**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | ET Docket No. 04-186         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Unlicensed Operation in the TV   | ) | ET Docket No. 02-380         |
| Broadcast Bands                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Additional Spectrum for          |   |                              |
| Unlicensed Devices               | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Below 900 MHz and in the 3       | ) |                              |
| GG\\Hz Band                      | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

FIRST REPORT AND ORDER

AND

FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

**Adopted: October 12, 2006 Released: October 18, 2006**

Comment Date: (75 days after date of publication in the Federal
Register)

Reply Comment Date: (105 days after date of publication in the Federal
Register)

By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein,
Tate and McDowell issuing separate statements

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. Introduction 1

II\. BACKGROUND 4

III\. REPORT AND ORDER 9

A. Background 9

B. Discussion 13

IV\. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING 23

A. Licensed vs. Unlicensed Operation 26

B. Spectrum sensing and other technical requirements 33

C. Geo-location/database approach 49

D. Control signal approach 52

E. Operation on channels 14-20 and 2-4 56

F. Other Issues 58

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 66

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 73

APPENDIX A - Parties Filing Comments

APPENDIX B - Proposed Rules

APPENDIX C - Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

APPENDIX D- Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

# Introduction

1.  By these actions the Commission is taking a number of important
    first steps towards allowing the introduction of new low power
    devices in the broadcast television spectrum (TV bands) on
    channels/frequencies that are not being used for authorized services
    (hereinafter referred to as "TV band devices").[^1] Our goal in this
    proceeding is to allow such devices to operate on unused television
    channels in locations where such operations will not result in
    harmful interference to TV and other authorized services. We believe
    that this plan will provide for more efficient and effective use of
    the TV spectrum and will significantly benefit the public by
    allowing the development of new and innovative types of devices and
    services for businesses and consumers, without disrupting television
    and other authorized services using the TV bands. Because
    transmissions in the TV band are subject to less propagation
    attenuation than transmissions in other bands where lower power
    operations are permitted (such as unlicensed operations in the 2.4
    GHz band), operations in the TV bands can benefit a wide range of
    service providers and consumers by improving the service range of
    wireless operations, thereby allowing operators to reach new
    customers. While there will be significant benefits to the public
    from our actions, we recognize that we must balance these benefits
    with the need to protect authorized services in the TV bands from
    harmful interference.[^2]

2.  We find that the record and information developed in response to the
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in this proceeding supports a
    conclusion that low power devices can generally be allowed to
    operate on TV channels in areas where those frequencies are not
    being used for TV or other incumbent licensed services if such
    devices comply with appropriate protective measures for ensuring
    that they do not cause interference to already authorized
    services.[^3] Accordingly, in the First Report and Order herein we
    make initial decisions to permit fixed low power devices to operate
    on any permissible TV channel, but only at times and locations where
    the spectrum is not already being used by other authorized services.
    We will further consider whether appropriate provisions can be
    developed to permit low power personal/portable devices to operate
    in this spectrum without causing harmful interference. To minimize
    the risk of interference to certain authorized services in the TV
    bands, we will not permit operation of TV band devices on TV channel
    37 that is used by radio astronomy and wireless medical telemetry
    services, and on TV channels 52-69, as that spectrum has been
    reallocated for other services and will no longer be part of the TV
    bands after the digital television (DTV) transition. We also will
    not permit operation of personal/portable TV band devices on TV
    channels 14-20 that are used by public safety services. In addition,
    the final rules we adopt will allow the marketing of TV band devices
    to commence on February 18, 2009, after the transition to DTV
    service is complete and all TV stations are in operation on their
    permanent DTV channels.

3.  In the Further Notice portion of this action, we ask questions and
    set forth certain proposals with regard to the provisions necessary
    to implement complete and final rules. The process that we will
    follow in developing the final rules for devices in the TV bands
    will allow us to develop a thorough record on the various issues
    involved. While we continue to focus on devices operating on an
    unlicensed basis, we also ask whether such devices should instead
    operate on a licensed or hybrid basis. We also describe our plans to
    conduct extensive testing to assess the potential interference from
    low power devices operating in the TV bands. We expect to complete
    this work and make final decisions in sufficient time for industry
    to design and produce new products by completion of the DTV
    transition. We are requesting additional comment on whether we
    should allow the operation of personal/portable devices and the
    means that such devices, both fixed and personal/portable, should be
    required to use to determine the availability of unused frequencies
    in the TV bands and the technical features and parameters of such
    capability to prevent interference to authorized services. We
    propose to require that TV band devices employ spectrum sensing to
    determine when TV channels are unused and to incorporate a dynamic
    frequency selection (DFS) mechanism to ensure that TV band devices
    operate only on vacant TV channels. We seek comment on whether TV
    band devices should be permitted to operate on TV channels 2-4, and
    whether fixed TV band devices should be permitted to operate on TV
    channels 14-20. We also seek additional comments on several issues
    relating to the geo-location/database and control signal approaches
    discussed in the *Notice*.

# BACKGROUND

4.  The Commission provides for the operation of unlicensed radio
    transmitters in Part 15 of its rules.[^4] Under these rules,
    unlicensed devices generally operate on frequencies shared with
    authorized services and at relatively low power. Operation under
    Part 15 is subject to the condition that a device does not cause
    harmful interference to authorized services, and that it must accept
    any interference received.[^5] The current Part 15 rules provide
    substantial flexibility in the types of unlicensed devices that can
    be operated. However, the rules prohibit the operation of unlicensed
    devices on certain frequencies, including the bands used for
    broadcast television service.[^6]

5.  The broadcast television service operates under Part 73 of the
    rules. TV stations generally operate on 6 megahertz channels
    designated channels 2 to 69 in the VHF and UHF portions of the radio
    spectrum (54-72 MHz, 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz and 470-806 MHz).[^7]
    Television stations are now in the process of converting from analog
    to digital transmissions.[^8] During the transition to digital
    transmissions, each full service television station that was
    authorized before 1997 is required to broadcast on two channels, one
    digital and one analog. [^9] At the end of the transition on
    February 17, 2009, each TV station must cease analog operation and
    operate on a single digital channel.[^10] Because the new digital TV
    transmission system is more spectrally efficient than the analog TV
    transmission system, some current TV channel protection requirements
    were relaxed or eliminated for digital operation, and all existing
    television stations can be accommodated in less spectrum after the
    digital transition. Digital television stations will operate only on
    channels 2-51 after the transition, and television channels 52-69
    have been reallocated for other uses.[^11]

6.  To avoid interference between TV stations, stations on the same and
    adjacent channels (and in the case of analog service certain other
    channel relationships) must comply with minimum separation distance
    requirements or other technical provisions. As a result of these
    provisions, there are geographic areas between stations of any given
    channel where TV service is not available. This situation will
    remain after the transition. After the digital television
    transition, there will be a number of TV channels in a given
    geographic area that are not being used by full service digital TV
    stations because such stations will not be able to operate without
    causing interference to co-channel or adjacent channel stations. The
    Commission's rules require minimum separation distances between
    stations based on the assumption that the stations will operate at
    maximum power.[^12] However, a transmitter operating on a vacant TV
    channel (*e.g.,* a channel not used by a high power TV station in a
    given geographic area due to interference concerns) at a lower power
    level than a TV station would not need as great a separation
    distance from co-channel and adjacent channel TV stations to avoid
    causing interference to such stations. Also, in some areas channels
    that would otherwise be available for television service are not
    being used.

7.  In addition to full service analog and digital TV stations under
    Part 73 of the rules, certain other licensed services are permitted
    to operate on TV channels. Class A television stations operate under
    Subpart J of Part 73 of the rules.[^13] Low power TV stations, TV
    translator and TV booster stations are permitted to operate under
    Part 74 of the rules on a secondary basis to full service stations
    and on an equal basis to Class A TV stations, provided they meet
    technical rules to prevent interference to reception of such
    stations.[^14] Part 74 also permits certain broadcast auxiliary
    operations on TV channels 14-69 on a secondary basis.[^15] In
    addition, Part 74 permits certain entities to operate wireless
    microphones on vacant TV channels on a non-interference basis.[^16]
    Further, in 13 metropolitan areas, one to three channels in the
    range of channels 14-20 are used by licensees in the Private Land
    Mobile Radio Service (PLMRS) under Part 90 of the rules and the
    Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) under Part 20 of the rules.
    In addition, medical telemetry equipment is permitted to operate on
    an unlicensed basis on vacant TV channels 7-46, and unlicensed
    remote control devices are allowed to operate on any TV channel
    above 70 MHz (channel 4), except for channel 37.[^17] TV channel 37
    is allocated for radio astronomy and the wireless medical telemetry
    service (WMTS) and is not used for TV broadcasting.

8.  On May 13, 2004, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making* (*Notice*) in this proceeding in which it proposed to allow
    unlicensed operation in the TV bands at locations where frequencies
    are not in use by licensed services.[^18] To ensure that no harmful
    interference to TV stations and other authorized users of the
    spectrum will occur, the Commission proposed to define when a TV
    channel is unused and to require unlicensed devices to incorporate
    "smart radio" features to identify the unused TV channels in the
    area where they are located. For the purpose of establishing a plan
    for minimizing interference, the Commission proposed to classify
    unlicensed broadband devices to be used in the TV bands into two
    general functional categories. The first category would consist of
    lower power "personal/portable" unlicensed devices, such as Wi-Fi
    like cards in laptop computers or wireless in-home local area
    networks (LANs). The second category would consist of higher power
    "fixed/access" unlicensed devices that are generally operated from a
    fixed location and may be used to provide a commercial service such
    as wireless broadband Internet access. The Commission proposed that
    fixed/access devices incorporate a geo-location method such as a
    Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver or be professionally
    installed, and that they must access a database to identify vacant
    channels at their location. It proposed to require that
    personal/portable devices operate only when they receive a control
    signal from a source such as an FM or TV station that identifies the
    vacant TV channels in that particular area. The Commission also
    sought comment on the use of spectrum sensing to identify vacant TV
    channels, but did not propose any specific technical criteria for
    spectrum sensing.

# REPORT AND ORDER

## Background

9.  The comments received in response to the *Notice* are divided
    between existing spectrum users of the TV bands, who are concerned
    about potential interference, and manufacturers and users of
    unlicensed devices who believe adequate safeguards can be put in
    place to prevent harmful interference to authorized services. Full
    service and low power broadcasters oppose allowing unlicensed
    operation in the TV bands. These parties express concern that
    unlicensed devices operating under the proposed rules would cause
    interference to TV reception, particularly in weak signal areas, and
    that the Commission should protect reception to a greater extent
    than proposed.[^19] Several parties also express concern that
    unlicensed devices operating in close proximity to TV receivers
    would cause direct pickup interference potentially affecting all
    channels.[^20] Many parties state that if the Commission decides to
    allow unlicensed devices in the TV bands, it should wait until after
    the DTV transition when the bands will be less crowded.[^21] Some of
    these parties also suggest that, if new wireless operations are
    allowed in the TV bands, they should be on a licensed, rather than
    an unlicensed, basis.[^22]

10. Manufacturers and users of wireless microphones and other broadcast
    auxiliary services submit that unlicensed devices would cause
    harmful interference to those services. These parties recommend that
    the Commission take a number of steps to protect auxiliary services,
    including reducing power for portable unlicensed devices, reserving
    several TV channels in each market for wireless microphone use,
    requiring unlicensed devices to incorporate spectrum sensing to
    detect the presence of wireless microphones, and requiring
    unlicensed devices to recognize a "smart beacon" transmitted where
    wireless microphones are in use.[^23] Land mobile interests express
    concern about allowing unlicensed operation on channels 14-20 in any
    part of the country because devices could be transported into areas
    where these channels are used by the PLMRS/CMRS.[^24]

11. A number of equipment manufacturers, trade associations and other
    parties including Intel, Microsoft, CEA, Motorola, TIA, IEEE 802,
    Wi-Fi Alliance, New America Foundation and numerous WISPs support
    allowing unlicensed operation in the TV bands.[^25] These parties
    generally state that unlicensed devices could operate in the TV
    bands without causing interference to authorized services, and that
    allowing operation in the TV bands could improve access to broadband
    communications by taking advantage of the favorable propagation
    characteristics of the TV spectrum and enable more efficient use of
    this spectrum.

12. Subsequent to the release of the *Notice,* the Institute of
    Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) formed Working Group
    802.22 to develop a standard for unlicensed operation in the TV
    bands. The IEEE states that the standard this working group is
    developing will specify a cognitive air interface for fixed,
    point-to-multipoint, wireless regional area networks that operate on
    unused channels in the VHF/UHF TV bands between 54 and 862 MHz.[^26]
    It further states that protocols in the standard will ensure that
    this new service does not cause harmful interference to the licensed
    incumbent services in the TV broadcast bands and that the standard
    will provide for broadband systems that choose portions of the
    spectrum by sensing for frequencies that are unoccupied. The IEEE
    802.22 Working Group has broad participation from those in the TV
    broadcast sector and the public safety community who are licensed
    users of TV spectrum, as well as from chip vendors, wireless
    equipment suppliers, and firms from other countries.[^27] It has
    developed a document of functional requirements that it will use as
    guidelines in developing an air interface standard and is now
    drafting the IEEE 802.22 standard.

## Discussion

13. We find that allowing low power devices to operate in the TV bands
    on frequencies that are not being used by authorized services could
    have significant benefits for the public by enabling the development
    and operation of new wireless communications devices and systems
    that would promote access to broadband internet and other services.
    Because of the favorable propagation characteristics of the TV
    spectrum, these new devices could provide more effective service at
    greater ranges than unlicensed devices that operate at higher
    frequency bands. These new devices and services could also have
    significant benefits for economic development and for consumers and
    businesses by providing additional competition in the broadband
    market. However, we also recognize that we must ensure that new
    devices operating in the TV bands do not cause harmful interference
    to TV stations[^28] and other licensed services. Thus, as explained
    below, we are making further proposals and requesting additional
    information to enable us to ensure that such devices can operate in
    the TV bands without causing harmful interference. Our goal is to
    establish rules in this proceeding in a timeframe whereby we will
    allow the introduction of devices in the TV bands on spectrum that
    is not being used for authorized services when the DTV transition is
    completed on February 17, 2009.

14. As indicated above, comments were filed both in favor of and in
    opposition to the proposals in the *Notice.* Broadcasters and other
    TV spectrum users express concern about potential interference from
    unlicensed devices to the various services that operate in the TV
    bands. Although the record filed in response to the *Notice*
    provides a sufficient basis for the Commission to conclude that
    properly regulated devices could operate in the TV bands without
    causing harmful interference to incumbent operations, the record
    does not contain sufficient information to adopt final rules for
    their operation. For example, the *Notice* did not make any specific
    proposals regarding spectrum sensing, and there is no information in
    the record as to key criteria that would need to be specified to
    allow the use of that technique, such as the required levels for
    sensing, spectrum to be scanned, and durations for the sensing. In
    addition, we need further information regarding the beacon and
    geo-location approaches. Accordingly, we are making certain initial
    decisions toward allowing operation in the TV bands and setting
    forth specific technical proposals necessary to adopt complete and
    final rules. As discussed below, we will permit fixed devices to
    operate on spectrum in the TV bands that is not being used by
    authorized services, subject to the development of final technical
    rules that will prevent harmful interference to the authorized
    services. Fixed devices include those that generally operate from a
    fixed location, including outdoors, and may be used to provide a
    commercial service.[^29] As we discuss in the Further Notice, the
    interference avoidance scheme and the technical rules that we
    develop will effectively define unused TV spectrum that can be used
    for such operation. Also, we do not conclude here whether TV band
    devices should operate on an unlicensed, licensed or hybrid basis,
    as some parties suggest, and we seek further comment on this issue
    in the Further Notice.

15. We recognize, as do many commenters responding to the *Notice*, the
    importance of conducting tests to ensure that whatever standards are
    ultimately adopted for such devices will protect incumbent radio
    services from harmful interference. Given the complex and novel
    sharing issues presented here, we intend to conduct several types of
    testing, and we also encourage interested parties to conduct tests
    and submit their results into the record of this proceeding.
    Interested parties that conduct their own tests for the record
    should design the tests to be consistent with the proposals in the
    Further Notice or, alternatively, provide a test plan that explains
    in detail the assumptions used and the reasons supporting them. The
    Commission's Laboratory is conducting a testing program to quantify
    the interference rejection capabilities of DTV receivers and intends
    to issue a report of the results of these measurements by
    March 2007. The Commission's Laboratory also will conduct a testing
    program, including field testing, to assess the potential for
    interference from low power devices operating in the TV bands and
    intends to issue a report of these test results by July 2007. The
    Commission's Laboratory also will test DTV converter boxes once they
    become available. Details regarding these interference testing plans
    will be announced by the Commission's Laboratory.

16. In order to provide sufficient time for the Commission and industry
    to develop appropriate technical standards for TV band products as
    well as lead time for industry to design and produce new products,
    we intend to adopt a Second Report and Order specifying final
    requirements for devices in the TV bands in the fall of 2007. This
    will allow the Commission's Laboratory to begin accepting
    applications for certification of these devices in the TV bands by
    late 2007. Certification will be granted if the application, upon
    review, is found to comply with the new technical rules and will
    allow the manufacture and shipment of products to distribution
    points. However, as we discuss further below, these devices will not
    be allowed to be available for sale at retail until after the DTV
    transition ends on February 17, 2009.

17. We are convinced based on the record in this proceeding that we can
    adopt rules to allow fixed low power operation on unused spectrum in
    the TV bands without causing harmful interference to authorized
    services. There are several factors supporting this conclusion.
    First, upon completion of the DTV transition, there will be
    significant unused TV spectrum available in many areas in the
    country, either because of the separations required between
    authorized stations to avoid interference or because available TV
    channels have not been assigned and other services are not using
    vacant channels.[^30] Also, based on our experience in developing
    rules for U-NII devices, we believe it is reasonable to expect that
    existing technology, such as that used for spectrum sensing, can be
    adapted to allow devices to identify unused spectrum in a given
    geographic area and thus allow sharing of the TV bands.[^31]
    Further, we note that the IEEE 802.22 working group with broad based
    support is in the process of developing a standard to enable fixed
    devices to successfully share spectrum with authorized services in
    the TV bands. Finally, these devices will operate at relatively low
    power levels and, as several commenters noted, it is easier to
    protect incumbent operations in the TV bands, including wireless
    microphones, when devices are limited to fixed operation.[^32]

18. Non-fixed devices (*e.g.*, personal/portable devices as discussed in
    the *Notice*)[^33] generally pose a greater risk of harmful
    interference to authorized operations than fixed devices because
    such devices may have antennas that are less efficient and may be in
    a less advantageous position for sensing of incumbent transmissions
    (e.g., in a room versus on a 10-meter mast), especially given that
    they will change location, thus making reliable identification of
    unused frequencies substantially more difficult. Also, it may be
    difficult for TV and other users to locate a non-fixed device that
    causes interference because it frequently changes location, whereas
    a fixed device that causes interference can be located more easily.
    Further, we note that the developing IEEE 802.22 standard is, at
    least at this time, limited to fixed point-to-point and
    point-to-multipoint operations and does not address the non-fixed
    personal/portable class of devices that the Commission proposed to
    allow in the *Notice*. We therefore find that additional information
    is needed on whether and how personal/portable devices can use
    spectrum sensing or other techniques to identify unused frequencies.
    More generally, we ask parties responding to the Further Notice to
    address whether and how non-fixed unlicensed devices could operate
    in the TV bands under the different sharing schemes under
    consideration in this proceeding.

19. *Permissible Channels for Operation*. In the *Notice*, the
    Commission proposed to exclude low power TV band devices from
    operating on TV channels 2-4 to avoid possible interference to TV
    interface devices such as VCRs, DVDs, satellite and cable boxes that
    operate on or adjacent to those channels. The Commission also
    proposed to exclude these devices from channel 37, which is used for
    radio astronomy and the WMTS, as well as channels 52-69, which have
    been reallocated for non-broadcast uses. In addition, it proposed to
    exclude low power devices from operating on channels 14-20 in parts
    of the country were those channels are used for the PLMRS/CMRS.

20. The commenting parties generally support excluding low power devices
    from channels 37 and 52-69 because those channels will not be used
    for TV band services and will therefore have different interference
    considerations than those at issue in this proceeding.[^34] In
    addition, a number of parties support prohibiting low power
    operation on channels 14-20 in any part of the country because of
    possible interference to the PLMRS/CMRS.[^35] These parties express
    concern that personal/portable devices could be transported into
    areas where channels 14-20 are used for the PLMRS/CMRS and cause
    interference to such operations.[^36]

21. We will exclude low power devices from operating on TV channels 37
    and 52-69 as proposed. This will prevent interference to radio
    astronomy operations and the WMTS on channel 37. In addition,
    channels 52-69 have been reallocated for services other than
    broadcast television and will no longer be part of the TV bands
    after the transition. As the commenting parties observe, that
    spectrum will be occupied by services that have different
    interference considerations than those at issue in this proceeding.
    We will also exclude personal/portable TV band devices from
    operating on channels 14-20 in all areas of the country to prevent
    possible interference to public safety and other operations in the
    PLMRS/CMRS. As discussed below, we are making specific proposals for
    low power devices to identify unused TV channels using spectrum
    sensing and other approaches. Identification of PLMRS/CMRS
    operations can be difficult because these types of operations are
    typically intermittent rather than continuous. Because
    personal/portable devices are easily transported and used anywhere,
    we believe that the most prudent approach to protecting public
    safety and other PLMRS/CMRS operations on channels 14-20 is to
    prohibit personal/portable low power TV band devices from operating
    on those channels in all areas of the country.[^37] We are not
    making a determination at this time on whether fixed TV band devices
    should be permitted to use channels 14-20 at locations where those
    channels are not in use by the PLRMS/CMRS or other authorized
    services, nor whether TV band devices (fixed or personal/portable)
    should be permitted to use TV channels 2-4. Those issues are
    addressed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making.

22. *Implementation Date.* We will allow low power TV band devices to be
    marketed immediately after the end of the DTV transition on February
    17, 2009, but not before. We believe that this schedule is
    appropriate for several reasons. First, there are fewer vacant
    channels available during the DTV transition because most TV
    stations are currently broadcasting both an analog and a digital
    signal.[^38] There are thus about twice as many TV channels in use
    now as there will be after the end of the transition when full
    service analog broadcasting ceases. Also, the TV band is in a state
    of flux as the Commission develops the final DTV table of allotments
    and some TV stations still must change channels. In this regard,
    there will be adjustments in DTV channels that affect the
    availability of channels in individual markets throughout the
    remainder of the transition. We also note the concerns of a number
    of parties about possible disruption to the DTV transition if
    unlicensed devices were permitted to operate in the TV bands prior
    to the end of the DTV transition.[^39] We believe that the risk of
    creating uncertainty that would impede the DTV transition outweighs
    the benefit of allowing operation of low power devices at a slightly
    earlier date, especially given that some proponents of low power
    devices have indicated they would need up to 21 months after the
    adoption of final technical rules to bring such devices to market.
    For these reasons, we will allow TV band devices on the market only
    after the end of DTV transition.

# FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

23. As indicated above, the purpose of this further rulemaking is to
    develop additional information concerning the rules that will be
    necessary to enable low power devices to operate in the TV bands
    without causing harmful interference to other authorized operations
    in those bands.[^40] TV stations are generally protected from
    interference within defined signal contours, and the signal level
    that defines a TV station's protected contour varies depending on
    the type of station and the frequency band in which the station
    operates. Consequently, in the *Notice* the Commission proposed to
    use these service area criteria to define the areas that unlicensed
    devices must protect from harmful interference, *i.e*., TV service
    within the contours defined by the criteria would have to be
    protected.[^41] In the *Notice,* the Commission considered several
    different interference avoidance approaches for unlicensed
    operations for two functional categories of
    operations---fixed/access and personal/portable devices.[^42]
    Fixed/access devices generally operate at higher power from a fixed
    location, including outdoors, and may be used to provide a
    commercial service.[^43] Personal/portable devices, on the other
    hand, are those generally anticipated to operate at lower power,
    usually indoors or within a small localized area, and include
    devices such as computers or personal digital assistants (PDAs) that
    can be moved to operate at different locations.[^44] The Commission
    proposed to require that fixed/access devices incorporate a
    geo-location method such as GPS or be professionally installed, and
    that they access a database to identify vacant channels at their
    location. The Commission proposed that personal/portable devices
    operate only when they receive a control signal from a source such
    as an FM or TV station that identifies the vacant TV channels in
    that particular area. Finally, it sought comment on the possibility
    of using spectrum sensing as an alternative to the
    geo-location/database and control signal approaches, but did not
    make any specific proposals on the use of this technique for
    identifying unused TV channels.

24. We note, as an initial matter, that a number of parties suggest that
    devices operating in the TV bands should operate on a licensed basis
    rather than an unlicensed basis. Since this matter was not raised in
    the *Notice*, we seek to explore it in this Further Notice. Given
    that the proposals in the *Notice* contemplated unlicensed
    operation, and that most of the focus of the commenters and industry
    activity has been on unlicensed operation, most of the specific
    proposals presented in this Further Notice (*see* Appendix B,
    Proposed Rules) are presented on the basis of unlicensed operation.
    We recognize, however, that many of these same proposals could be
    employed if the Commission were to instead provide for licensed
    operation, or a hybrid approach.

25. We do not believe there is sufficient information in the record to
    adopt rules for any of these interference avoidance approaches at
    this time*.* As discussed below, there are unresolved issues from
    the *Notice* with respect to both the geo-location/database approach
    and the control signal approach, and we are seeking further comment
    on ways to resolve those issues. Because we believe that the
    spectrum sensing approach holds promise, we are making specific
    proposals concerning this approach. Although the *Notice* included
    proposals that different interference avoidance schemes be used for
    fixed/access and personal/portable devices, commenters responding to
    this Further Notice should address whether and how one interference
    avoidance scheme could be used effectively for both types of TV band
    devices. Commenters also should address how an interference
    avoidance scheme would protect TV services within their defined
    contours.

## Licensed vs. Unlicensed Operation

26. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to allow unlicensed
    operation in the TV bands, but did not address the possibility of
    instead providing for new low power operations on a licensed basis.
    A number of parties suggest that if new wireless operations are
    permitted in the TV bands, they should be on a licensed, rather than
    an unlicensed, basis. No party provided specific recommendations for
    how spectrum in the TV band could be assigned on a licensed basis
    for the devices contemplated in the *Notice*. In the interest of
    obtaining a further record on this issue, we seek comment on whether
    proposed low power operations in the TV bands should be allowed on
    an unlicensed, licensed, or hybrid basis.

27. The Commission has tried to strike a balance between the licensed
    model and the unlicensed model, determining which model to use based
    on all of the relevant circumstances. Both models have been
    successful. The licensed model is more efficient in many cases, and
    tends to work best when spectrum rights are (1) clearly defined, (2)
    exclusive, (3) flexible, and (4) transferable. When spectrum rights
    lack these attributes, potential licensees face uncertainty and may
    lack incentive to invest in a license or offer service. In those
    circumstances, the unlicensed model may better optimize spectrum
    access and utilization.

28. As an initial matter, we note that the frequencies and amount of
    unused television spectrum in the TV band will vary from location to
    location and, depending on the approach we ultimately adopt, could
    change over time as additional television stations are licensed or
    change frequency. For example, the assignment of low power
    television stations is not scheduled to be complete by the end of
    the DTV transition in February 2009. Also, under existing rules,
    currently authorized DTV stations would be permitted to seek to
    change frequencies after that date, which could complicate licensing
    of the white spaces spectrum, particularly if the Commission were to
    license the spectrum pursuant to auction. For example, if licensed
    wireless operations are required to protect other types of licensees
    in the TV bands, then wireless licensees in the TV bands could
    potentially lose their ability to operate on some, or even all, of
    their authorized frequencies when new operations with higher
    allocation status are authorized to operate in the same area. We
    also observe that, if protection of incumbents is required, devices
    operating in the TV bands would need to operate at lower power
    levels than are typical of many licensed services.

29. A majority of the commenters have expressed interest in operating
    low power devices in the TV bands on an unlicensed basis. Because
    unlicensed operations are not allowed to cause harmful
    interference,[^45] if we proceed on an unlicensed basis, the
    interference protection status of existing services operating in
    this spectrum would not be affected. Unlicensed operations may also
    be better able to dynamically adapt to a shifting spectrum
    environment characterized by low power operation. The technical
    characteristics of the TV band spectrum may be suited for delivering
    wireless broadband service on an unlicensed basis to rural areas,
    where transaction costs may be higher. Finally, the unlicensed model
    may promote technological innovation.

30. Commenters that support licensing generally state that licensing
    would provide an economic incentive for operators to ensure that
    they operate devices in a manner that does not cause interference to
    TV and other users in the band.[^46] Qualcomm argues that the
    Commission should consider the need for additional licensed spectrum
    in addition to unlicensed spectrum, and that there is no reason to
    give away "prime" spectrum.[^47] If the Commission were to provide
    for licensed operation of TV band devices, it may have the benefit
    of enabling policy makers and incumbent licensees to more rapidly
    and easily determine the source of any harmful interference that
    such devices may cause. It may also more effectively balance
    competing uses in markets where the amount of unused spectrum in the
    TV bands is low.

31. We note that licensing would require us to determine the rights and
    obligations of such licensees vis-à-vis other licensees. In contrast
    to unlicensed use, licensees would, by definition, have rights to
    transmit in this band with some interference protection. For
    instance, what would be the allocation status of such licensed
    operations? How would such services fit within the hierarchy of
    currently authorized TV and other services in the band? Should they
    have equal, superior, or secondary rights to existing services, and
    if so, which ones? Would TV band devices used by licensed services
    be required to incorporate the same type of interference avoidance
    mechanisms and low power limits that we have proposed for unlicensed
    devices? Would an exclusive licensing approach or a non-exclusive,
    shared approach better serve our spectrum policy objectives?[^48] If
    we decide to license wireless services on an exclusive basis, we
    seek comment on what licensing areas should be used in this band --
    *e.g.,* nationwide, regional, small geographic areas, or a
    site-specific approach? Should we divide the TV spectrum into
    different blocks of channels -- *e.g*., Channels 5 and 6, Channels 7
    through 13, Channels 21 through 36, and Channels 38 through 51 --
    and issue separate authorizations to operate on each of these blocks
    of channels in the relevant geographic area?

32. We seek comment on these and any other issues relevant to whether TV
    band devices should be allowed on an unlicensed, licensed, or hybrid
    basis. We ask commenters to discuss the technical, operational,
    legal, or economic advantages and costs associated with the various
    options. Commenters should also discuss the benefits and
    disadvantages associated with each of these approaches.

## Spectrum sensing and other technical requirements

33. A number of parties suggested that spectrum sensing could be used as
    a method to identify TV channels that may be used by TV band
    devices.[^49] However, no party provided sufficient technical
    information for the Commission to adopt rules. We note that IEEE
    committee 802.22 is developing a draft standard for using sensing
    and other techniques to obtain access to the TV spectrum. We
    encourage the IEEE to continue its work. We recognize, however, that
    the Commission would need to adopt appropriate technical rules to
    ensure that equipment using sensing techniques will not cause
    harmful interference to TV broadcasting and other users of the TV
    spectrum. In this section we further explore the viability of
    spectrum sensing as a method for identifying TV channels that may be
    used by TV band devices and offer specific technical proposals for
    the sensing capabilities and parameters that would need to be
    included in the Commission's rules. We request additional comment on
    whether TV band devices should be allowed to use spectrum sensing as
    a means to determine the availability of unused frequencies in the
    TV bands and, if so, the technical features and parameters of the
    sensing capability to be required as discussed below.

34. Several commenters argue that spectrum sensing is a viable technique
    for detecting radio signals and point out that the Commission
    adopted a spectrum sensing requirement in its rules for unlicensed
    national information infrastructure (U-NII) devices at 5 GHz.[^50]
    These rules include a requirement that U-NII devices employ dynamic
    frequency selection (DFS) to determine whether a radar signal is
    present before they can access the spectrum. We agree that the
    experience gained in developing the rules for 5 GHz U-NII devices is
    informative in considering the development of sensing techniques in
    the TV spectrum. We note, however, that there are many important
    differences between military radars and broadcast TV signals that
    affect the design of an acceptable plan for spectrum sensing and
    that the U-NII DFS requirements are specifically designed to detect
    military radars rather than TV stations and the other types of
    licensed operations in the TV bands. In this regard, operations in
    the TV bands have different technical characteristics than radars,
    particularly relative to power levels, modulation, required
    interference protection levels, propagation losses, antenna heights,
    and receiver locations. In addition, we observe that prototype U-NII
    systems with DFS were thoroughly tested to ensure that the DFS rules
    are adequate to prevent interference to radars. The Federal
    Government worked with industry to develop the necessary sensing
    standards and test procedures along with pass/fail criteria for
    these devices. There has not been any such sensing design work or
    extensive testing on TV band devices, so we do not know the exact
    technical parameters that would be necessary for any DFS
    requirements that might be used in the TV bands. Based on our
    experience in developing the spectrum sensing rules for 5 GHZ U-NII
    devices, we do, however, believe that the DFS approach in those
    rules can, with appropriate modifications, be applied to TV band
    devices . Our specific proposals for spectrum sensing rules for TV
    band devices are discussed below.

35. *Detection Threshold.* The detection threshold is the sensitivity
    level that would be used to determine the presence of other signals.
    The minimum detection threshold for 5 GHz U-NII devices is -64 dBm
    for devices with an e.i.r.p. (effective isotropic radiated power) of
    200 mW to 1 W and -62 dBm for devices using less than 200 mW.[^51]
    The presence of signals above the threshold detection level does not
    necessarily exclude access to the spectrum, but rather serves as a
    gating factor that is then followed by further processing to
    determine whether the signal may be a radar and therefore that
    spectrum cannot be used. An important consideration in developing
    this requirement was that relying solely on the detection threshold
    as the gating criteria for access to the spectrum would have lead to
    increased detections of other unlicensed devices, preventing access
    to the spectrum even though these unlicensed devices could co-exist.

36. There are several important factors that must be considered in
    establishing an appropriate detection threshold for the TV spectrum.
    We recognize that the situation for detection in the TV bands is
    different from that of radar signals. While radars and TV
    transmitters both transmit high power signals, radar operation is
    different from TV service in that a single radar receive system is
    typically co-located with its associated transmitter while TV
    receivers are located throughout a station's service area. In the
    radar case, the co-location of transmitter and receiver allows the
    sensing level to be set so as to prevent unlicensed devices from
    operating within a specified distance of the radar site. This
    approach follows from the facts that a radio signal attenuates with
    distance from the transmitter in a predictable manner, that is, as
    the distance from the transmitter increases the signal becomes
    weaker, and the distance over which the radar and unlicensed signals
    propagate are the same, albeit in different directions. In the U-NII
    case, we set the sensing level at a value where the distance at
    which the specified level of radar signal will be present is far
    enough from the radar site that the radar receiver will not receive
    interference from an unlicensed device operating at its maximum
    allowed power. For example, if a U-NII device is located at a point
    where it receives a radar signal at or below the -64 dBm threshold
    level, the level of that U-NII device's signal that reaches back to
    the radar receiver will be below the level at which it would
    interfere with the radar's operation.

37. In the TV case, the spread out pattern of TV receiver locations
    produces a situation where the distance between the TV transmitter
    and a TV band device is generally different than the distance
    between a TV receiver and that TV band device. It is, in fact,
    reasonable to expect that a TV band device would operate quite close
    to a TV set, *i.e.*, in the same or adjacent residences/businesses,
    and both would be relatively far from the TV transmitter. Here, the
    TV set would be attempting to receive a relatively weak TV signal in
    the presence of a relatively strong unlicensed signal. This suggests
    that the detection threshold for TV band devices must be lower to
    account for their expected proximity to TV receivers. We observe
    that IEEE 802.22 is considering different threshold detection levels
    depending on the nature of the source signal, with levels as low as
    ‑116 dBm. We invite comment as to this value or alternative values
    for the detection threshold.

38. We appreciate that a variety of additional considerations need to be
    taken into account in developing the detection threshold for devices
    in the TV bands. For example, a lower detection threshold infers
    greater interference protection for services operating in the TV
    spectrum, but could also result in increased false positives as a
    response to spurious radio noise or other unlicensed devices,
    sharply reducing the usefulness of this spectrum for TV band
    devices. Also, the height of the TV band device transmitting antenna
    affects the distance that signals propagate, and therefore the
    distance at which interference could occur. We ask interested
    parties to address how these factors might be taken into account in
    developing the appropriate detection threshold.

39. A number of parties have asserted that sensing alone will not be
    effective in preventing harmful interference to TV broadcasting
    within its protected contour and to other authorized services in
    this spectrum due to the problem of the "hidden node." This
    situation results when there is an obstruction between the sensing
    receiver and the signal to be detected. In this case, the sensing
    receiver may fail to detect that a channel is occupied and begin
    transmitting, thus causing interference to other nearby parties
    attempting to receive that channel along an unobstructed path. We
    recognize that this is indeed a potential problem and request views
    on its scope and how to deal with this phenomenon effectively. One
    approach would be to add further margin into the detection
    threshold, but that would increase the possibility of false
    detections, potentially increase the costs of unlicensed devices,
    and may have other detrimental effects on system performance.
    Another approach suggested in the record would be to use distributed
    sensing; that is, multiple antennas and sensing receivers at
    different locations that are able to share channel availability
    information with each other.[^52] When multiple receivers that share
    information are used, the probability of missing a signal may be
    greatly reduced because only one receiver needs to detect a signal
    to ascertain that a particular channel is occupied, and the
    likelihood would seem low that every receiver in a system would be
    obstructed from receiving a signal. We invite further comment as to
    how we could ensure the viability of a distributed sensing approach
    for systems deployed on an unlicensed basis. For example, could this
    type of operation be achieved simply by requiring every device in a
    network to have sensing capability and to pass its sensing
    information on to other devices on the network? Another approach
    would be to use sensing in combination with other information, such
    as geolocation, under a set of policy rules that would serve as the
    gating criteria for access to the spectrum. We solicit comments on
    these and any other approaches that would deal effectively with the
    hidden node problem.

40. *Channel Availability Check Time, Move Time and Non-Occupancy
    Period*. In establishing the sensing provisions for unlicensed 5 GHz
    U-NII devices, the Commission specified various requirements for DFS
    relative to accessing the spectrum, how quickly the devices would
    have to vacate a channel once a radar signal is detected, and how
    long the channel could not be used again after such detection.
    Specifically, the Commission required that the 5 GHz U-NII DFS
    feature check for the presence of a radar before gaining access to
    the spectrum, perform in-service monitoring to detect the presence
    of a radar that may come on the air at any time, get off the channel
    within 10 seconds if a radar's presence is detected, and stay off
    the channel for at least 30 minutes thereafter.[^53] These
    requirements took into account the nature and characteristics of the
    radar systems operating in the 5 GHz region of the spectrum, as well
    as the potential for interference from multiple devices and the
    technical feasibility of designing equipment with these
    capabilities. Radar systems may be operated at any time, for any
    duration, and at any location, but may also remain off-the-air for
    long periods of time. In contrast, the operating pattern in the TV
    spectrum typically does not change rapidly because TV stations
    rarely change their operating characteristics, such as hours of
    operation, antenna height, power, etc. Nevertheless, we recognize
    that operations in the TV spectrum can and do change over time. For
    example, certain TV broadcasting operations may be on most of the
    day, but not for brief periods during late night or early morning
    hours. New low power TV and translator operations could be
    authorized and come on the air at any time. Wireless microphone
    operations tend to be used for a period of hours at a particular
    location, but can also operate anywhere at any time and may not have
    a signal that is on the air continuously.

41. In light of these factors, we propose to require that TV band
    devices that use sensing to determine the availability of unused TV
    band frequencies perform sensing before accessing a channel and
    periodically thereafter to ensure that the channel is still
    available, *i.e.*, unoccupied. We ask commenters to indicate whether
    there is a need to specify the period of time over which sensing
    must occur before a channel may be accessed, and if so, what that
    should be. For example, would 30 seconds be a necessary or
    sufficient period of time for the initial channel availability check
    when a device is placed in operation, *i.e.*, turned-on. We also
    invite comment as to the appropriate period when the channel must be
    rechecked to determine that it continues to be available. Our
    initial proposal is to require devices to recheck the channel at
    least every 10 seconds. This would ensure that devices are not on
    the air for extended periods of time causing harmful interference to
    authorized services in the TV spectrum that are not present during
    an initial sensing check. We would anticipate that this feature
    should be easy to implement from an equipment design standpoint. We
    do not propose to require devices to remain off the air for any
    prescribed period of time after a channel is first determined to be
    occupied. We believe the requirement to perform sensing before
    operating should ensure that devices will not cause harmful
    interference to authorized services that are already on the air.

42. *Channels Over Which Sensing Is Required*. In order to avoid
    co-channel interference to authorized services in the TV spectrum,
    sensing is clearly needed in the channel in which the device will
    operate. We also recognize that there is potential for TV band
    devices to interfere with TV and other authorized services operating
    on adjacent channels. In this regard, the Commission proposed in the
    *Notice* to prohibit fixed devices from operating on a channel
    adjacent to a TV station within that station's service area but to
    allow the lower power personal/portable devices to operate without
    adjacent channel restrictions. We request comment on the need for
    sensing in adjacent channels by fixed and personal/portable devices.
    We also request comment and information on the threshold levels at
    which protection should be invoked for sensed adjacent channel
    signals and whether protections other than simply requiring an
    unlicensed device to not transmit would be workable and appropriate.
    For example, if an adjacent channel signal were sensed, could
    interference be avoided by requiring the device to reduce power
    rather than cease operation? We further seek comment on whether any
    protection requirements are needed for services outside of the
    channels where TV band devices would be permitted to operate, and if
    so, what these would be.

43. *Bandwidth Considerations*. We recognize that there is a
    relationship between the sensing receiver bandwidth and ability of a
    device to detect weak signals. For example, we would not expect a
    device with a 6 megahertz sensing bandwidth to be able to detect as
    weak a signal as a device using a 200 kHz bandwidth. We seek comment
    on whether there is a need to specify a sensing bandwidth in
    addition to a detection threshold, or whether it is necessary to
    specify only the characteristics of the signals to be detected as
    discussed below and leave the sensing bandwidth to the
    manufacturer's discretion.

44. *Antenna Considerations*. The IEEE 802.22 working group is
    contemplating the use of an omnidirectional sensing antenna with a
    gain of 0 dBi. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that a TV
    band device is able to detect a TV signal irrespective of its
    direction in relation to the device. We invite comment about whether
    the Commission should require the use of an omnidirectional antenna
    with a 0 dBi gain for sensing. We also invite comment as to what
    considerations for sensing should be taken into account for devices
    that employ a gain antenna for transmission. For example, a TV band
    device with an omnidirectional sensing antenna may detect that TV
    signals on a channel are below the monitoring threshold and begin
    transmitting, but could conceivably cause interference if it uses a
    higher gain directional transmitting antenna aimed toward a TV
    receiver. What provisions would be necessary to avoid such a
    situation? Further, we invite comment on whether any requirements
    are necessary with respect to the transmit antenna height. As the
    transmit antenna height is increased, both the signal coverage and
    the distance at which interference to services in the TV bands could
    occur also increase. We seek comment on whether there is a need for
    a maximum antenna height requirement or other provisions, such as
    reduced power when a greater antenna height is used.

45. *Transmit power control.* The regulations the Commission adopted for
    DFS by U-NII devices at 5 GHz call for use of dynamic power control
    so that the device will automatically limit its emissions to a level
    6 dB below the maximum permitted transmitter power if that is
    sufficient to accomplish the desired communications.[^54] Devices
    already operating 3 dB below the maximum permissible power were not
    required to include transmit power control. We propose to apply this
    same requirement for devices operating in the TV spectrum. We invite
    comment as to whether we should require a greater dynamic range for
    transmit power control, such as the ability to operate 9 or 12 dB
    below the limits if that is sufficient to achieve the desired
    communications. This approach could further reduce the potential for
    interference to services operating in the TV spectrum. In addition,
    we invite comment as to whether we should permit adjustments to any
    TV band device operating parameters, such as the detection
    threshold, if a TV band device operates at a power level
    substantially below the limit.

46. *Master/Client Operation.* We propose to allow fixed operations in
    the TV bands under a master/client model that is consistent with the
    model for U-NII devices.[^55] That is, each system of TV band
    devices will have one master device and one or more client devices.
    We propose to define a master device as a device operating in a mode
    in which it has the capability to transmit without receiving an
    enabling signal. In this mode it would be able to select a channel
    and initiate a network by sending enabling signals to other devices.
    A network would always have one device operating in master mode. We
    propose to define a client device as a device operating in a mode in
    which the transmissions are under control of the master. A device in
    client mode would not be able to initiate a network. A network could
    have one or more client devices. We seek comment on this proposal.
    We also seek comment on any other approach that would be more
    appropriate.

47. *Spectrum Sharing*. The Commission's rules for unlicensed devices
    are designed not only to protect against harmful interference but
    also to facilitate spectrum sharing among unlicensed devices while
    minimizing constraints on product designs. For example, the
    Commission's rules allowing frequency hopping spread spectrum
    devices to operate at up to 4 W e.i.r.p. also require a minimum
    number of hopping channels using a random hopping sequence so that
    multiple devices and users can share the same spectrum.[^56]
    Industry, within the framework of the Commission's rules, has
    developed voluntary standards such as the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
    standards, for various types of unlicensed devices that further
    facilitate shared use of the spectrum. It is our intention to follow
    a similar course for unlicensed devices operating in the TV
    spectrum. We anticipate that industry will develop protocol
    standards that facilitate shared use of the spectrum. We are
    concerned, however, that in the absence of some minimal mandatory
    requirements, a single device or network of devices could
    conceivably monopolize use of a channel at a given location or area.
    We invite comment as to whether it may be necessary or appropriate
    for the Commission to establish minimal technical requirements to
    facilitate sharing by unlicensed TV band devices, or by TV band
    devices licensed under a non-exclusive model if the Commission chose
    to adopt such an approach. For example, such steps might include
    limitations on the duration of transmissions and repeating spectrum
    sensing at intervals more frequently than 10 seconds. Parties
    addressing this matter should make specific proposals. In addition,
    we ask that parties address the implications of their proposals for
    potential applications for TV band devices.

48. *Measurement procedures.* As we discuss in the Report and Order, we
    intend to conduct extensive testing as part of the process to
    develop technical rules for TV band devices. Further, we believe
    that compliance measurement procedures are critically important.
    However, it is premature to develop compliance measurement
    procedures at this juncture because the specific procedures used and
    tests to be conducted will depend in part on the final rules that
    are adopted. It is our intention to develop interim measurement
    procedures that will be provided when final rules are adopted. The
    procedures we use will draw on the measurement procedures for 5 GHz
    U-NII devices, to the extent those procedures are relevant to
    unlicensed devices in the TV bands and the rules we adopt for their
    operation, and our measurement procedures for unlicensed devices as
    specified in Section 15.31 of the rules.[^57] We are presenting
    proposals and inviting comment on certain specific matters at this
    time. In performing the test for detection threshold, we propose to
    subject the sensing capabilities of unlicensed devices to an ATSC
    DTV signal, an NTSC signal and a 200 kHz FM signal with peak levels
    adjusted to the threshold level. We seek comment on whether this
    approach is appropriate or whether some other method should be used.
    The test procedure for 5 GHz U-NII devices calls for performing the
    detection tests a number of times and specifies pass/fail ratios. We
    do not believe such an approach is appropriate here because it
    should be simpler to detect signals from the types of devices
    operating in the TV spectrum than for radars, but invite comment in
    this regard. Parties suggesting approaches based on multiple tests
    and pass/fail ratios should offer specific proposals.

## Geo-location/database approach

49. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to require that
    fixed/access devices incorporate a geo-location method such as GPS
    or be professionally installed to determine their geographic
    coordinates. These coordinates would be used in conjunction with a
    database of incumbent TV band licensed stations and appropriate
    computational software to identify vacant channels at the unlicensed
    device's location. Several parties had concerns about the accuracy
    and maintenance of a database used to determine the location of TV
    and other transmitters.[^58] Some parties expressed support for the
    proposed geo-location/database approach.[^59] Other parties raised
    various concerns about this approach, such as whether GPS
    incorporated in an unlicensed device would be a reliable method for
    performing geo-location because it may not work indoors or at
    outdoor locations where the GPS signal is obstructed.[^60] There
    were also concerns about the method that should be used (*e.g*., the
    F(50,50) curves or the Longley-Rice propagation model) to calculate
    how far an unlicensed device must be from a TV or other station to
    avoid causing interference.[^61]

50. The geo-location/database approach is one that may be used in some
    situations as the sole interference avoidance mechanism or in other
    cases used in conjunction with another interference avoidance
    mechanism, e.g., a device could use this approach to identify vacant
    channels at its location as well as use spectrum sensing to verify
    that the channels are unused. We recognize though that there are a
    number of issues that would have to be resolved to make the proposed
    geo-location/database approach viable for interference avoidance.
    Most importantly, a complete database of all TV and other stations
    would have to be available in some form for users of unlicensed
    devices to access. The Commission does not maintain a database of
    all TV and other stations in the TV bands that could be accessed in
    real-time (or near real-time) by large numbers of unlicensed devices
    dispersed throughout the country. However, in other cases, the
    Commission has relied on private parties to develop and maintain
    databases of certain operations that others can access, and these
    databases are funded by the entities that use them. For example, the
    Commission selected the United Telecom Council (UTC) to maintain a
    database of broadband over power (BPL) systems,[^62] and the
    American Society for Healthcare Engineering of the American Hospital
    Association (ASHE/AHA) to maintain a database of wireless medical
    telemetry service devices.[^63] In these cases, the Commission
    developed basic regulations regarding the scope of the databases,
    solicited proposals from parties interested in developing and
    maintaining the database, and selected the database provider. We
    seek comment on relying on a similar approach here, particularly
    from parties who would be interested in developing and maintaining a
    database of operations in the TV bands. We also seek further comment
    on some issues regarding the content of and access to a TV band
    database. For example, what information about stations should be in
    a database, such as geographic coordinates, type and class of
    station, power level, antenna height and other antenna
    characteristics? What information about wireless microphones could
    be entered in a database so that their location can be ascertained
    because the Commission does not license them by geographic
    coordinates? How would an unlicensed device access a database, and
    how often would a database need to be updated?

51. Finally, we seek additional comment on some of the technical
    requirements for TV band devices relying on the
    geo-location/database approach. For example, what is the appropriate
    method of geo-location: GPS, professional installation, or some
    other method? Could devices incorporate Assisted GPS to help receive
    GPS signals in obstructed and indoor locations?[^64] If a device is
    professionally installed, who should be permitted to install it?
    What is the appropriate method of determining the required
    separation from authorized users in the TV bands? How will the
    geo-location/database approach protect other authorized services,
    such as wireless microphones, the location of which may not be
    included in the databases? We seek comment on these and any other
    issues that need to be addressed to make this a viable interference
    avoidance scheme.

## Control signal approach

52. In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to require that
    personal/portable devices operate only when they receive a control
    signal from a fixed radio transmitter source such as an FM, TV or
    CMRS transmitter. The control signal would contain a listing of the
    TV channels that are vacant within the service area of the control
    signal. The TV band device would only be permitted to transmit on a
    vacant TV channel listed in the control signal; multiple control
    signals could be accessed. If no TV channels were vacant at that
    particular location, or if the TV band device could not receive a
    control signal, it would not be permitted to transmit. The list of
    vacant channels transmitted by the control signal would be
    determined by the use of a database and appropriate computational
    software, similar to the geo-location/database approach, but with
    one important difference. Instead of determining vacant channels at
    a single point (the TV band device transmitter), channels included
    in the vacant channel list must be vacant at every point within the
    service area of the station transmitting the control signal (e.g.,
    within the noise limited coverage area of a DTV station).

53. Some parties express concerns about the effectiveness of the
    proposed control signal approach in preventing interference, stating
    that a TV band device may receive conflicting control signals, or
    may fail to confirm the presence of a valid control signal, and then
    transmit on an occupied TV channel.[^65] Other parties object to
    allowing broadcasters to transmit or charge for information
    concerning vacant channels.[^66] Still others noted that the
    locations with the greatest amount of vacant spectrum would be least
    likely to have a control signal available because there would be few
    broadcasters or other facilities around to transmit a control
    signal.[^67] Only one party provided suggestions on the format for a
    control signal but did not provide detailed specifications.[^68]

54. Because the control signal approach is essentially a variation of
    the geo-location/database approach, some of the same concerns apply
    to both methods, specifically, those about maintaining the database
    and the method used to calculate the required separation between
    unlicensed devices and authorized stations in the TV bands. As
    discussed in regards to a geo-location database, a control signal
    database could be developed and maintained by a private entity
    selected by the Commission, and the database could be funded by
    parties who use it. We seek comment on whether the Commission should
    develop basic regulations regarding the scope of a database to be
    used with a control signal approach, solicit proposals from parties
    interested in developing and maintaining a database, and select a
    database provider. We particularly seek comment from parties who
    would be interested in developing and maintaining a database for the
    control signal approach. We also seek further comment on some issues
    regarding the content of and access to a TV band database. For
    example, what information about vacant TV spectrum should be in a
    database and who should determine the list of vacant TV channels in
    a broadcaster's service area, *e.g.,* the database manager, a
    designated frequency coordinator? Is there any inherent conflict of
    interest in permitting broadcasters to identify and to send
    information identifying channels not licensed to them as vacant and
    therefore available for use by unlicensed devices?

55. Regarding the technical requirements for unlicensed devices, we seek
    further comment on the format and content of the control signal. How
    will the control signal approach protect other authorized services,
    such as wireless microphones, the location of which may not be
    included in the databases? Also, can the control signal approach be
    relied upon as an interference avoidance mechanism in areas where no
    broadcast station or other facility sends a control signal?

## Operation on channels 14-20 and 2-4

56. In the *Notice,* the Commission proposed to permit low power devices
    to operate on channels 14-20 in those parts of the country where
    they are not being used for the PLMRS/CMRS or other authorized
    services.[^69] In the Report and Order, we prohibit
    personal/portable TV band devices from operating on those channels
    in all areas of the country. We seek additional comment in this
    *Further Notice* on whether fixed TV band devices should be allowed
    on channels 14-20 in those areas of the country where those channels
    are not used by public safety. We note that the PLRMS/CMRS is
    permitted to operate in only 13 metropolitan areas in the country,
    and on only one to three channels in each area. Further, PLMRS/CMRS
    operations are limited to a defined radius around geographic
    coordinates specified in the rules for each metropolitan area.[^70]
    Thus, prohibiting operation of all fixed TV band devices (*e.g.*,
    devices used for backhaul) on all channels in the range of 14-20 in
    all parts of the country could preclude operation of fixed low power
    devices in many areas where these channels are not in use by the
    PLMRS/CMRS or other authorized services. We seek comment on whether
    allowing fixed operation of TV band devices on channels 14-20 would
    cause harmful interference to public safety. If we were to allow
    such use, how would it be implemented? Would any of the proposals
    described above have to be modified to protect the PLMRS/CMRS?
    Should we define an "exclusion zone" around the specified
    coordinates of each of the 13 metropolitan areas where operation of
    low power devices would be prohibited? If so, what would be the
    appropriate size of the zone and how could it be enforced?

57. The Commission proposed to exclude low power TV band devices from
    operating on TV channels 2-4 to avoid possible interference to TV
    interface devices such as VCRs, DVDs, satellite and cable boxes that
    operate on or adjacent to those channels. While there was some
    support in the record for excluding channels 2-4 based on the
    potential for interference, other parties believe that operation
    should be permitted on those channels because TV interface devices
    are usually connected to a TV with shielded cable that should
    obviate the interference potential from unlicensed devices on
    channels 2-4.[^71] We seek further comment on whether we should
    allow TV band devices to operate on channels 2-4. In particular, we
    seek comment on whether TV interface devices would be more
    susceptible to interference from low power TV band devices than
    other TV receivers. We also seek comment on whether the cabling
    between a TV interface device and a TV receiver typically provides
    adequate shielding from unwanted signals on channels 2-4. We also
    seek information indicating the extent to which such signals may be
    picked up directly within the TV receiver. In addition, we note a
    trend toward devices that connect directly to a TV receiver without
    going through the tuner. We seek comment on how much longer
    consumers are expected to use TV interface devices that connect to a
    TV through the tuner rather than an alternative interface
    connection.

## Other Issues

58. *Types and Applications of Devices.* In the *Notice,* the Commission
    stated that permitting unlicensed devices to operate in the TV bands
    would allow the development of new and innovative types of
    unlicensed broadband devices and services for businesses and
    consumers.[^72] It anticipated that fixed unlicensed devices would
    be used by WISPs and others as base stations to provide Internet
    access and other broadband data services to homes and
    businesses.[^73] The Commission expected that fixed operations would
    be outdoors, might cover a substantial geographic area, and might be
    part of a commercial infrastructure.[^74] In light of the passage of
    time since the *Notice* and the modified proposals made herein, we
    seek additional comment on the types and applications of unlicensed
    devices that parties expect to be developed to operate in the TV
    bands. In particular, we seek comment on the relationship between
    the technical requirements we are now proposing and the potential
    types of TV band devices that could be needed and developed. For
    example, how would a specific interference avoidance mechanism
    affect the types of potential applications? We also invite comment
    as to whether the applications would be different if the Commission
    were to provide for TV band devices on a licensed basis instead of
    an unlicensed basis.

59. *Out of Band Emission Limits*. The Commission proposed to require
    that emissions from an unlicensed device outside that device's
    channel of operation comply with the limits in Section 15.209 of the
    rules.[^75] These are the same limits that apply to most intentional
    radiators operating under Part 15 of the rules, and at frequencies
    above 30 MHz are the same as the limits that apply to most
    unintentional radiators, including computers and radio and TV
    receivers.[^76] Motorola, NAB, and MSTV argue that these emission
    limits are inadequate to protect against interference to TV
    reception because they will result in field strengths high enough to
    cause interference at the noise limited contour of DTV
    stations.[^77] Intel disagrees with these parties' claim, stating
    that they incorrectly assume that 1) Part 15 devices transmit the
    maximum power permitted by Section 15.209 across all frequencies
    outside their band of operation all the time, 2) TV viewers in
    marginal signal strength areas typically attempt to receive TV
    signals via indoor antennae, and 3) TV viewers and their neighbors
    do not already operate electronic devices covered by Section
    15.209(a), which would cause the same type of supposed harmful
    interference.[^78] Microsoft believes that requiring emissions
    outside the unlicensed device's channel of operation to comply with
    the Section 15.209 limits is unnecessarily strict, because the
    signal roll-off required to comply with the limit would leave little
    of a 6 MHz channel available for service.[^79] Microsoft recommends
    that signals outside of an unlicensed devices channel of operation
    be attenuated 20 dB from the highest level of desired power, and
    that the Section 15.209 limits apply only in restricted bands of
    operation.[^80]

60. The Section 15.209 limits have a long and successful history of
    controlling interference from a wide variety of devices operating
    under Part 15 of the rules, including radio transmitters, computers
    and TV receivers.[^81] We are not aware of any significant
    interference problems from devices that comply with these limits. We
    note Microsoft's concern that the proposed rules in the Notice would
    require sharp filtering of emissions to meet the Section 15.209
    limits outside the unlicensed device's channel of operation.
    However, we are concerned their recommend out-of-band emission limit
    of 20 dB below the highest level of desired power would be
    inadequate attenuation to prevent interference to authorized
    services in the TV bands.[^82] We are proposing to require that
    emissions outside a TV band device's operating channel comply with
    the Section 15.209 limits, but seek comment on whether different
    emission limits would be more appropriate.[^83] Parties that believe
    limits other than those in Section 15.209 are necessary to protect
    incumbent TV band operations against harmful interference may
    perform tests and submit the results into the record in this
    proceeding.

61. We also seek comment on how out-of-band limits should be specified.
    Radiated emission limits at TV band frequencies are based on
    measuring equipment employing CISPR quasi-peak detector function and
    related measurement bandwidths.[^84] CISPR quasi-peak methods were
    developed, based on subjective listening tests, to provide a measure
    of the effects of various kinds of interference on AM radio
    listeners. We seek comment on whether there is a better measure
    available for quantifying effects of interference on incumbent
    services in the TV bands, e.g., ATSC digital television signals. For
    example, should measurement bandwidth be larger than the 120 kHz
    used by CISPR quasi-peak detectors in this frequency range in order
    to more closely match DTV receiver bandwidths? Should interference
    effects be quantified by measurements of average power, peak power,
    or some other function within the recommended measurement bandwidth?
    We also seek input on the appropriate emission levels using the
    proposed measurements. Should the levels be set to be equivalent in
    some sense to the 15.209 limits or should they be set at a different
    level?

62. *Direct Pickup Interference and Receiver Desensitization*. Several
    parties allege that TV band transmitters operating in close
    proximity to TV receivers could cause interference by direct signal
    pickup through the receiver chassis.[^85] Some parties also claim
    that TV band devices will "desensitize" a TV receiver, resulting in
    interference on all channels.[^86] Intel believes that direct pickup
    interference is highly improbable because newer TVs and set top
    boxes incorporate fully shielded tuners that are nearly invulnerable
    to direct pickup interference, and that operators of
    personal/portable devices that could cause direct pickup
    interference would be located in close proximity to affected
    receivers and could reconfigure, relocate or disable their equipment
    to avoid direct pickup interference.[^87]

63. The concerns raised by commenters are that TV band devices operated
    in close proximity to TV receivers could have adverse effects on
    them. We note first that the concerns raised are theoretical because
    no parties have submitted test results showing actual direct pickup
    interference from TV band devices to TV receivers. We believe that
    fixed TV band devices will typically not be operated as close to TV
    receivers as some parties assume and should not generally cause
    interference problems. Although personal/portable TV band devices
    could be located in close proximity to TV receivers, such devices
    are typically under control of the same party who can increase the
    separation distance between them or cease operating a device to
    eliminate any interference that occurs. As discussed above, we are
    inviting parties to submit test results to evaluate the interference
    potential of low power devices to TV receivers. If any parties
    discover actual direct pickup interference or other adverse effects
    on TV receivers or other radio equipment in or adjacent to the TV
    bands during testing, they can submit results to us that we will
    consider in the rule making process.

64. *Certification by TCBs*. All unlicensed transmitters and most
    licensed transmitters are required to be certified by the Commission
    or a designated Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) before
    they may be legally marketed within the United States.[^88] In
    establishing the requirements for TCBs, the Commission stated that
    while it intended to allow TCBs to certify a broad range of
    equipment, certain functions should continue to be performed by the
    Commission.[^89] These functions include certifying new or unique
    equipment for which the rules or requirements do not exist or for
    which the application of the rules is not clear.[^90] Because TV
    band devices would contain new technologies and we are proposing new
    rules to accommodate them, we expect that many questions about the
    application of the rules would arise. We propose that TCBs not be
    permitted to certify TV band devices until the Commission has
    experience with them and can properly advise the TCBs on how to
    apply the applicable rules.[^91] The Commission's Laboratory
    maintains a list of types of devices that TCBs are excluded from
    certifying, and we propose to place TV band transmitters on this
    list until such time as we determine that TCBs are capable of
    certifying them. We seek comment on this proposal.

65. *Unlicensed Use in Border Areas near Canada and Mexico*. The
    allotment and assignment of TV channels in the border areas with
    Canada and Mexico are subject to agreements with each of those
    countries. Low power TV assignments within 32 kilometers (20 miles)
    of the Canadian border must be referred to the Canadian authorities
    for approval.[^92] In addition, low power UHF TV stations that are
    located less than 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the Mexican border,
    and low power VHF TV stations that are less than 60 kilometers (37
    miles) from the Mexican border, must be referred to the Mexican
    government for approval.[^93] In keeping with the current agreements
    with Canada and Mexico, in the Notice we proposed to prohibit
    unlicensed TV band devices from operating less than these distances
    from the Canadian and Mexican borders until agreements are reached
    with those countries. In particular, we sought comment on how to
    ensure that unlicensed devices using vacant TV channels do not
    operate within the border areas, whether the methods used to ensure
    that these devices operate only on vacant TV channels could be
    adapted to preclude operation in the border areas. Two parties
    believe that unlicensed devices need not be excluded from operating
    in border areas because unlicensed devices would operate with a
    lower power than broadcast stations and are not likely to cause
    interference across the borders with Canada and Mexico.[^94] No
    party suggested a means to keep unlicensed devices from operating in
    the border areas. We ask whether the agreements with Canada and
    Mexico would need to be modified before we allow unlicensed TV band
    devices to operate in the border areas. To the extent they would
    need to be modified, we seek further comment on the methods that
    could be used to ensure that unlicensed TV band devices do not
    operate in the border areas until such time as the appropriate
    agreements are concluded. We also seek comment on whether the
    answers to these questions would be different under a licensed
    approach, and if so, how. Would these matters be more easily
    addressed under a licensed approach rather than an unlicensed
    approach?

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

66. *Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis*. As required by the
    Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 603, the Commission has
    prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
    possible significant economic impact on small entities of the
    policies and rules proposed in this document. The IRFA is set forth
    in Appendix C. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA.
    These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing
    deadlines as comments filed in response to this Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making as set forth in paragraph 69, and have a
    separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the
    IRFA.

67. *Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification*. A Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Certification is set forth in Appendix D.

68. *Ex Parte Presentations*. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and
    comment rule making proceeding. Ex parte presentations are
    permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they
    are disclosed as provided in the Commission\'s rules. See generally
    47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.2306(a).

69. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
    CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
    comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
    document. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's
    Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal
    Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. *See
    Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63 FR
    24121 (1998).

-   Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
    Internet by accessing the ECFS: <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/> or
    the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
    [http://www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/). Filers
    should follow the instructions provided on the website for
    submitting comments.

-   For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in
    the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic
    copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced
    in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should
    include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and
    the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
    an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing
    instructions, filers should send an e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and
    include the following words in the body of the message, "get form."
    A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
    original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
    rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
    must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
    rulemaking number.

70. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
    overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
    Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving
    U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the
    Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission.

-   The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at
    236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The
    filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
    deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
    envelopes must be disposed of [before]{.underline} entering the
    building.

-   Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
    Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
    Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

-   U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be
    addressed to 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.

71. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats
    for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
    files, audio format), send an e-mail to <fcc504@fcc.gov> or call the
    Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice),
    202-418-0432 (tty).

72. This document does not contain proposed, new or modified information
    collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
    Public Law 104-13.  In addition, therefore, it does not contain any
    new or modified "information collection burden for small business
    concerns with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the Small
    Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
    U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

# ORDERING CLAUSES

73. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f),
    303(r) and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 307, this
    First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making IS
    HEREBY ADOPTED.

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

75. For further information regarding this First Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, contact Mr. Hugh L. Van
    Tuyl, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-7506, e-mail
    <Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov> or Mr. Alan Stillwell, Office of Engineering
    and Technology, (202) 418-2925, e-mail <Alan.Stillwell@fcc.gov>.

#  {#section .unnumbered}

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**Parties Filing Comments**

**[Comments]{.underline}**

1\. Adaptrum, Inc. 42. Michael J. Marcus

2\. Alan Greagor 43. Michael Mason

3\. Association of Public Safety Communications 44. Michiana Wireless

4\. Association of Public Television Stations 45. Microsoft Corporation

5\. ATK Audiotek 46. Motorola, Inc.

6\. Attron Networks, LLC 47. NAB and MSTV

7\. Audio-Technical U.S., Inc. 48. NAMM, the International Music
Products

8\. Chip Brown Association

9\. Chuck Profito 49. National Academy of Sciences

10\. Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C. 50. National Cable &
Telecommunications

11\. Commercial Broadcasting Corporation Association

12\. Community Broadcasters Association 51. National Radio Astronomy
Observatory

13\. Consumer Electronics Association 52. National Systems Contractors
Association

14\. County of Los Angeles 53. National Translator Association

15\. Cox Broadcasting, Inc. 54. New America Foundation, et al.

16\. CW Lab 55. Noah Miller

17\. Dan Lubar 56. NPG of Oregon, Inc.

18\. Dustin Goodwin 57. NYCwireless.net

19\. Entravision Holdings, LLC 58. Old Colorado City Communications

20\. Harris Corporation 59. OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc.

21\. IEEE 802 60. Pappas Telecasting Companies

22\. Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. 61. Paul Burkholder

23\. Intel Corporation 62. Pikes Peak Broadcasting Company

24\. International Communications Industries 63. Professional Audio
Manufacturers' Alliance

Association, Inc. 64. PVT Networks, Inc.

25\. Itron, Inc. 65. QUALCOMM Incorporated

26\. James M. McKinion 66. R. Kent Parsons

27\. James Stoffo 67. Raymond D. Meredith, Jr.

28\. John Laprise 68. Rebekah Morris

29\. John Notor 69. Red River Broadcasting Co., LLC

30\. John Terrill 70. Region I Translator Association

31\. Jon M. Peha 71. Ron Wallace

32\. Josephson Engineering, Inc. 72. Ronald E. Wallace

33\. Karl Winkler 73. Sascha D. Meinrath

34\. Kenneth DiPietro 74. Sennheiser Electronic Corporation

35\. Kenneth Youngquist 75. Shared Spectrum Company

36\. KHEM Television 76. Shured Incorporated

37\. Lee Good, RTS 77. Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.

38\. Mark Koskenmaki 78. Southwest Colorado TV Translator Assoc.

39\. Marlon K. Schafer 79. Stelios Valavanis

40\. Metropolitan Area Networks, Inc. 80. Symmetrical Networks, Inc.

41\. Michaeal Falaschi 81. Syncom Media Group, Inc.

82\. Telecommunications Industry Association 33. Webster Calhoun
Cooperative Telephone

83\. Telex Communications, Inc. Association

84\. Tim Foster

85\. Tony Ray

86\. Total RF Marketing, Inc.

87\. Tropos Networks

88\. Vaxeo.com

89\. WDLP Broadcasting Co., LLC

90\. White Pine Television District No. 1

91\. Wi-Fi Alliance

92\. Wireless Broadband Operators Coalition

93\. Wireless Internet Service Providers Association

94\. Wireless Unleashed

95\. Yochai Benkler

96\. Zachary C. Miller

**[Reply Comments]{.underline}**

1\. 700 MHz Advancement Coalition

2\. Alan B. Greager

3\. Allcom Communications, Inc.

4\. BPS Networks

5\. Brenda Geaney

6\. Cameron Communications Corporation

7\. Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C.

8\. Community Broadcasters Association

9\. Consumer Electronics Association

10\. Earthlink, Inc.

11\. Information Technology Industry Council

12\. Intel Corporation

13\. KBDI, Channel 12

14\. Kennebec Telephone Company

15\. Land Mobile Communications Council

16\. Lanham Rattan

17\. Motorola, Inc.

18\. NAB and MSTV

19\. NARTE

20\. National Translator Association

21\. New America Foundation, et al.

22\. North Dakota Network Company

23\. OnTarget Technologies, LLC

24\. Pitkin County FM-TV Department

25\. Ponderosa Telephone Company

26\. PVT Networks, Inc.

27\. QUALCOMM Incorporated

28\. Red River Rural Telephone Association

29\. Shared Spectrum Company

30\. Shure Incorporated

31\. Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.

32\. Timothy X. Brown

**APPENDIX B**

**Proposed Rules**

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

1.  The authority citation of Part 15 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544A.

2.  Section 15.209 is revised by amending the footnote to the table in
    paragraph (a) to read as follows:

**§ 15.209 Radiated emission limits, general requirements.**

\(a\) \* \* \*

\*\* Except as provided in paragraph (g), fundamental emissions from
intentional radiators operating under this Section shall not be located
in the frequency bands 54-72 MHz, 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz or 470-806 MHz.
However, operation within these frequency bands is permitted under
Subpart H and under other sections of this Part, e.g., Sections 15.231,
15.241 and 15.242.

\* \* \* \* \*

3.  A new Subpart H is added to read as follows:

Subpart H -- Unlicensed TV Band Devices

**§ 15.701 Scope**

This subpart sets out the regulations for unlicensed TV band devices
operating in the 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz, 512-608 MHz and 614-698 MHz
bands.

**§ 15.703 Definitions.**

\(a\) Available Channel. A radio channel on which a *Channel
Availability Check* has not identified the presence of a signal.

\(b\) Channel Availability Check. A check during which the TV band
device listens on a particular radio channel to identify whether there
is a station operating on that radio channel.

\(c\) Channel Move Time. The time needed by a TV band device to cease
all transmissions on the current channel upon detection of a station
above the DFS detection threshold.

\(d\) Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) is a mechanism that dynamically
detects signals from other systems and avoids co-channel operation with
these systems.

\(e\) DFS Detection Threshold. The required detection level defined by
detecting a received signal strength that is greater than a threshold
specified, within the TV band device channel bandwidth.

\(f\) In-Service Monitoring. A mechanism to check a channel in use by
the TV band device for the presence of a station.

\(g\) Operating Channel. Once a TV band device starts to operate on an
*Available Channel* then that channel becomes the *Operating Channel*.

\(h\) Maximum Conducted Output Power*.* The total transmit power
delivered to all antennas and antenna elements averaged across all
symbols in the signaling alphabet when the transmitter is operating at
its maximum power control level. Power must be summed across all
antennas and antenna elements. The average must not include any time
intervals during which the transmitter is off or is transmitting at a
reduced power level. If multiple modes of operation are possible (e.g.,
alternative modulation methods), the *maximum conducted output power* is
the highest total transmit power occurring in any mode.

\(i\) TV band devices. Intentional radiators operating in the frequency
bands 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz, 470-608 MHz and 614-698 MHz.

**§ 15.705 Cross reference.**

\(a\) The provisions of Subparts A, B, and C of this part apply to
unlicensed TV band devices, except where specific provisions are
contained in subpart H. Manufacturers should note that this includes the
provisions of Sections 15.203 and 15.205.

\(b\) The requirements of subpart H apply only to the radio transmitter
contained in the TV band device. Other aspects of the operation of a TV
band device may be subject to requirements contained elsewhere in this
chapter. In particular, a TV band device that includes digital circuitry
not directly associated with the radio transmitter also is subject to
the requirements for unintentional radiators in subpart B.

**§ 15.707 General technical requirements.**

\(a\) The maximum conducted output power is 1 watt. If a transmitting
antenna of directional gain greater than 6 dBi is used, the peak output
power shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the maximum directional
gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

\(b\) Unwanted emissions shall comply with the following:

\(1\) Unwanted emissions outside the channel of operation must comply
with the general field strength limits set forth in Section 15.209.

\(2\) The provisions of Section 15.205 of this part apply to intentional
radiators operating under this section.

\(3\) Any devices using an AC power line are required to comply with the
conducted limits set forth in Section 15.207.

\(c\) The device shall automatically discontinue transmission in case of
either absence of information to transmit or operational failure. These
provisions are not intended to preclude the transmission of control or
signaling information or the use of repetitive codes used by certain
digital technologies to complete frame or burst intervals. Applicants
shall include in their application for equipment authorization a
description of how this requirement is met.

\(d\) TV band devices are subject to the radio frequency radiation
exposure requirements specified in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and 2.1093 of
this chapter, as appropriate. All equipment shall be considered to
operate in a \"general population/uncontrolled\" environment.
Applications for equipment authorization of devices operating under this
section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these
requirements for both fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions.
Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be
submitted to the Commission upon request.

\(e\) Manufacturers of TV band devices are responsible for ensuring
frequency stability such that an emission is maintained within the band
of operation under all conditions of normal operation as specified in
the user's manual.

\(f\) Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS). TV band devices shall employ a
DFS detection mechanism to detect the presence of authorized stations in
the TV bands and to avoid co-channel operation with them. The detection
threshold is referenced to a 0 dBi gain antenna. The minimum DFS
detection threshold for TV band devices is -116 dBm.

\(i\) Channel Availability Check Time. A TV band device shall check if
there is a station already operating on the channel before it may
initiate a transmission on a channel and when it has to move to a new
channel. The TV band device may start using the channel if no station
with a power level greater than the detection threshold value listed
above is detected within 30 seconds.

\(ii\) In-Service Monitoring. A TV band device shall perform in-service
monitoring at intervals no greater than 10 seconds.

\(iii\) Channel Move Time. After a station's presence is detected, all
transmissions shall cease on the operating channel within 10 seconds.
Transmissions during this period shall consist of normal traffic for a
maximum of 200 ms after detection of the station's signal. In addition,
intermittent management and control signals can be sent during the
remaining time to facilitate vacating the operating channel.

\(g\) Transmit power control (TPC). TV band devices shall employ a TPC
mechanism. The TV band device is required to have the capability to
operate at least 6 dB below the maximum conducted output power limit of
1 watt. A TPC mechanism is not required for devices with a maximum
conducted output power of less than 500 mW.

**APPENDIX C**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

By the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),[^95] the
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities small entities by the policies and
rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice). Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments
on the Notice provided in paragraph 69 of the item. The Commission will
send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^96] In addition,
the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.[^97]

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

1\. This Further Notice would propose to allow low power transmitters to
operate in the TV broadcast bands at locations where spectrum is not
being used by authorized services without causing harmful interference
to these services. The Further Notice seeks comment on whether these TV
band devices should be authorized on a licensed, unlicensed or hybrid
basis.[^98] It would propose to require TV band devices to incorporate
"smart radio" features to detect vacant TV channels and prevent harmful
interference from TV band devices to authorized services operating in
the TV bands. These features would include the abilities to 1) monitor
spectrum prior to transmitting to ensure that it is not in use by
authorized services, 2) switch frequencies or cease transmitting if an
authorized service begins using a previously unused frequency, 3) adjust
transmit power to the minimum needed to establish a link, 4) determine
geographic location and access a database to determine which channels
are in use, and/or 5) receive a control signal and select the operating
frequency based on data in the control signal.

2\. These proposals, if adopted, will prove beneficial to manufacturers
and users of low power transmitters because they will provide for more
efficient and effective use of the TV spectrum and allow the development
of new and innovative types of wireless devices and communication
services for businesses and consumers. The additional frequency bands
where operation is proposed can provide an alternative last mile
solution to cable or DSL services for delivering high speed Internet
services, other data applications, or even video and voice services.
This could particularly benefit underserved, rural, or isolated
communities where cable and DSL services are not available. Also,
because transmissions in the TV band have less signal attenuation
through foliage and walls than frequencies above 900 MHz (such as
unlicensed operations in the 2.4 GHz band), operations in the TV bands
can improve the service range of wireless operations, thereby allowing
operators to reach new customers and improve service to existing
customers.

**B. Legal Basis**

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

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

4\. 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.[^99] The RFA generally
defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms
"small business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction.[^100] In addition, the "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business
Act.[^101] A "small business concern" is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).[^102]

5\. **Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturers**. The Commission has not developed a definition
of small entities applicable to unlicensed communications devices
manufacturers. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition application
to manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications
Equipment. Under the SBA\'s regulations, a Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturer must
have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business
concern.[^103] Census Bureau data indicate that there are 1,215 U.S.
establishments that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and
wireless communications equipment, and that 1,150 of these
establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be classified as
small entities.[^104] The remaining 65 establishments have 500 or more
employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of those have
fewer than 750 employees and, therefore, also qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition. We therefore conclude that there are at least
1,150 small manufacturers of radio and television broadcasting and
wireless communications equipment, and possibly there are more that
operate with more than 500 but fewer than 750 employees.

6\. **Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications**. The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees"[^105] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this
category there were 977 firms that operated for the entire year.[^106]
Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and
an additional twelve firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
more.[^107] Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.

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

7\. Most licensed and unlicensed transmitters are required to be
authorized under the Commission\'s certification procedure as a
prerequisite to marketing and importation, and the proposed new types of
TV band devices would be subject to the same certification requirement.
There are no proposed new recordkeeping or reporting requirements in the
Further Notice. There are a number of proposed compliance requirements
for TV band devices that are described below.

8\. Transmitters capable of operating in the TV bands would have to
incorporate the following features to ensure that they operate on only
vacant TV channels. Specifically, a transmitter would have to
incorporate a dynamic frequency selection (DFS) mechanism to monitor a
TV channel before transmitting. If no signals on a channel were detected
above a specified level within a specified period of time, the device
would be allowed to transmit on that channel. Otherwise, the device
would have to monitor other TV channels to find one that is vacant, or
if no vacant TV channels were available, the device would not be allowed
to transmit. A TV band device would have to periodically monitor the TV
channel on which it transmits during operation, and if any new signals
appear, the device would have to switch to another channel within a
specified period of time or cease transmitting if no vacant channels are
available. A TV band device would also have to incorporate a transmit
power control mechanism to lower the output power by 6 dB (4 times
lower) than the maximum permitted power of one watt if that level is
sufficient to accomplish the desired communications.

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

9\. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives
(among others): "(1) the establishment of differing compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting
requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities."[^108]

10\. If the rules proposed in this notice are adopted, we believe they
might have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. For an entity that chooses to manufacture or import
equipment for the subject bands, the rules would impose costs for
compliance with equipment technical requirements, such as incorporating
a DFS mechanism to detect vacant TV channels where the equipment can
operate. However, the burdens for complying with the proposed rules
would be the same for both large and small entities. Therefore, no
disproportionate burden of compliance would be sustained by small
entities. Further, the proposals in this Notice are ultimately
beneficial for both large and small entities because they will provide
for more efficient and effective use of the TV spectrum and allow the
development of new and innovative types of wireless devices and
communication services for businesses and consumers. Also, because
transmissions in the TV band are subject to less propagation attenuation
than transmissions in other bands where lower power operations are
permitted (such as unlicensed operations in the 2.4 GHz band),
operations in the TV bands can improve the service range of wireless
operations, thereby allowing operators to reach new customers.

11\. The Further Notice seeks comment on alternatives to the proposed
DFS mechanism for detecting vacant TV channels. Specifically, it seeks
additional comment on how to implement the geo-location/database and
control signal approaches for identifying vacant TV channels that was
proposed in the original Notice in this proceeding. The
geo-location/database method would require that a TV band device
incorporate a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver or be
professionally installed to determine its location, and that the device
would have to access a database to identify vacant channels at its
location. The control signal approach would require that a TV band
device operate only when it receives a control signal from a source such
as an FM or TV station that identifies the vacant TV channels that could
be used by the device in that particular area. We cannot find electrical
engineering alternatives, such as exemptions from the requirements to
include certain interference avoidance mechanisms into TV band devices
that would achieve our goals while treating small entities differently.
Nonetheless, we solicit comment on any alternatives commenters may wish
to suggest for the purpose of facilitating the Commission\'s intention
to minimize the compliance burden on smaller entities. As described
above, the compliance burdens would include incorporating certain
features into TV band devices to prevent interference to authorized
services, such as DFS, transmit power control, geo-location/database
access and/or the ability to receive and respond to a control signal.

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

None.

**APPENDIX D**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification**

*Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification.* The Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)[^109] requires that a regulatory
flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the
agency certifies that \"the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.\"[^110] The RFA
generally defines \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
governmental jurisdiction.\"[^111] In addition, the term \"small
business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\"
under the Small Business Act.[^112] A small business concern is one
which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^113]

In this First Report and Order, the Commission decides to allow low
power fixed devices to operate on unused spectrum on TV channels 5-13,
and 21-51, excluding channel 37. Operation will not be permitted prior
to further action by the Commission to develop technical rules that
allow devices to operate on those channels without causing interference.
Because the Report and Order does not adopt any rules or other
compliance requirements, we certify that the actions in this First
Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of
the First Report and Order including a copy of this final certification,
in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). In
addition, the First Report and Order and this certification will be sent
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration,
and will be published in the Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

**STATEMENT OF\
CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

Re: Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands; Additional Spectrum
for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, *First
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*

Today, we take the next step in making unused broadcast spectrum
available for new and innovative uses. Allowing low power wireless
devices to operate in unused portions of the television bands could be
an efficient and effective use of this unused spectrum.

In the past, I have expressed that our first priority is furthering the
digital transition and minimizing the burden on viewers. Allowing the
use of low power devices immediately could impede the progress of the
DTV transition. The TV bands have been generally congested during the
transition with TV stations operating on two channels each -- an analog
and a digital channel. Moreover, the final DTV channel selection and
assignment process is still ongoing, which makes it more difficult to
assess the amount of white space that might ultimately be available. Now
that Congress has established a "hard date" for the DTV transition,
however, the Commission should resolve outstanding technical issues so
that low power devices designed to operate on unused TV frequencies may
be placed on the market with the completion of the DTV transition.

**STATEMENT OF\
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

Re: Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, Additional Spectrum
for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, *First
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*

I am very pleased to approve this item. It is an important step towards
enabling a new generation of wireless devices that will enlarge
broadband opportunities in cities and rural areas across the nation. For
some time, I have hoped the Commission would move forward to enable this
exciting new technology, so it is very encouraging that we are doing so
today.

As my colleagues have heard me say, I am of the strong belief that our
country is in the midst of a broadband crisis stemming from a lack of
build-out in many areas and from grossly inadequate competitive choices
in the rest. To take just one example, the International
Telecommunications Union has concluded that our nation is 15^th^ in the
world in broadband penetration, and 21^st^ in terms of "digital
opportunity" (which measures additional factors like wireless
technologies and broadband price). I think that the use of the TV white
spaces is one of the truly promising opportunities before us in the near
term to remedy this grave situation. And make no mistake about it -- it
is a ***very*** grave situation. There is simply no way that our country
can remain in the forefront of the global economy without developing a
broadband infrastructure that is up to the task.

The need for new broadband options is especially pressing in rural and
high-cost areas, which may eventually be the greatest beneficiaries of
white space technology. We must bring every part of this great nation
with us as we move into the Digital Age. It is not just the right thing
to do; it is an enlightened investment in our future that I am certain
will pay for itself many times over.

So I am excited that we move forward today to embrace this promising
technology. But we should not lose sight of the fact that many difficult
choices remain before us as we approach the upcoming DTV transition
date, when consumers and wireless ISPs can first begin to take advantage
of these new broadband devices:

To begin with, we must develop technical standards that will maximize
use of the TV white spaces while at the same time preventing
inappropriate interference with free, over-the-air broadcasting. As with
so much of the Commission's work, the devil is in the details. I will be
watching closely to make sure that we strike the appropriate balance
between innovation and caution.

Then there is the question of whether the white spaces should be used on
a licensed or unlicensed basis. The Commission's assumption has always
been unlicensed -- indeed, the caption of our 2004 NPRM (and today's
item) is "Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands." I have long
supported freeing up additional unlicensed spectrum. In many contexts --
as with the enormously successful bands that support today's Wi-Fi
networks -- unlicensed uses most closely approach the ideal of the
***people's airwaves*,** to be used in direct service of the public
interest. With our recent AWS auction and the upcoming 700 MHz auction,
we are opening up a huge swath of prime spectrum to *licensed* use --
and it seems to me, on the present record, that the appropriate balance
is to open up the TV white spaces to *unlicensed* use. So while I am
more than happy to give careful consideration to comments from those who
favor licensed use of the white spaces, I would have preferred that
today's item announce a rebuttable presumption in favor of unlicensed
use. I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to
innovators, entrepreneurs and the American people.

The final question is whether and how to permit operation on TV channels
14-20, which are used in some states for public safety operations. I
would never approve any operation in the white spaces that would
compromise public safety. But at the same time, if it is technically
feasible to use these channels for broadband in places where public
safety officials do not use them, I think we ought to investigate such
uses. I appreciate the Chairman's and my colleagues' willingness to work
with me on the portions of this item that ensure the Commission will
move forward to develop a full record on this issue. This keeps alive
the encouraging possibility that one day these channels can be used to
provide broadband in the large portions of the country where they are
not being used by public safety operators.

I want to conclude by applauding the Office of Engineering and
Technology for their great work on this item and thanking them in
advance for continuing to work on the testing and technical rules stages
of this process.

**STATEMENT OF\
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

Re: Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands; Additional Spectrum
for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band; *First
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule making*

I am pleased to support this decision that takes an important first step
towards allowing unlicensed, low-power devices to operate in unused
broadcast television spectrum bands. While our item is a conservative
one, I think it strikes the right balance by promoting the development
of new technologies while ensuring that over-the-air television is not
subject to harmful interference.

The unlicensed, Wi-Fi movement has been one of the great
telecommunications success stories over the past several years by
enabling American consumers to offer and receive broadband services at
the most local levels. Wherever I travel, I hear the calls for more
unlicensed spectrum from operators who need more capacity to drive
broadband deployment deeper and farther into all corners of the country.
In this item, we are rightly exploring the latest and most exciting
cognitive radio and spectrum sensing technologies that are available to
see how they can enable spectrum facilitation in the television bands.
Of course, broadcasters have used the public spectrum for many years to
serve rural and urban areas alike in providing news, civic information,
education and entertainment. I fully support our request for comment on
how best to ensure that harmful interference is not caused by the
operation of unlicensed devices. The American people care a lot about
the quality of their television reception. We will hear an earful from
consumers if this is not done right.

I am particularly pleased with our decision today to allow channels
14-20 and 2-4 to remain "on the table" for further testing to determine
their suitability for possible unlicensed services in the future. Of
course, our priority in evaluating this spectrum will be to protect
existing operations in the bands, particularly public safety services
that are licensed on channels 14-20 in thirteen major markets. So I
support our decision to limit our inquiry with respect to these seven
channels to fixed devices only. But I think the potential use of this
spectrum for fixed wireless broadband services in rural areas is too
great to take the spectrum completely out of consideration at this time,
particularly as channels 14-20 are not in use across most of the
country. So I want to thank my colleagues for agreeing to changes to the
item that allow us to keep this spectrum "in play" pending the results
of future tests.

Finally, while the item does provide a balanced view of the benefits and
challenges of unlicensed versus licensed operations in the white spaces
bands, I want to specifically express my preference for use of this
spectrum on an unlicensed basis. Unlicensed services, with their low
barriers to entry, present such a great opportunity for the deployment
of broadband offerings in communities across the country no matter their
size or financial status. Considering the favorable propagation
characteristics for wireless broadband services in the 700 MHz band and
the important obligation to protect existing television operations from
harmful interference, I believe that unlicensed operations present the
best use of the spectrum for this country.

**STATEMENT OF\
COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

> Re: Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands; Additional
> Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band,
> *First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*

Today, we take a number of important first steps towards allowing the
introduction of new low power devices to operate on unused broadcast
television channels/frequencies not being used for authorized services.
Hopefully, this plan will provide for more efficient and effective use
of the TV spectrum and will significantly benefit the public, especially
those Americans in rural areas, by allowing the development of new and
innovative types of devices and services for businesses and consumers.

**STATEMENT OF\
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

RE: Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, Additional Spectrum
for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, *First
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*

I am excited about this item because it starts a chain of events that
will lead to an explosion of entrepreneurial brilliance. I am also
delighted that it provides tremendous opportunities for further
unlicensed use of these slices of the spectrum. Like my fellow
commissioners, I am committed to ensuring that the Commission takes
advantage of all opportunities to spur technological innovation and
increased access to broadband services. Additionally, I believe that
permitting entrepreneurs to operate in the TV bands will benefit
manufacturers, service providers and consumers by fostering the
development of new delivery platforms and enhancing the range of
existing platforms. At the end of this process, I am confident that the
American economy will be strengthened and American consumers will reap
the rewards.

I thank the Chairman for his strong leadership in handling the multiple
conflicting interests at issue here in a deliberate, thoughtful manner.
I am delighted that the Commission has laid down a timetable that will
help ensure that consumer products will be available for sale at the
conclusion of the DTV transition in February 2009. In the interim, we
are proceeding mindful of the need to protect from harmful interference
not only broadcasters, but all authorized commercial and public safety
entities that operate in the TV bands as well. In this regard, I also
want to thank the OET staff for their diligence and acknowledge the
challenging work that faces them. I am pleased that the Commission's
in-house experts will undertake a rigorous testing program, to include
DTV converter boxes (once they become available), in order to quantify
and analyze potential interference from unlicensed devices operating in
the TV bands.

Given that we have a deadline, I look forward to working closely with my
colleagues and all stakeholders to ensure that the process to make more
efficient and effective use of the TV spectrum proceeds smoothly.

[^1]: The TV broadcast bands that are the subject of this proceeding
    include the following portions of the VHF and UHF radio spectrum:
    54-72 MHz, 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz and 470-806 MHz.

[^2]: As defined in Section 2.1(c) of the Commission's rules and the
    international radio regulations, harmful interference is
    "interference which ... seriously degrades, obstructs, of repeatedly
    interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with
    these \[international\] Radio Regulations. (RR)." *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    2.1(c).

[^3]: *See* *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in ET Docket Nos. 02-380
    and 04-186, 19 FCC Rcd 10018 (2004).

[^4]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 15.

[^5]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.5.

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.205 and 15.209. Remote control and medical
    telemetry devices are the only unlicensed transmitters that are
    currently permitted to operate in the TV bands. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§
    15.231, 15.241 and 15.242.

[^7]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.603(a).

[^8]: Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing
    Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket 87-268, *Sixth Report and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 14588 (1997).

[^9]: The analog and digital channels currently used by full service TV
    stations are set forth in Sections 73.606 and 73.622 of the rules,
    respectively, *see* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.606 and 73.622. In developing
    the initial table of allotments for digital TV stations, the
    channels were selected to minimize or prevent interference between
    digital stations and between analog and digital stations. Request
    for modification of stations on channels in the initial (1998) DTV
    Table of Allotments are evaluated for technical acceptability using
    minimum desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratios, *see* 47 C.F.R. §
    73.623(c). New digital allotments added after the initial digital TV
    Table of Allotments must meet minimum separation distances to both
    digital and analog TV stations, *see* 47 C.F.R. § 73.623(d).

[^10]: See Title III of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L.
    109--171, 120 Stat. 4, 21 (Feb. 8, 2006).

[^11]: *See* *First Report and Order* in WT Docket No. 99-168, 15 FCC
    Rcd 476 (2000), *Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 97-157, 12 FCC
    Rcd 22953 (1998) and *Report and Order* in GN Docket No. 01-74, 17
    FCC Fcd 1022 (2002).

[^12]: *See supra* footnote 7. The separations differ depending on the
    zone where the stations are located and whether the stations are in
    the VHF or UHF band.

[^13]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § Part 73 Subpart J. Class A TV stations operate
    at the power levels permitted for low power television stations
    under Part 74 of the rules, but have certain protection rights with
    respect to full service analog and digital TV stations not available
    to TV translator and low power stations.

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 74 Subpart G.

[^15]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.602(h). This section permits TV
    studio-transmitter links, TV relay stations and TV translator relay
    stations to be authorized to operate fixed point-to-point service on
    UHF TV channels 14-69 on a secondary basis, subject to the
    provisions in subpart G of Part 74.

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.861.

[^17]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.231, 15.241 and 15.242. Effective October
    16, 2002, the Commission ceased granting certification for new
    medical telemetry equipment that operates on TV channels, but there
    is no cutoff on the sale or use of equipment that was certified
    before that date. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.37(i). To provide spectrum
    for wireless medical telemetry equipment, the Commission established
    the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service to operate on a primary basis
    in 14 megahertz of spectrum in three blocks at 608-614 MHz (TV
    channel 37, which the WMTS now shares with radioastronomy),
    1395-1499 MHz, and 1429-1432 MHz, *see* *Report and Order* in ET
    Docket No. 99-255, 15 FCC Rcd 11206 (2000).

[^18]: *See Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in ET Docket Nos. 02-380 and
    04-186, 19 FCC Rcd 10018 (2004).

[^19]: For example, *see* National Cable and Telecommunications
    Association reply comments at 4, NAB/MSTV reply comments at 6,
    Society of Broadcast Engineers reply comments at 1, Community
    Broadcasters Association reply comments at 3, National Translator
    Association comments at 1, Entravision Holdings comments at 2,
    Southwest Colorado TV Translator Association comments at 1, Syncom
    Media Group comments at 1, Cox Broadcasting comments at 8, Pappas
    Telecasting comments at 8, and Region 1 Translator Association
    comments at 2.

[^20]: *See* NAB and MSTV reply comments at 14, Consumer Electronics
    Association comments at 10, and National Cable and
    Telecommunications Association comments at 5.

[^21]: For example, *see* Pikes Peak Broadcasting Company comments at 1,
    NPG of Oregon, Inc. comments at 1, Association of Public Television
    Stations comments at 3, Pappas Telecasting Companies comments at 6,
    Cox Broadcasting, Inc. comments at 4, Entravision Holdings comments
    at 7, NAB and MSTV comments at 3, Qualcomm comments at 7, and Shure
    reply comments at 26.

[^22]: *See* NAB and MSTV comments at 24, National Translator
    Association comments at 4, Entravision Holdings comments at 7, Cox
    Broadcasting comments at 4, Community Broadcasters Association
    comments at 7, Region 1 Translator Association comments at 2, Paul
    Burkholder comments at 2, and Pikes Peak Broadcasting comments at 1.

[^23]: For example, *see* Shure comments at 9, Telex Communications
    comments at 2, ATK Audiotek comments at 2, Michael Mason comments at
    2, Total RF Marketing comments at 6, Society of Broadcast Engineers
    at 2, Sennheiser Electronic Corporation comments at 2, National
    Systems Contractors Association comments at 3, and Profession Audio
    Manufacturers' Alliance comments at 3.

[^24]: *See* Motorola reply comments at 4, Land Mobile Communication
    Council reply comments at 3, Industrial Telecommunications
    Association comments at 1, County of Los Angeles comments at 2, and
    Association of Public Safety Communications Officials comments at 3.

[^25]: *See* Intel comments at 2, Microsoft comments at 3, CEA reply
    comments at 3, Motorola comments at 1,TIA comments at 4, IEEE 802
    comments at 4, New America Foundation comments at 1, and Wireless
    Internet Service Provider's Association (WISPA) comments at 4.

[^26]: *See* IEEE announcement dated October 12, 2004 at
    <http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/pr_80222.html>.

[^27]: IEEE 802.22 participants include Qualcomm, Motorola, Phillips,
    Shure, and MSTV.

[^28]: The TV stations entitled to protection from unlicensed devices
    include full power, Class A, low power and TV translator stations,
    licensed now or in the future. The Further Notice seeks comment on
    what interference protections should be used if we allow licensed
    low power TV band devices (*see infra* para. 31).

[^29]: *See Notice* at 10026.

[^30]: *See* Intel comments at 6, Intel reply comments at Appendix A and
    Adaptrum comments at 20. *See supra* para. 5.

[^31]: *See* Intel comments at Appendix A, Shared Spectrum Company
    comments at Appendix, IEEE 802 comments at 12 and Adaptrum comments
    at 20.

[^32]: *See* Shure comments at 48.

[^33]: *See Notice* at 10026.

[^34]: *See* Telecommunication Industry Association comments at 4,
    National Academy of Sciences comments at 5 and 10, and National
    Radio Astronomy Observatory comments at 5.

[^35]: *See* Motorola reply comments at 4, Land Mobile Communication
    Council reply comments at 3, Industrial Telecommunications
    Association comments at 1, County of Los Angeles comments at 2, and
    Association of Public Safety Communications Officials comments at 3.

[^36]: *See* County of Los Angeles comments at 2, Industrial
    Telecommunications Association comments at 2, and Association of
    Public Safety Communications Officials comments at 2.

[^37]: The Commission may find it appropriate to revisit this conclusion
    in the future as it develops familiarity with the technical
    challenges of operating in the white spaces.

[^38]: Some TV stations have voluntarily ceased broadcasting their
    analog signal. Also, full service TV stations that were first
    authorized after 1997 were assigned only a single channel.

[^39]: For example, *see* Pikes Peak Broadcasting Company comments at 1,
    NPG of Oregon, Inc. comments at 1, Association of Public Television
    Stations comments at 3, Pappas Telecasting Companies comments at 6,
    Cox Broadcasting, Inc. comments at 4, Entravision Holdings comments
    at 7, NAB and MSTV comments at 3, Qualcomm comments at 7, and Shure
    reply comments at 26.

[^40]: The Commission will consider all information on the record in
    developing final rules, including comments filed in response to all
    of the proposals and issues raised in the *Notice*.

[^41]: See Notice at 10031, 10032.

[^42]: *See Notice* at 10026.

[^43]: *Id*.

[^44]: *Id.*

[^45]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.5.

[^46]: *See* NAB and MSTV comments at 24, National Translator
    Association comments at 4, Entravision Holdings comments at 7,
    Qualcomm comments at 11, Cox Broadcasting comments at 4, Community
    Broadcasters Association comments at 7, Region 1 Translator
    Association comments at 2, Paul Burkholder comments at 2, and Pikes
    Peak Broadcasting comments at 1.

[^47]: *See* Qualcomm comments at 11 and reply comments at 9.

[^48]: If we decide to adopt a licensing regime under which we would
    receive mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses in the
    TV band white space, we would be required under section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act to resolve such applications by competitive
    bidding. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j); Implementation of Sections 309(j)
    and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended, Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No.
    99-87, 15 FCC Rcd 22709 (1999) (establishing the analytical
    framework for the Commission's exercise of its auction authority).

[^49]: *See* IEEE 802 comments at 6 and 12, Motorola comments at 15,
    Tropos Networks comments at 5, CWLab comments at 3-4, Microsoft
    Corporation comments at 12-13, Wi-fi Alliance comments at 4, Intel
    Corporation comments at 15, Michael J. Marcus comments at 6, and
    Shared Spectrum reply comments at 7.

[^50]: The U-NII spectrum sensing requirements are set forth in Section
    15.407(h) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. § 15.407(h).

[^51]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.407(h)(2).

[^52]: *See* Shared Spectrum Company reply comments at 7 and Adaptrum
    comments at 20.

[^53]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.407(h)(2).

[^54]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.407(h)(1).

[^55]: The U-NII definitions for "master" and "client" are in the U-NII
    compliance measurement procedures. *See Memorandum Opinion and
    Order* in ET Docket No. 03-122, 21 FCC Rcd 7672, 7682 (2006).

[^56]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.247(a).

[^57]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.31.

[^58]: *See* NAB and MSTV comments at 13, IEEE 802 comments at 8, and
    Syncom Media Group comments at 1

[^59]: *See* Motorola comments at 8, Microsoft comments at 9, Itron
    comments at 9, Harris Corporation comments at 6, and Intel comments
    at 19.

[^60]: *See* NAB and MSTV comments at 14, IEEE 802 comments at 8, and
    Society of Broadcast Engineers comments at 3.

[^61]: *See* National Translator Association comments at 1, Entravision
    Holdings comments at 2, Syncom Media Group comments at 1, Community
    Broadcasters Association at 5, Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C.
    comments at 4, and Pikes Peak Broadcasting Company comments at 1.

[^62]: *See Public Notice OET Announces United Telecom Council to Serve
    as Database Manager for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems;
    Sets Deadline for Information Submissions*, DA 05-2701, 20 FCC Rcd
    16289 (2005). The Commission required the BPL industry to establish
    a centralized publicly accessible Access BPL notification database
    with the database manager chosen by the BPL industry. The purpose of
    this database is to ensure that the location of Access BPL systems
    and their operating characteristics can be identified if harmful
    interference occurs and to facilitate the activation of interference
    mitigation and avoidance measures. The database includes the name of
    the BPL provider, frequencies of operation, ZIP codes served by the
    operation, type of equipment used, operator contact information, and
    dates of BPL system operation. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.615.

[^63]: *See Order* in ET Docket No. 99-255, 16 FCC Rcd 4543 (2001),
    which designated ASHE/AHA as the frequency coordinator for the WMTS.
    The Commission's rules require users of WMTS devices to register
    these devices with a designated frequency coordinator. The frequency
    coordinator maintains a database of these devices and uses the
    registration information to notify WMTS users of potential
    conflicts, coordinate WMTS operations with radio astronomy
    observatories and Federal Government Radar systems, and notify users
    of the need to comply with field strength limits in Part 90 or Part
    27 if appropriate. The Commission's rules specify the information
    that must be included in the WMTS transmitter database, including
    frequencies used, modulation scheme, effective radiated power,
    number of transmitters in use, user name, transmitter location, and
    user contact information. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 95.1111 and 95.1113.

[^64]: Assisted GPS is used by CMRS licensees to acquire GPS signals in
    obstructed and indoor locations for complying with Enhanced 911
    (E911) requirements. In an Assisted GPS system, the base station
    contains a GPS receiver which has an unobstructed view of the GPS
    satellites. The base station transmits data to the mobile unit that
    allows it to better correlate the signal being received from the
    satellite when the signal strength is low. Assisted GPS can result
    in greatly improved GPS receiver sensitivity and a more rapid
    determination of position.

[^65]: *See* NAB and MSTV comments at 14 and Pappas Telecasting Comments
    at 11.

[^66]: *See* Tropos Networks comments at 5, Wireless Unleashed comments
    at 15, Raymond D. Merrideth Jr. comments at 1, Zachary C. Miller
    comments at 1, and Yoachi Benkler comments at 1.

[^67]: *See* Microsoft Corporation comments at 13, and Wireless
    Unleashed comments at 15.

[^68]: *See* Metropolitan Area Networks comments.

[^69]: *See Notice* at 10035.

[^70]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.305. Base stations may not be located more
    than 50 miles from the specified geographic coordinates, and mobile
    stations must be within 30 miles of their associated base station.

[^71]: The Telecommunications Industry Association supports excluding
    channels 2-4, while the New America Foundation and Microsoft believe
    unlicensed operation should be permitted on those channels. *See*
    Telecommunication Industry Association comments at 4, New America
    Foundation comments at 10 and Microsoft comments at 19.

[^72]: *See Notice* at 10019.

[^73]: *See Notice* at 10029.

[^74]: *See Notice* at 10026.

[^75]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.209.

[^76]: The limits for unintentional radiators are in Section 15.109.

[^77]: *See* Motorola comments at Appendix A and NAB and MSTV reply
    comments at 12.

[^78]: *See* Intel reply comments at 11.

[^79]: *See* Microsoft comments at 27.

[^80]: *See* Microsoft comments at 27. Only spurious emissions are
    permitted in designated restricted bands of operation, and these
    emissions must comply with the limits in Section 15.209. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 15.205.

[^81]: The radiated emission limits for unintentional radiators such as
    computers and TV receivers are specified in Section 15.109, but are
    the same at the Section 15.209 limits at frequencies above 30 MHz.

[^82]: An unlicensed TV band transmitter operating at the limits
    proposed herein, 1 watt of power into an antenna with a gain of 6
    dBi, would produce a field strength of 4,472 millivolts per meter at
    a distance of three meters. If the out-of-band emissions were
    required to be attenuated by 20 dB (a factor of ten), then the
    maximum permitted out-of-band emission level would be 447.2
    millivolts per meter (447,200 microvolts per meter) at a distance of
    three meters. This level would be over 2000 times higher than the
    Section 15.209 limit at UHF TV frequencies (200 microvolts per meter
    at a distance of three meters), and over 4000 times higher than the
    Section 15.209 limit at low VHF TV frequencies (100 microvolts per
    meter at a distance of three meters).

[^83]: We expect that the same out-of-band emission limits would be
    appropriate if the Commission were to adopt a licensed approach for
    TV band devices. In such case, the out-of-band emission limits would
    be specified in the appropriate rule part rather than Part 15.

[^84]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.35(a). CISPR is an acronym for the French
    name for the Special International Committee on Radio Interference.

[^85]: *See* NAB and MSTV reply comments at 14, Consumer Electronics
    Association reply comments at 6, Consumer Electronics Association
    comments at 10, and National Cable and Telecommunications
    Association comments at 5.

[^86]: *See* NAB and MSTV reply comments at 10, Qualcomm reply comments
    at 6

[^87]: *See* Intel comments at 14.

[^88]: The requirement to certify unlicensed transmitters is in Section
    15.201(b) of the rules, and the requirements concerning TCBs are in
    Section 2.960 of the rules. The authorization requirements for
    transmitters used in licensed services are in the applicable rules
    for each service.

[^89]: *See Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 98-68, 13 FCC Rcd 24687
    (1999).

[^90]: *Id.*

[^91]: *See First Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 00-47, 16 FCC Rcd
    17373 (2001).

[^92]: *See* *Working Arrangement for Allotment and Assignment of VHF
    and UHF Television Broadcasting Channels under the Agreement between
    the Government of the United States of America and the Government of
    Canada Relating to the TV Broadcasting Service,* dated March 1,
    1989. This agreement is available on the Commission's web site at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-bc/can-tv.pdf>.

[^93]: *See Agreement Amending the Agreement Relating to Assignments and
    Usage of Television Broadcasting Channels in the Frequency Range
    470-806 MHz (Channels 14-69) along the United States-Mexico Border,*
    dated November 21, 1988. This agreement is available on the
    Commission's web site at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/mex-bc/lpuhfbc.pdf>. *See*
    also the untitled amendment to the United States-Mexican agreement
    on VHF stations dated September 14-26, 1988, available on the
    Commission's web site at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/mex-bc/lpvhfbc.pdf>. The
    agreements may require coordination at greater distances from the
    border depending on the ERP and HAAT of the LPTV station. The
    distances we specify are the minimums specified in the agreements
    because those distances would apply to a station with the proposed
    maximum unlicensed device power of 1 watt into a 6 dBi gain antenna
    (2.43 watts ERP).

[^94]: *See* New America Foundation comments at 13 and Microsoft
    comments at 28.

[^95]: ^ ?^ *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).

[^96]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^97]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^98]: Licensed operation requires the operator to obtain an
    authorization issued by the Commission to use a particular frequency
    band. Unlicensed operation may be done without a prior authorization
    from the Commission. Hybrid operation would be some mix of these two
    approaches but is not specifically defined in the Further Notice.

[^99]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^100]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^101]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^102]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^103]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^104]: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series -
    Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
    Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9 (1999). The
    amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number of small
    business firms because the relevant Census categories stopped at 499
    employees and began at 500 employees. No category for 750 employees
    existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to
    calculate with the available information.

[^105]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^106]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal
    Income Tax:  1997, NAICS code 513322 (issued October 2000).

[^107]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal
    Income Tax:  1997, NAICS code 513322 (issued October 2000).  The
    census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of
    firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest
    category provided is "Firms with 1000 employees or more."

[^108]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -- (c)(4).

[^109]: *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).

[^110]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^111]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^112]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. S §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies \"unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register.\"

[^113]: Small Business Act, § 15 U.S.C. S 632.