

41. Satellite Industry Association

42. Savi Technology, Inc.

43. SES Americom, Inc.

44. Seymour Hersh

45. Short Range Automotive Radar Frequency Allocation Group

46. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc.

47. Sky A. Borgenhagen

48. Stanley Vandiver

49. Steven Handler

50. Texas Instruments

51. The Chamberlain Group, Inc.

52. Timothy Thomas Lanners

53. TRP, Inc.

54. Upper New York Repeater Council, Inc.

55. Ward Wheaton

56. Western Washington Amateur Relay Association

57. William Richards

58. XM Radio, Inc.

# Appendix C: FINAL Regulatory Flexibility Analysis {#appendix-c-final-regulatory-flexibility-analysis .unnumbered}

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^59] an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the *Notice
of Proposed Rule Making and Order, Review of Part 15 and other Parts of
the Commission's Rules* (*Notice*).[^60] The Commission sought written
public comments on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the
IRFA.[^61] This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis conforms to the
RFA.[^62]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Third Report and Order**

Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section
202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require the Commission (1)
to review biennially its regulations pertaining to telecommunications
service providers and broadcast ownership; and (2) to determine whether
economic competition has made those regulations no longer necessary in
the public interest. The Commission is directed to modify or repeal any
such regulations that it finds are no longer in the public interest.

As part of the biennial review for the year 2000, the Commission
reviewed its regulations pertaining to telecommunications service
providers and broadcast ownership and recommended a number of changes to
those rules. While not specifically required by statute, the Commission
also reviewed Parts 2, 15 and 18 as part of this process.

The Third Report and Order increases the maximum permitted field
strength and transmission duration for radio frequency identification
(RFID) systems operating in the 433.5-434.5 MHz band to allow more rapid
and reliable data transmission. Operation of such systems is limited to
commercial shipping containers in commercial and industrial areas.
Improved RFID systems could benefit commercial shippers and have
significant homeland security benefits by enabling the entire contents
of shipping containers to be easily and immediately identified, and by
allowing a determination of whether tampering with the contents has
occurred during shipping.

**B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA**

> None.

**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 rules adopted herein.[^63] The RFA generally defines the
term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the terms \"small
business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small governmental
jurisdiction.\"[^64] In addition, the term \"small business\" has the
same meaning as the term \"small business concern\" under the Small
Business Act.[^65] 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
SBA.[^66]

The SBA has developed small business size standards for two pertinent
Economic Census categories, \"Radio and Television Broadcasting and
Communications Equipment\" (RTB) and \"Other Communications Equipment,\"
both of which consist of all such companies having 750 or fewer
employees.[^67] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a
total of 1,215 establishments in the first category, total, that had
operated for the entire year.[^68] Of this total, 1,150 had 499 or fewer
employees, and an additional 37 establishments had 500 to 999
employees.[^69] Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
businesses in the first category are small businesses that may be
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. Concerning the second
category, the data for 1997 show that there were a total of 499
establishments that operated for the entire year.[^70] Of this total,
491 had 499 or fewer employees, and additional 3 establishments had 500
to 999 employees.[^71] Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
businesses in the second category are small businesses that may be
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.

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

Manufacturers of 433 MHz RFID systems will have to obtain certification
for the equipment before it can be marketed. This requires the
manufacturer to have the equipment tested for compliance, file an
application with the Commission or a designated Telecommunication
Certification Body (TCB) and wait for an approval before the equipment
may be imported into or marketed within the United States. There will be
no change to the certification procedure from what the rules currently
require. There will be a new requirement for the grantee of
certification to supply information to the Commission on where the
devices are used. The information that must be submitted includes the
name, address and other pertinent contact information of the user, the
address and geographic coordinates of the operating location, and the
FCC identification number of the device. In addition, the user of the
device will have to notify the Commission of any changes to this
information after the initial registration by the grantee.

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

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (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 or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.[^72]

The rules specify performance standards for RFID equipment such as
emission levels, as opposed to design standards. Because the rules are
intended to minimize the potential for interference to authorized
services in the 433 MHz band, and it is not possible to exempt small
entities from complying with any requirements without increasing the
risk of harmful interference. We note that a number of entities
expressed concern about the possibility of interference from 433 MHz
RFID systems to door opener controls. As discussed in paragraph 23 of
the Third Report and Order, we have made a number of changes from our
proposals that will eliminate any significant risk of interference to
door opener controls.

[Report to Congress]{.underline}: The Commission will send a copy of the
Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. §
801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third
Report and Order, including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Third Report and Order
and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL**

*Re: Review of Part 15 and other Parts of the Commission's Rules, Third
Report and Order, ET Docket No. 01-278*

With more than two billion tons of freight traveling through U.S. ports
and waterways yearly, ensuring the efficient flow of goods while
reducing the possibility of terrorism and fraud is no easy task.

Today's *Third Report and Order* allows a powerful new technology to
help secure our ports while increasing productivity. Specifically, we
change Commission rules to allow for the introduction of smart shipping
containers that can detect intrusions and streamline the inventory
process.

When you consider that a trillion dollars worth of goods pass through
our ports annually, the potential economic benefits of this technology
become clear.

It is worth noting that some have raised privacy concerns regarding the
use of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. We are aware of these
concerns, and stress that today's ruling is narrowly tailored. The
technical and operational rules we adopt today allow
higher-powered/longer-duration RFID tag use on limited frequencies, and
only in commercial and industrial environments. We also take steps to
protect federal government radar sites from interference by requiring
grantees of an equipment authorization for a 433 MHz RFID device to
register their location and inform purchasers where the devices may or
may not be used.

I'm excited by the prospects for improved inventory control, lower
costs, and increased homeland security that this technology promises to
bring.

[^1]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.225 and 15.249.

[^2]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.231.

[^3]: *See* *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order* in ET Docket No.
    01-278, ("*Notice*"), 16 FCC Rcd 18205 (2001).

[^4]: *See The 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review Report* and *Federal
    Communications Commission Biennial Regulatory Review 2000 Updated
    Staff Report* (*"Updated Staff Report"*)*,* FCC 00-456, dated
    January 17, 2001.

[^5]: *See* National Council for Information Technology Standardization
    Technical Committee B10 (NCITS B10) petition for rule making filed
    September 4, 1998, RM-9375 and Savi Technology, Inc. (Savi) petition
    for rule making filed November 22, 2000, RM 10051.

[^6]: *See* NCITS B10 *Petition for Rule Making to Amend Section 15.225
    of the Commission's Rules*, filed September 10, 1998, RM-9375 and
    Savi Technology, Inc. (Savi) petition for rule making filed November
    22, 2000, RM-10051.

[^7]: *See* *First Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 01-278, 17 FCC Rcd
    14063 (2002).

[^8]: *See Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order* in
    ET Docket No. 01-278, 18 FCC Rcd 14741 (2003) ("*Second Report and
    Order"*).

[^9]: *See Second Report and Order* at 14742.

[^10]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.231.

[^11]: The previous prohibition on data transmissions under this section
    was removed in the *Second Report and Order* in this proceeding.

[^12]: The rules previously limited periodic transmissions to a single
    transmission of not more than one second per hour. This rule was
    changed in the *Second Report and Order* to allow multiple
    transmissions not to exceed a total duration of two seconds per
    hour.

[^13]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.231(b)(2) and 15.35(b).

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.231(e).

[^15]: *Id.*

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.231(b).

[^18]: *See* Savi petition for rule making dated November 22, 2000,
    RM-10051.

[^19]: *See* *Notice* at 18214.

[^20]: *See* Interlogix comments at 6, Mattel comments at 2, Savi
    comments at 3-5 and VYTEK comments at 1-2.

[^21]: *See* Interlogix comments at 6.

[^22]: *See* Interlogix comments at 6.

[^23]: *See* VYTEK comments at 1-2.

[^24]: *See* Savi comments at 3-5.

[^25]: *See* Savi comments at 6-8.

[^26]: *See* OSCO comments at 1, Genie comments at 1, Chamberlain
    comments at 3 and Ademco comments at 3. Remote control door openers
    may operate on any frequency above 70 MHz except in certain
    designated restricted bands. They may operate anywhere within the
    425-435 MHz band. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.205 and 15.231.

[^27]: *See* OSCO comments at 1.

[^28]: *See* Genie comments at 1.

[^29]: *See* Chamberlain comments at 4-7.

[^30]: *See* ARRL comments at 11.

[^31]: *See* ARRL comments at 12.

[^32]: *See* ARRL comments at 13.

[^33]: *See* ARRL comments at 15-16.

[^34]: *See* ARRL comments at 17.

[^35]: *See* ARRL comments at 4.

[^36]: *See* ARRL comments at 7.

[^37]: *See* letter from NTIA to the Chief, Office of Engineering and
    Technology dated March 14, 2002.

[^38]: *See* letter from NTIA to the Chief, Office of Engineering and
    Technology dated October 15, 2002 at 4.

[^39]: *See* Savi *ex-parte* filings dated October 28, 2002 and October
    15, 2003.

[^40]: *See* letters from NTIA to the Chief, Office of Engineering and
    Technology dated March 18, 2004 and March 24, 2004.

[^41]: *See* Savi *ex-parte* filing dated October 28, 2002 at 3. Savi
    notes that their devices are intended to be used on commercial
    shipping containers. *Id.* at 1.

[^42]: Remote control devices are operated under the provisions of
    Section 15.231 of the rules. This section allows periodic operation
    of devices in the 40.66-40.70 MHz band and any frequency above 70
    MHz except for the restricted bands of operation specified in
    Section 15.205. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.205 and 15.231. Examples of
    remote control devices include garage door openers, keychain
    transmitters for locking and unlocking car doors and tire pressure
    monitors. RFID systems may be operated under the provisions of
    Section 15.231. This section allows either one-way or two-way
    operation by devices.

[^43]: *See Notice* at Appendix A, proposed Section 15.240(d).

[^44]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.15(b).

[^45]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.525(b).

[^46]: *See* letter from NTIA to the Chief, Office of Engineering and
    Technology dated March 24, 2004.

[^47]: *See* Savi *ex parte* filing dated December 4, 2003.

[^48]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) and 47 C.F.R. § 0.457(d).

[^49]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 0.457(d)(1).

[^50]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 0.457(d)(2).

[^51]: Door opener controls are permitted to operate on any frequency
    above 70 MHz, except for certain designated restricted bands. *See*
    47 C.F.R. §§ 15.205 and 15.231.

[^52]: *See* *Notice* at 18214.

[^53]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.5.

[^54]: *See* ARRL comments at 11. ARRL has developed a voluntary plan
    for use of the 420-450 MHz band by amateur radio operators that
    specifies different uses for different segments of the band. ARRL
    supplied a copy of their band plan for the 420-435 MHz band in
    Appendix A of their comments. This division of the band is not
    required by the Commission's rules.

[^55]: *See* ARRL comments at Appendix A.

[^56]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.3(a)(7).

[^57]: *See* *Memorandum Opinion and Order* in ET Docket No. 98-156, 18
    FCC Rcd 15,944 (2003).

[^58]: *Id* at 15,947.

[^59]: ^ ?^ *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).

[^60]: *See* *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order* in ET Docket No.
    01-278, 16 FCC Rcd 18205 (2001).

[^61]: *Id.*

[^62]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^63]: 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^64]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^65]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. §  632). Pursuant to the
    RFA, 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.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^66]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^67]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 334220, 334290.

[^68]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, Radio and Television and Wireless Communications
    Equipment Manufacturing, \"Industry Statistics by Employment Size:
    1997,\" Table 4, NAICS code 334220 (issued Aug. 1999). The number of
    \"establishments\" is a less helpful indicator of small business
    prevalence in this context than would be the number of \"firms\" or
    \"companies,\" because the latter take into account the concept of
    common ownership or control. Any single physical business location
    is an establishment, and that location and others may be under the
    common ownership of a given firm. Thus, the numbers given in text
    may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category,
    including the numbers of small businesses. Census data in this
    context are available only for establishments.

[^69]: *Id.*

[^70]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing,
    \"Industry Statistics by Employment Size: 1997,\" Table 4, NAICS
    code 334290 (issued Sept. 1999).

[^71]: *Id.*

[^72]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).