**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | ET Docket No. 99-231         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of Part 15 of the      | ) | DA 00-2317                   |
| Commission\'s Rules Regarding    | * |                              |
| Spread Spectrum Devices          | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Wi-LAN, Inc                      | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Application for Certification of | ) |                              |
| an Intentional Radiator Under    | * |                              |
| Part 15 of The Commission\'s     | * |                              |
| Rules                            |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING AND**

**ORDER**

**Adopted:** May 10, 2001 **Released:** May 11, 2001

**Comment Date:** \[75 days after publication in the Federal Register\]

**Reply Comment Date:** \[105 days after publication in the Federal
Register\]

By the Commission:

**INTRODUCTION**

1.  By this action, we propose to amend Part 15 of the Commission's
    rules to improve spectrum sharing by unlicensed devices operating in
    the 2.4 GHz band (2400 - 2483.5 MHz), provide for introduction of
    new digital transmission technologies, and eliminate unnecessary
    regulations for spread spectrum systems. Specifically, this Further
    Notice proposes to revise the rules for frequency hopping spread
    spectrum systems operating in the 2.4 GHz band to reduce the amount
    of spectrum that must be used with certain types of operation, and
    to allow new digital transmission technologies to operate pursuant
    to the same rules as spread spectrum systems. It also proposes to
    eliminate the processing gain requirement for direct sequence spread
    spectrum systems, which will provide manufacturers with increased
    flexibility and regulatory certainty in the design of their
    products. We take these actions to facilitate the continued
    development and deployment of new wireless devices for businesses
    and consumers.

2.  We also find that our Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
    acted properly in denying an application for equipment certification
    filed by Wi-LAN, Inc. (\"Wi-LAN\") under the current spread spectrum
    rules for a system using wideband orthogonal frequency division
    multiplexing modulation (W-OFDM).[^1] We agree with the staff's
    finding that this technology does not qualify for operation under
    the current spread spectrum rules. We will, however, grant an
    interim waiver to allow Wi-LAN\'s equipment and similar devices from
    other manufacturers to be certificated at reduced power levels
    during the pendency of this rule making. We note that the proposals
    we are making in this Further Notice, if adopted, would accommodate
    devices such as Wi-LAN\'s.

    **BACKGROUND**

3.  Part 15 of the FCC\'s rules provides for the operation of unlicensed
    devices. As a general condition of operation, Part 15 devices may
    not cause any harmful interference to authorized services and must
    accept any interference that may be received.[^2] In addition, all
    services and devices operating in the 915 MHz (902 - 928 MHz), 2.4
    GHz, and 5.7 GHz (5725 - 5850 MHz) bands must accept any
    interference received from industrial, scientific and medical
    equipment. Section 15.247 contains rules governing the operation of
    spread spectrum devices in the 915 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.7 GHz
    bands.[^3] Operation under these rules is limited to frequency
    hopping and direct sequence spread spectrum systems. In frequency
    hopping systems, an information signal, usually a data stream,
    modulates a radio frequency carrier that is hopped among a number of
    frequencies in concert with a receiver. In direct sequence systems,
    the information data stream is combined with a high speed digital
    spreading code that is used to modulate a radio carrier, producing a
    radio signal that has a bandwidth covering anywhere from 1 to 100
    megahertz. Both frequency hopping and direct sequence systems are
    permitted to use output powers of up to 1 watt in the above bands,
    however, most devices use lower power for various design reasons,
    such as conserving battery life. Spread spectrum modulation reduces
    the power density of the transmitted signal at any frequency,
    thereby reducing the possibility of causing interference to other
    signals occupying the same spectrum. Similarly, at the receiver end,
    the power density of interfering signals is minimized, making spread
    spectrum systems relatively immune to interference from outside
    sources.

4.  The original *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* (\"*Notice*\") in this
    proceeding, which was initiated in response to a request from the
    Home RF working group, proposed to amend the rules to allow
    frequency hopping spread spectrum systems operating in the 2.4 GHz
    band to use hopping channel bandwidths wider than 1 MHz.[^4] The
    *Notice* also proposed to adopt a new method for determining
    compliance with the requirement that direct sequence systems exhibit
    a minimum of 10 dB processing gain. The *First Report and Order*
    (\"*First R&O*\") in this proceeding amended the spread spectrum
    rules to allow frequency hopping spread spectrum transmitters in the
    2.4 GHz band to use bandwidths between 1 MHz and 5 MHz at a reduced
    power output of up to 125 mW.[^5] Frequency hopping systems with a
    bandwidth of up to 1 MHz are required to use at least 75
    non-overlapping hopping frequencies. Use of 75 hopping frequencies
    is generally not feasible for systems having a bandwidth in excess
    of 1 MHz because the 2.4 GHz band, which covers 2400-2483.5 MHz,
    provides only 83.5 megahertz of spectrum. Accordingly, the rules
    were amended to permit systems using a bandwidth greater than 1 MHz
    but less than or equal to 5 MHz to use as few as 15 non-overlapping
    channels provided that the total span of hopping channels be at
    least 75 MHz.[^6] Therefore, while a system using 5 MHz hopping
    channel bandwidths is permitted to use as few as 15 hopping
    frequencies, one using 3 MHz hopping channel bandwidths must use at
    least 25 hopping frequencies to comply with the rules. In the *First
    R&O*, the Commission stated that it would address the processing
    gain issue in a future Report and Order.[^7]

5.  Thirteen parties ("Petitioners") filed a Joint Petition for
    Clarification or, in the Alternative, Partial Reconsideration
    (\"Joint Petition\") of the *First R&O*.[^8] The Petitioners request
    that the rules be clarified to allow frequency hopping systems in
    the 2.4 GHz band with bandwidths of 1 MHz or less to use as few as
    15 hopping channels. The petitioners state that such operations
    should be subject to an output power limit of 125 mW and should be
    required to use adaptive hopping techniques to avoid operating on
    occupied frequencies.

6.  We observe that there have been several other recent developments
    relevant to the spread spectrum rules. One such development is the
    Wi-LAN application for certification of a W-OFDM system under the
    spread spectrum rules as discussed further below. Another is a
    recent announcement by Texas Instruments that it plans to introduce
    a new high data rate, digital transmission system called packet
    binary convolutional coding (\"PBCC\") for operation in the 2.4 GHz
    band under the spread spectrum rules. While Texas Instruments claims
    that this technology will meet the current rules, at this juncture
    compliance has not been demonstrated. We are also aware that the
    IEEE Working Group 802.11 is in the process of developing standards
    for a new generation of wireless networks capable of operating at
    data speeds of at least 20 MB/s.[^9] There has been much debate
    within this standards group centered on whether certain technologies
    meet the FCC\'s spread spectrum rules.

    **DISCUSSION**

7.  The Commission's spread spectrum rules have been a tremendous
    success. A wide variety of devices have been introduced under these
    rules for business and consumer use including cordless telephones
    and computer local area networks. Moreover, the past few years have
    witnessed the development of industry standards, such as IEEE
    802.11b, Bluetooth, and Home RF, that promise to greatly expand the
    number and variety of devices that will operate in the 2.4GHz band.
    We anticipate the introduction of wireless headsets and computer
    connections for cellular and PCS phones, wireless computer
    peripherals such as printers and keyboards, and a host of new
    wireless Internet appliances that will use this band as well as the
    other bands that provide for unlicensed operation.

8.  Since the time the spread spectrum rules were first introduced some
    15 years ago, the Commission has amended the rules several times to
    accommodate technology developments and promote new and innovative
    use of the 915 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.7 GHz bands.[^10] Over the years,
    the data rates achievable by spread spectrum devices have increased
    from a few kilobits per second to 20 megabits per second, and more.
    These high data rates were not envisioned when the rules were first
    drafted. In fact, the original rules were crafted in a manner to
    highlight the interference immunity characteristics of spread
    spectrum devices, even at the expense of higher speeds. It appears
    that our current rules may unnecessarily restrict system designs
    that could otherwise achieve data rates of more than 20 megabits per
    second.

9.  The Commission initiated this proceeding to provide for the
    continued development of spread spectrum technology. In light of the
    Joint Petition and other recent technology developments, we are
    initiating this Further Notice to relax or eliminate rules that
    impede efficient use of the spectrum and introduction of new
    technologies. Specifically, we propose to further relax the
    frequency hopping spread spectrum rules as requested in the Joint
    Petition. We also propose to amend the rules to accommodate new
    digital transmission systems that have spectrum characteristics
    similar to spread spectrum systems. In addition, we propose to
    eliminate the processing gain requirement for direct sequence spread
    spectrum systems. Finally, in conjunction with our analysis of these
    proposals, we address Wi-LAN's Application for Review of OET\'s
    denial of its application for equipment certification.

10. **Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum Systems.** Petitioners argue
    that frequency hopping spread spectrum systems in the 2.4 GHz band
    that have a bandwidth of 1 MHz or less should be permitted to use as
    few as 15 hops as was permitted for systems having a bandwidth
    greater than 1 MHz. They also argue that the requirement that the
    total span of hopping channels shall be 75 MHz should not be applied
    to systems using bandwidths of 1 MHz or less. They state that the
    current requirements exacerbate interference because they
    effectively compel multiple systems to operate to a large extent in
    the same spectrum. Further, they submit that the requirements
    effectively negate the opportunity for frequency hopping systems to
    use adaptive hopping techniques as allowed in Section 15.247(h)
    because there is only 83.5 MHz of spectrum available in the 2.4 GHz
    band. Accordingly, petitioners request that the Commission clarify
    the rules adopted in the *First R&O* to specify a minimum of 15
    hopping channels for any system that uses adaptive hopping
    techniques as allowed under Section 15.247(h) and limits its output
    power to 125 mW, regardless of hopping channel bandwidth. Similar to
    the rules adopted in the *First R&O*, the request would require
    systems with 5 MHz hopping channel bandwidths to use at least 75 MHz
    of spectrum. However, systems with smaller bandwidths will be able
    to use less spectrum.

11. Petitioners refer to the results of studies which they assert show
    that facilitating use of adaptive hopping techniques in the 2.4 GHz
    band would help to ameliorate interference by allowing frequency
    hopping systems to avoid transmitting on frequencies used by direct
    sequence systems that may be operating at the same location or
    nearby.[^11] Petitioners state that interference avoidance is
    beneficial to both frequency hopping and direct sequence systems.
    They note that the Commission has previously determined that
    adaptive hopping techniques can be used to mitigate interference.
    For example, in the 915 MHz band (902 - 928 MHz), the rules permit
    frequency hopping spread spectrum systems to employ a minimum number
    of hopping channels with bandwidths narrow enough, in comparison to
    the available bandwidth, to allow the systems to adapt their hopsets
    to avoid other users.[^12]

12. We agree with comments filed by Proxim Inc. (\"Proxim) and Mobilian
    Corporation that the relief requested by the Petitioners cannot be
    afforded on the basis of a clarification or reconsideration.
    Although the request was proposed in an *ex parte* filing shortly
    before the *First R&O* was adopted, we do not believe there has been
    an adequate notice and comment on this proposal. We note that there
    are a very large number of users of the 2.4 GHz spectrum, including
    Amateur radio operators and fixed and mobile operations, that could
    be effected by this rule change and may not be aware it is being
    considered because it was not proposed in the *Notice*.[^13] We do,
    however, believe that the petitioners\' request has merit and
    therefore will consider it pursuant to this Further Notice.

13. Accordingly, we propose to amend Section 15.247 by incorporating the
    changes proposed in the Joint Petition. The proposed rule
    modification is shown in Appendix B, Section 15.247(a)(1)(iii).
    Specifically, we propose to allow use of as few as 15 hops, as
    provided by our current rules, irrespective of the bandwidth
    utilized, provided that the output power does not exceed 125 mW and
    the device uses adaptive hopping techniques, as proposed in the
    Joint Petition. Interested parties are invited to comment on the
    acceptability of this proposal. Commenters are encouraged to include
    technical analyses that support claims that this change will either
    improve or degrade sharing of this spectrum. We particularly invite
    comment as to whether use of adaptive hopping techniques should be
    mandatory and how we should determine compliance with this
    requirement when evaluating specific devices for purposes of
    equipment certification. Commenters are also encouraged to examine
    alternative operating parameters or conditions that may achieve the
    same goals. For example, the operating conditions in the Joint
    Petition would allow a system using 1 MHz bandwidth hopping channels
    to use as little as 18% of the available spectrum at 2.4 GHz to
    implement adaptive hopping techniques. Could the Commission realize
    the goals of the petitioners by requiring that adaptive hopping
    systems use a minimum of 25% or 50% of the band with a power
    reduction in relationship to amount of spectrum used? Could even
    fewer hops be used efficiently and effectively with a corresponding
    reduction in power? Those commenters who do not agree that the rule
    changes would be beneficial to operation in the 2.4 GHz band should
    provide an explanation.

14. We are not proposing to reduce the minimum number of hopping
    channels required for frequency hopping spread spectrum systems in
    the 915 MHz or 5.7 GHz bands. We note that the Commission has
    previously reduced the required minimum number of hopping channels
    in the 915 MHz band from 50 to 25.[^14] The Commission indicated
    that the modified rules would facilitate improved sharing of the
    band.[^15] With regard to the 5.7 GHz band, 125 MHz of spectrum is
    available to accommodate the required 75 hopping channels.
    Therefore, there are generally a sufficient number of frequencies
    available to avoid interfering with other users. We invite comment
    on the on whether it is appropriate to consider modifications to the
    minimum number of hopping channels for these bands.

15. **Digital Transmission Systems.** We observe that new digital
    transmission technologies have been developed that have spectrum
    characteristics similar to spread spectrum systems. Indeed,
    proponents of some of these technologies allege that their systems
    meet the processing gain requirement of Section 15.247(e) for direct
    sequence spread spectrum systems.[^16] The Wi-LAN device is one
    example. Other examples include the technology advanced by Texas
    Instruments and technologies considered by standards organizations
    such as IEEE 802.11. However, the current rules only provide for
    specific types of spread spectrum technology and do not provide
    latitude to permit other types of technologies that have similar
    spectrum characteristics.[^17] This situation not only has the
    potential to block the introduction of new and perhaps beneficial
    technologies, but also can create confusion as to whether a
    particular device may meet the rules and thereby can discourage
    investment and potentially lead to inequities in competition among
    equipment manufacturers. In comments responding to Wi-LAN\'s
    Application for Review, Intersil Corporation (\"Intersil\") contends
    that the Commission should draft an alternate set of rules to
    authorize digitally modulated equipment operating in the 2.4 GHz
    band.[^18] Intersil states that the rules could specify a suitable
    power level and power spectral density that would ensure that the
    devices not cause harmful interference to other users in the band.

16. We agree that the rules should be modified to permit the operation
    of alternative digital technologies that have spectrum
    characteristics similar to spread spectrum systems. We do not
    believe that it is necessary to adopt a separate rule section for
    digitally modulated radios as Intersil suggests. Instead, it appears
    that alternative digital technologies can be accommodated with
    appropriate modifications to the existing spread spectrum rules in
    Section 15.247. Specifically, we propose to amend Section 15.247 to
    provide for use of spread spectrum or digital technologies. This
    proposed change would apply for operations in the current spread
    spectrum bands at 915 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.7 GHz. Digital technologies
    would be required to meet the same technical requirements as spread
    spectrum systems, as modified in this proceeding. We believe that
    this proposal will allow more and more diverse products to utilize
    those bands and thereby increase consumer choice. It would provide
    the flexibility and certainty needed to promote the introduction of
    new, non-interfering products into the band, without the need for
    frequent rule changes to address each specific new technology that
    may be developed.

17. The rules for Part 15 spread spectrum systems limit maximum peak
    output power to 1 watt. In addition, the rules for direct sequence
    systems limit peak power spectral density conducted to the antenna
    to 8 dBm in any 3 kHz band during any time interval of continuous
    operation. This peak power density limit is intended to control
    interference by ensuring that the transmitted energy in a direct
    sequence system is not concentrated in any one portion of the
    emission bandwidth. In considering the appropriate power limits for
    digital modulation systems, it appears that the spectrum
    characteristics of these systems are very similar to the
    characteristics of direct sequence spread spectrum systems.
    Accordingly, it appears that digital systems may exhibit no more
    potential to cause interference to other devices than direct
    sequence systems. With this in mind, we invite comment on whether
    digitally modulated systems should be allowed to operate at the same
    power levels as direct sequence spread spectrum systems, namely 1
    watt maximum output power with power spectral density not exceeding
    8 dBm in any 3 kHz band. However, we also invite comment as to
    whether the flexibility we are allowing for digitally modulated
    systems warrants a reduction in permitted power levels to reduce the
    likelihood of any adverse impact on other systems operating in this
    spectrum, similar to the reduced power levels adopted for wide-band
    frequency hopping systems.[^19] If we find it necessary to reduce
    the allowed power for digitally modulated systems, should we make
    any changes in the power level adjustments for point-to-point
    operation in Section 15.247(b)(3)?[^20]

18. The proposals made herein would more closely align the Section
    15.247 rules with the U-NII rules. We seek comment on whether the
    same result would be achieved by amending the U-NII rules to include
    the 915 MHz and 2.4 GHz bands. The upper limit of the 5.725 - 5.825
    GHz U-NII band would also need to be expanded to 5.850 GHz in order
    to realign the standards with those presently permitted under
    Section 15.247. We specifically invite comment on any detrimental
    impact this could have on manufacturers.

19. **Direct Sequence Processing Gain.** The rules currently require
    direct sequence systems to have a processing gain of at least 10
    dB.[^21] Processing gain may be determined using the \"CW
    (continuous wave) jamming margin test\" by stepping a signal
    generator in 50 kHz increments across the system passband. The
    jamming level required to produce the recommended Bit Error Rate
    (BER) and the system output power are recorded at each point. The
    \"jammer to signal\" ratio is then calculated from these
    measurements. Processing gain is calculated as: G~p~ = (S/N)~o~ +
    M~j~ + L~sys~, where G~p~=processing gain of the system, (S/N)~o~ =
    signal to noise ratio required for the chosen BER, M~j~ = jammer to
    signal ratio, and L~sys~ = system losses (not more than 2 dB.)

20. In the *Notice*, the Commission observed that the CW jamming margin
    test may not measure the true processing gain for certain types of
    direct sequence spread spectrum systems where a portion of the
    information signal is embedded in the spreading code. The Commission
    proposed to instead require use of a Gaussian noise signal in the
    jamming margin test. It stated that a Gaussian interferer is likely
    to give a more accurate measure of processing gain because it is
    more closely related to the noise a system would encounter in a
    real-world environment.[^22]

21. In response to the *Notice*, commenters identified a number of
    questions that would need to be answered before the Commission could
    allow the use of a Gaussian interferer in the jamming margin test
    set-up. Particularly, commenters questioned how the Gaussian noise
    interferer should be generated, what bandwidth should be used, and
    how will the test be performed.[^23] Similarly, in its comments in
    the matter of Wi-LAN\'s Application for Review, Intersil contends
    that the diversity of opinion within the industry as to the
    definition of processing gain makes it difficult to develop a test
    to measure the parameter. Intersil also states that, while the
    Gaussian noise test may be easier to implement, it may not give a
    true indication of whether the system actually has 10 dB of
    processing gain.[^24] Home Wireless Networks suggests that the
    processing gain requirement is no longer necessary and that the
    Commission should only address the emissions characteristics of such
    devices.

22. The processing gain requirement was adopted more than ten years ago
    as a means to ensure that manufacturers would not take advantage of
    the higher power levels afforded spread spectrum devices by
    designing systems with wide bandwidths where much of the energy
    transmitted is not needed for communication. As the spread spectrum
    industry has matured it is not clear that this requirement continues
    to be necessary. Manufacturers have an incentive to design their
    systems to include processing gain in order for their devices to
    operate properly when located near other radio frequency devices. In
    addition, it has become increasingly difficult to determine the true
    processing gain of certain direct sequence spread spectrum systems.
    The comments filed in response to the Notice suggest there is no
    agreement on a reliable method of measuring processing gain. We
    observe that uncertainties about the processing gain requirement can
    be a significant impediment to the introduction of new technologies.
    In light of these factors, we are now proposing to eliminate the
    processing gain requirement for direct sequence spread spectrum
    systems. We invite comment on this proposal.

23. **Wi-LAN Application for Review.** On February 17, 2000, Wi-LAN
    filed an application for equipment certification for its Wideband
    Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (W-OFDM) transmitter
    under the rules for direct sequence spread spectrum systems. The
    Commission\'s Office of Engineering and Technology (\"OET\") denied
    that application on the basis that Wi-LAN's W-OFDM device did not
    meet the definition of a direct sequence spread spectrum system as
    set forth in Section 2.1 of the rules.[^25] Section 2.1 of our rules
    defines a spread spectrum system as, \"\[A\]n information bearing
    communications system in which . . . the bandwidth is deliberately
    widened by means of a spreading function over that which would be
    needed to transmit the information alone.\"[^26] As stated above,
    Section 2.1 provides for only two specific types of spread spectrum
    systems: direct sequence and frequency hopping. Section 2.1 defines
    a direct sequence systems as, "\[A\] spread spectrum system in which
    the carrier has been modulated by a high speed spreading code and an
    information data stream. The high speed code sequence dominates the
    "modulating function" and is the direct cause of the wide spreading
    of the transmitted signal." OET found that the Wi-LAN device does
    not meet this definition because it, among other things, does not
    use a high speed spreading code to modulate a single radiofrequency
    (RF) carrier and, further, the spreading function that is used does
    not dominate the modulation function. It therefore denied Wi-LAN\'s
    application for certification on the basis that the W-OFDM device
    could not be authorized as a direct sequence spread spectrum system.
    Subsequently, OET denied Wi-LAN\'s Petition for Reconsideration of
    that decision for the same reasons.[^27]

24. Wi-LAN has filed an Application for Review of the staff action.[^28]
    In this filing, Wi-LAN argues that its device meets all the
    technical requirements explicitly stated in the rules for direct
    sequence spread spectrum systems and should be granted
    certification. Wi-LAN states that its W-OFDM system accomplishes the
    spreading function required by the spread spectrum definition
    through the addition of forward error correction codes and the use
    of an Inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT) sequence. It contends
    that this transform function is closely analogous to the high speed
    spreading code used in other direct sequence systems. Wi-LAN argues
    that this transform function widens the occupied bandwidth from
    6.875 MHz to 25 MHz, or a factor of 3.6, over that needed for the
    digital information alone, and that this meets the spreading
    requirement in the rules. It does not provide data on the processing
    gain of its system. Wi-LAN further contends that OET's assertion
    that it has turned down similar requests from others is not
    supported by any specific references, and in any event may not be
    used for denial of certification for a device that meets the letter
    and intent of the rules. In an Opposition to the Application for
    Review, Proxim does not raise substantive objections to the
    propriety of the technology proposed, but argues that Wi-LAN's
    technology is not permitted under the current rules and must be
    addressed through rule making. In comments and replies, Cisco
    Systems, Inc., Metricom, Inc., and Intersil support Wi-LAN's
    application.

25. Initially, we find that OET acted properly in denying Wi-LAN's
    application for certification. In this regard, we agree with OET
    that Wi-LAN's W-OFDM device does not meet the definition of a direct
    sequence spread spectrum system as set forth in Section 2.1 of the
    rules. As OET observes, this device does not use a high speed data
    code to accomplish wide spreading of the transmitted signal. Rather,
    it adds forward error correction data to widen the bandwidth, and it
    does so by only a relatively modest amount, *i.e.*, 12.5 MHz or a
    factor of 1.8, over that necessary to transmit the information
    alone. The additional spreading to 25 MHz is a product of the
    modulation process that does not add to the system's processing
    gain. This does not comport with the requirements that the high
    speed code sequence dominate the modulating function or that it is
    the direct cause of the wide spreading of the transmitted signal.
    Wi-LAN\'s argument that the Commission has previously accepted
    transforms as spreading functions when it certified the Fast Walsh
    transform used in 11 Mbps Complementary Code Keying (CCK) systems is
    incorrect. The approval of that system was based on the fact that,
    while it did incorporate a transform, it also used a high speed
    spreading code and therefore could be characterized as a direct
    sequence spread spectrum systems. We reiterate that, as indicated
    above, operation under the Part 15 spectrum rules is limited to
    frequency hopping and direct sequence systems. The Wi-LAN system is
    neither of these types but rather is a digital modulation system, as
    discussed above, that resembles a spread spectrum system only in its
    spectrum characteristics.

26. Notwithstanding our finding that Wi-LAN's W-OFDM system is not a
    spread spectrum system as defined in our rules, we find that it will
    serve the public interest to allow grant of equipment certification
    now for this system and similar systems that operate in the
    2.4-2.483 GHz band if they meet the existing rules for direct
    sequence spread spectrum systems in Sections 15.247(a), (b), (c),
    and (d), conditioned on their compliance with any final rules that
    may be adopted in this proceeding.[^29] Accordingly, the Commission
    will waive, on an interim basis, the restriction of Section
    15.247(a) that limits operation pursuant to the remaining portions
    of Section 15.247 to frequency hopping and direct sequence spread
    spectrum systems.[^30] We find that there is good cause to waive the
    cited rule during the pendency of this proceeding because such
    devices have generally the same emission mask as currently
    authorized devices and thus will not undermine the existing rules.
    Digital modulation systems closely resemble spread spectrum systems
    in terms of their spectrum occupancy characteristics, and therefore
    are not likely to pose any increased risk of interference over that
    posed by spread spectrum systems. We believe that compliance with
    the rules listed above, which address spectrum occupancy, power,
    out-of-band emissions, and antennas, will ensure that digital
    modulation systems operating in the 2.4 GHz band will operate with
    the same spectrum occupancy characteristics as spread spectrum
    systems. We also observe that such systems appear to offer
    capabilities in terms of broadband data transmission capacity that
    are likely to make them more desirable than traditional spread
    spectrum systems for many users. Allowing authorization of digital
    modulation systems now will avoid the delays otherwise imposed by
    our rulemaking process and thereby substantially speed the process
    for implementation of these new system designs. In this regard, our
    decision to waive the restrictions which prevent authorization of
    such systems reflects our view that it is appropriate and desirable
    to take steps wherever possible to facilitate the timely and
    efficient introduction of new technologies and equipment, and
    particularly those that will support the development and deployment
    of broadband infrastructure without threat to incumbent operations
    and devices. For the reasons indicated above, we believe that
    authorization of Wi-LAN\'s device and other digital modulation
    systems prior to our adoption of final rules will not result harm to
    other radio operations. Consistent with Wi-LAN\'s application for
    equipment certification, we will require that any devices granted
    prior to the adoption of new rules pursuant to the provisions of
    this paragraph comply with a maximum peak output power limit of 100
    mW. In addition, any devices so conditionally authorized will have
    to comply with whatever rules we ultimately adopt for digital
    modulation systems in the 2.4 MHz band. Accordingly, we are
    instructing OET to re-examine the Wi-LAN application for
    certification of its W-OFDM system for its compliance with the above
    listed portions of Section 15.247 of the rules and the power limits
    indicated above. OET shall also accept applications for equipment
    certification under Section 15.247 for other devices using digital
    modulation techniques if the equipment complies with the provisions
    stated above. Such applications submitted pursuant to the above
    provisions need not be accompanied by a formal waiver request, but
    should state that they fall within the terms of this Order as to the
    waiver. Any such applications will be subjected to the conditions
    set forth herein, including that operation is conditioned on
    compliance with any final rules that may be adopted in this
    proceeding.

    **PROCEDURAL MATTERS**

    **A. Regulatory Flexibility Act**

27. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
    U.S.C. § 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities
    of the proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth
    in Appendix A. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA.
    These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing
    deadlines as comments on the rest of the Further Notice, but they
    must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as
    responses to the IRFA. The Secretary shall send a copy of this
    Further Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with
    Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

    **B. *Ex Parte* Rules \-- Permit-But-Disclose Proceedings**

28. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making
    proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are permitted, except during
    any Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided
    in the Commission\'s rules. *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200(a),
    1.1203, and 1.1206.

    **C. Authority**

29. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e),
    303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r).

    **D. Comment Dates**

30. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or
    before \[75 days after publication in the Federal Register\], and
    reply comments on or before \[105 days after publication in the
    Federal Register\]. Comments may be filed using the Commission\'s
    Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
    [See]{.underline} [Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
    Proceedings]{.underline}, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).

31. 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, 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 get 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.

32. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of all comments, reply comments and supporting comments. If
    participants want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of
    their comments, an original plus nine copies must be filed. If more
    than one docket or rulemaking number appear 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 Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
    Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available
    for public inspection during regular business in the FCC Reference
    Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

    **ORDERING CLAUSES**

33. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e),
    303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r), this
    Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is hereby ADOPTED.

34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302,
    303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and
    303(r), the Application for Review filed by Wi-LAN, Inc. on
    September 20, 2000 is hereby DENIED.

35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302,
    303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and
    303(r), OET shall process applications for certification of digital
    modulation systems that operate in the 2400 - 2483.5 MHz band for
    compliance with the proposals in this Further Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making.

36. 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 Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Act, to the Chief, Counsel for Advocacy of
    the Small Business Administration.

37. For further information concerning this Further Notice, contact
    Neal L. McNeil, Office of Engineering & Technology, (202) 418-2408,
    TTY (202) 418-2989, email <nmcneil@fcc.gov>.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Magalie Roman Salas Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,[^31] the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the expected significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making and Order (Further Notice). Written public comments are requested
on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making provided above in paragraph 27.

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

This Further Notice proposes changes that remove unnecessary regulatory
barriers to the introduction of new wireless devices using spread
spectrum and other digital technologies. The proposals will also improve
sharing of the spectrum by wireless devices operating in the 2.4 GHz
band (2400 - 2483.5 MHz). Specifically, the Further Notice proposes to
relax the frequency hopping spread spectrum rules in Section 15.247 in
accordance with a Joint Petition for Clarification, or in the
Alternative, Partial Reconsideration filed by thirteen parties.[^32] The
proposed changes would permit all frequency hopping systems in the 2.4
GHz band to use as few as fifteen hopping channels instead of the
seventy-five hopping channels some systems are now required to use.
Systems using the minimum number of channels will be required to employ
adaptive hopping techniques in order to avoid transmitting on occupied
frequencies.

The Further Notice seeks comments regarding alternative operating
parameters or conditions for frequency hopping systems that may achieve
the same goals. For example, the operating conditions in the Joint
Petition would allow a system using 1 MHz bandwidth hopping channels to
use as little as 18% of the available spectrum at 2.4 GHz to implement
adaptive hopping techniques. The Further Notices asks whether the
Commission could realize the goals of the petitioners by requiring that
adaptive hopping systems use a minimum of 25% or 50% of the band with a
power reduction in relationship to amount of spectrum used.

The Further Notice also proposes to modify the rules for non-frequency
hopping spread spectrum systems in the 915 MHz (902 - 928 MHz), 2.4 GHz,
and 5.7 GHz (5725 - 5850 MHz) bands to accommodate developing systems
that use digital modulation techniques. Systems using digital modulation
techniques would be required to meet the same technical requirements as
spread spectrum systems, as modified in this proceeding. The Commission
believes that this proposal will allow more and more diverse products to
utilize those bands and thereby increase consumer choice. It would also
provide the flexibility and certainty needed to promote the introduction
of new, non-interfering products into the band, without the need for
frequent rule changes to address each specific new technology that may
be developed. This proposal would more closely align the Section 15.247
spread spectrum rules with the Section 15.407 U-NII rules. Therefore, we
seek comment on whether the same result would be achieved by amending
the U-NII rules to include the 915 MHz and 2.4 GHz bands.

Finally, the Further Notice proposes to eliminate the processing gain
requirement for direct sequence spread spectrum systems. The processing
gain requirement was adopted more than ten years ago as a means to
ensure that manufacturers would not take advantage of the higher power
levels afforded spread spectrum devices by designing systems with wide
bandwidths where much of the energy transmitted is not needed for
communication. As the spread spectrum industry has matured it is not
clear that this requirement continues to be necessary. Manufacturers
have an incentive to design their systems to include processing gain in
order for their devices to operate properly when located near other
radio frequency devices.

**B. Legal Basis**

The proposed action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and
303(r).

**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.[^33] The Regulatory
Flexibility Act defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same
meaning as the terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and
\"small business concern\" under section 3 of the Small Business
Act.[^34] A small business concern in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.[^35]

The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to unlicensed communications devices manufacturers.
Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition applicable to
manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications
Equipment. According to the SBA regulations, unlicensed transmitter
manufacturers must have 750 or fewer employees on order to qualify as a
small business concern.[^36] Census Bureau data indicates that there are
858 U.S. companies that manufacture radio and television broadcasting
and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer
than 750 employees and would be classified as small entities.[^37] We do
not believe this action would have a negative impact on small entities
that manufacture unlicensed spread spectrum devices. Indeed, we believe
the actions should benefit small entities because it should make
available increased business opportunities to small entities. We request
comment on these assessments.

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

Part 15 transmitters are already required to be authorized under the
Commission\'s certification procedure as a prerequisite to marketing and
importation. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.101, 15.201, 15.305, and 15.405.
Additionally, manufacturers of direct sequence spread spectrum systems
must submit a determination of system processing gain to the Commission
in order to obtain product certification.

The proposed regulations will add permissible methods of operation for
frequency hopping spread spectrum systems. No new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements are proposed for the manufacturers of
frequency hopping spread spectrum devices. However, the rules proposed
in the Further Notice would eliminate the requirement that manufacturers
of direct sequence systems submit evidence of compliance with a minimum
processing gain. Therefore, the proposed rules reduce the reporting and
recordkeeping burdens placed on all manufacturers, including small
entities. None of the proposals would require alteration of any existing
products.

**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: (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.

At this time, the Commission does not believe the proposals contained in
this Further Notice will have a significant economic impact on small
entities. The Further Notice does not propose new device design
standards. Instead, it relaxes the rules with respect to the types of
devices which are allowed to operate pursuant to the spread spectrum
regulations. There is no burden of compliance with the proposed changes.
Manufacturers may continue to produce devices which comply with the
former rules and, if desired, design devices to comply with the new
regulations. The proposed rules will apply equally to large and small
entities. Therefore, there is no inequitable impact on small entities.
Finally, this Further Notice does not recommend a deadline for
implementation. We believe that the proposals are relatively simple and
do not require a transition period to implement. An entity desiring to
take advantage of the relaxed regulations may do so at any time.

For the reasons stated above, unless our views are altered by comments,
we find that the proposed rule changes contained in this Further Notice
will not present a significant economic burden to small entities.
Therefore it is not necessary at this time to propose alternative rules.
Notwithstanding our finding, we request comment on alternatives that
might minimize the amount of adverse economic impact, if any, on small
entities.

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

**None.**

**APPENDIX B**

**Proposed Rule Changes**

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

We propose to amend Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
15, as follows:

Section 15.247 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (a),
(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iii), (c), and (d); re-designating paragraphs (b)(3)
and (b)(4) as (b)(4) and (b)(5), respectively; adding a new paragraph
(b)(3); deleting paragraph (e); revising paragraph (f); and
re-designating paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) as paragraphs (e), (f), and
(g), respectively.

Section 15.247 **Operation within the bands 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5
MHz, and 5725-5850 MHz.**

\(a\) Operation under the provisions of this section is limited to
frequency hopping and direct sequence spread spectrum systems and
digitally modulated intentional radiators that comply with the following
provisions:

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(i\) \* \* \*

\(ii\) Frequency hopping systems operating in the 5725-5850 MHz band
shall use at least 75 hopping frequencies. The maximum 20 dB bandwidth
of the hopping channel is 1 MHz. The average time of occupancy on any
frequency shall not be greater than 0.4 seconds within a 30 second
period.

\(iii\) Frequency hopping systems in the 2400 - 2483.5 MHz band shall
use at least 75 non-overlapping channels, except that as few as 15
non-overlapping channels may be used for systems that intelligently
modify their hopsets in accordance with Section 15.247(g). Hopsets
modified in this manner must be re-determined at least once every 30
seconds. The average time of occupancy on any channel shall not be
greater than 0.4 seconds within a period of 0.4 seconds multiplied by
the number of hopping channels employed.

\(2\) Systems using direct sequence spread spectrum and digital
modulation techniques may operate in the 902 - 928 MHz, 2400 - 2483.5
MHz, and 5725 - 5850 MHz bands.

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(1\) for frequency hopping systems in the 2400 -2483.5 MHz band
employing at least 75 hopping channels, and all frequency hopping
systems in the 5725-5850 MHz band: 1 Watt. For all other frequency
hopping systems in the 2400 - 2483.5 band: 0.125 Watt

\(2\) \* \* \*

\(3\) For systems using digital modulation in the 902 - 928 MHz, 2400 -
2483.5 MHz, and 5725 - 5780 MHz bands: 1 Watt.

\(4\) Except as shown below, if transmitting antennas of directional
gain greater than 6 dBi are used, the peak output power from the
intentional radiator shall be reduced below the above stated values by
the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

\(i\) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used
exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting
antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum
peak output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for
every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

\(ii\) Systems operating in the 5725-5850 MHz band that are used
exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting
antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi without any
corresponding reduction in transmitter peak output power.

\(iii\) Fixed, point-to-point operation, as used in paragraphs (b)(4)(i)
and (b)(4)(ii) of this section, excludes the use of point-to-multipoint
systems, omnidirectional applications, and multiple co-located
intentional radiators transmitting the same information. The operator of
the spread spectrum intentional radiator or, if the equipment is
professionally installed, the installer is responsible for ensuring that
the system is used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations. The
instruction manual furnished with the intentional radiator shall contain
language in the installation instructions informing the operator and the
installer of this responsibility.

\(5\) Systems operating under the provisions of this section shall be
operated in a manner that ensures that the public is not exposed to
radio frequency energy levels in excess of the Commission\'s guidelines.
*See* § 1.1307(b)(1) of this Chapter.

\(c\) In any 100 kHz bandwidth outside the frequency band in which the
spread spectrum or digitally modulated intentional radiator is
operating, the radio frequency power than is produced by the intentional
radiator shall be at least 20 dB below that in the 100 kHz bandwidth
within the band that contains the highest level of the desired power,
based on either an RF conducted or a radiated measurement. Attenuation
below the general limits specified in §15.209(a) is not required. In
addition, radiated emissions which fall in the restricted bands, as
defined in § 15.205(a), must also comply with the radiated emission
limits specified in § 15.209(a) (see § 15.205(c)).

\(d\) For direct sequence spread spectrum and digitally modulated
systems, the peak power spectral density conducted from the intentional
radiator to the antenna shall not be greater than 8 dBm in any 3 kHz
band during any time interval of continuous transmission.

\(e\) For the purposes of this section, hybrid systems are those that
employ a combination of both frequency hopping and direct sequence or
digital modulation techniques. The frequency hopping operation of the
hybrid system, with the direct sequence or digital modulation operation
turned off, shall have an average time of occupancy on any frequency not
to exceed 0.4 seconds within a time period in seconds equal to the
number of hopping frequencies employed multiplied by 0.4. The direct
sequence or the digital modulation operation of the hybrid system, with
the frequency hopping operation turned off, shall comply with the power
density requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.

\(f\) Frequency hopping systems are not required to employ all available
hopping channels during each transmission. However, the system,
consisting of both the transmitter and the receiver, must be designed to
comply with all of the regulations in this section should the
transmitter be presented with a continuous data (or information) stream.
In addition, a system employing short transmission bursts must comply
with the definition of a frequency hopping system and must distribute
its transmissions over the minimum number of hopping channels specified
in this section.

\(g\) The incorporation of intelligence within a frequency hopping
system that permits the system to recognize other users within the
spectrum band so that it individually and independently chooses and
adapts its hopsets to avoid hopping on occupied channels is permitted.
The coordination of frequency hopping systems in any other manner for
the express purpose of avoiding the simultaneous occupancy of individual
hopping frequencies by multiple transmitters is not permitted.

[^1]: FCC ID:K4BAP01

[^2]: 47 C.F.R § 15.5.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.247

[^4]: *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, ET Docket 99-231, 14 FCC Rcd
    13046 (1999).

[^5]: *First Report and Order* in ET Docket 99-231, 15 FCC Rcd 16244
    (2000).

[^6]: Manufacturers typically avoid operation near 2483.5 MHz in order
    to meet restrictions on out-of-band emissions to protect mobile
    satellite service operations in the upper adjacent spectrum.
    Therefore, frequency hopping systems that employ a bandwidth of 5
    MHz generally could not use more than 15 hopping frequencies without
    repeating operation in the same spectrum. The requirement to hop
    over a minimum number of channels ensures that the transmissions are
    spread over a wide range of frequencies to reduce the risk of
    interference to other systems.

[^7]: *First Report and Order* in ET Docket 99-231, *supra* at footnote
    1.

[^8]: *Joint Petition For Clarification or, in the Alternative, Partial
    Reconsideration*, submitted on October 25, 2000, by 3Comm, Apple
    Computer, Cisco Systems, Dell Computer, IBM, Intel Corporation,
    Intersil, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Nokia Inc., Silicon Wave,
    Toshiba America Information Systems, and Texas Instruments.

[^9]: The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) is a
    non-profit technical professional organization. Among other
    activities, the organization develops operating standards for
    communication equipment. The IEEE 802.11 Working Group, in
    particular, develops standards for wireless local area networking
    devices.

[^10]: *First Report and Order, GEN Docket 81-413*, 1 FCC 2nd 419
    (1985), 58 RR 2nd 251 (1985).

[^11]: Joint Petition at 3. Copies of these studies were not submitted
    with the Joint Petition. If Petitioners wish for the Commission to
    consider these studies in the context of this proceeding, they
    should submit copies for inclusion in the docket of this proceeding.

[^12]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.247(a)(1)(i). Frequency hopping systems in
    the 902-928 MHz band that use hopping channels at least 250 kHz wide
    are permitted to use as few as 25 channels. A system operating in
    this fashion would be able to use as little as 6.25 MHz of the
    available 26 MHz, allowing it to avoid occupied portions of the
    spectrum.

[^13]: *See* the Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R § 2.106. The
    2400-2402 MHz band is allocated to the Amateur service on a
    secondary basis; the 2402-2417 MHz band is allocated to the Amateur
    service on a primary basis; the 2417-2450MHz band is allocated on a
    secondary basis to the Amateur service and on a secondary basis to
    the federal government for the Radiolocation service; and, the
    2450-2483.5 MHz band is allocated to the Fixed and Mobile services
    on a primary basis and to the Radiolocation service on a secondary
    basis. Part 15 devices may not cause any harmful interference to
    these services and must accept any interference that may be
    received. *See* 47 C.F.R § 15.5. In addition, all services and
    devices operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band must accept any
    interference received from industrial, scientific and medical
    equipment.

[^14]: *See Report and Order* in ET Docket 96-8, 12 FCC Rcd 7488 (1997).

[^15]: *Id* at paragraph 27.

[^16]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.247(e).

[^17]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.247(a).

[^18]: *Reply Comments of Intersil Corporation*, in DA 00-2317, November
    30, 2000.

[^19]: *See First R&O* at paragraph 15.

[^20]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.247(b)(3).

[^21]: See 47 C.F.R §15.247(e).

[^22]: *See Notice* at paragraphs 13-14.

[^23]: *See*, generally, Lucent Technologies, Inc. comments; Aironet
    Wireless Communications, Inc. comments; Proxim, Inc. and Micrilor,
    Inc. reply comments.

[^24]: *See* *Reply Comments of Intersil Corporation* in DA 00-2317,
    November 30, 2000, at 5.

[^25]: *See* letter from Joe Dichoso to Wi-LAN, Inc. regarding
    application for FCC ID: K4BAP01, May 12, 2000. *See also*, 47 C.F.R.
    § 2.1.

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. §2.1(c).

[^27]: Letter from Dale N. Hatfield, Chief of the Office of Engineering
    and Technology, to Mitchell Lazarus, August 18, 2000.

[^28]: *Application for Review*, September 20, 2000. The Commission gave
    public notice of receipt of the *Application for Review*. *See* DA
    00-2317, October 17, 2000.

[^29]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§15.257(a), (b), (c), and (d).

[^30]: 47 C.F.R. §1.3 grants the Commission authority to waive any
    provision of its rules provided good cause is demonstrated. *See
    also* *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969).

[^31]: 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^32]: *See Joint Petition for Clarification or, in the Alternative,
    Partial Reconsideration* filed October 25, 2000 in ET Docket 99-231
    on behalf of 3Comm, Apple Computer, Cisco Systems, Dell Computer,
    IBM, Intel Corporation, Intersil, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft,
    Nokia Inc., Silicon Wave, Toshiba America Information Systems, and
    Texas Instruments.

[^33]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^34]: *Id*. § 601(3).

[^35]: *Id*. § 632.

[^36]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220 (SIC Code 3663).
    Although SBA now uses the NAICS classifications, instead of SIC, the
    size standard remains the same.

[^37]: *See* U.S. Dept. of Commerce, *1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities* (issued May 1995), SIC category 3663
    (NAICS Code 334220).