Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 57557

(c) Tolerances with regional

registrations. [Reserved]

(d) Indirect or inadvertant residues.

[Reserved]

[FR Doc. 00–24576 Filed 9–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket 99–231; FCC 00–312]

Spread Spectrum Devices

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

Commission’s rules for frequency

hopping spread spectrum devices in the

2.4 GHz band (2400–2483.5 MHz). The

rules were amended to allow frequency

hopping spread spectrum transmitters

operating in the band to use a minimum

of 15 hopping channels, spanning a total

of 75 MHz. The new rules will allow for

hopping channels up to 5 MHz wide.

The wider bandwidths will permit these

systems to provide higher data speeds,

thereby enabling the development of

new and improved consumer products

such as wireless computer local area

networks and wireless cable modems.

DATES: Effective September 25, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neal

L. McNeil, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 418–2408, TTY (202)

418–2989, e-mail: nmcneil@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s First

Report and Order, ET Docket 99–231,

FCC 00–312 adopted August 24, 2000

and released August 31, 2000. The full

text of this document is available for

inspection and copying during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, (Room CY–A257) 445 12th

Street SW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this document also may

be purchased from the Commission’s

duplication contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.

Summary of Report and Order

1. The First Report and Order

(‘‘R&O’’) amends the Commission’s

rules for frequency hopping spread

spectrum devices in the 2.4 GHz band

(2400–2483.5 MHz). The rules were

amended to allow frequency hopping

spread spectrum transmitters operating

in the band to use a minimum of 15

hopping channels, spanning a total of 75

MHz. The new rules will allow for

hopping channels up to 5 MHz wide.

The wider bandwidths will permit these

systems to provide higher data speeds,

thereby enabling the development of

new and improved consumer products

such as wireless computer local area

networks and wireless cable modems.

2. The Commission initiated a Notice

of Proposed Rule Making (‘‘Notice’’), 64

FR 38877, July 20, 1999, in this

proceeding in response to a letter filed

by the Home RF Working Group (‘‘Home

RF’’) requesting that part 15 spread

spectrum systems operating in the 2.4

GHz band be permitted to use

bandwidths of up to 5 MHz. The Notice

proposed rule changes consistent with

the request of the Home RF Working

Group. Specifically, the Notice

proposed to allow systems to operate

with bandwidths of up to 3 MHz or 5

MHz in the 2.4 GHz band. Under the

proposal, the systems would utilize 75

hopping channels. Output power would

be reduced in proportion to the increase

in bandwidth over 1 MHz. For example,

systems with 3 MHz bandwidths would

operate with output power of no more

than 320 mW and channel occupancy

time no greater than 0.05 second per

hop. Each of the 75 channels would be

used at least once during a 3.75 second

period. Like existing 1 MHz systems, the

average time of occupancy on any

channel would not be greater than 0.4

second within a 30 second period.

Under the proposal, systems using 5

MHz bandwidths would operate with

output power of no more than 200 mW

and channel occupancy time of no

greater than 0.02 second per hop. Each

of the 75 hopping channels would be

used at least once during a 1.5 second

period. Again, the average occupancy

time on any channel would remain 0.4

second or less per 30 second period.

3. Opponents of the proposed rules

expressed a number of concerns. For

example, the Wireless Ethernet

Compatibility Alliance (‘‘WECA’’) filed

comments October 14, 1999, asserting

that devices operating under the

proposed new rules will not be able to

achieve the claimed higher data rates

because they will be more prone to

multipath and interference problems.

The opponents therefore assert the

Home RF proposal will have little or no

public benefit. The opponents are

concerned that, under the Notice, wide

band frequency hopping systems could

use overlapping hopping channels.

Intersil and Lucent submitted technical

analyses and test data claiming to show

that interference from partially

overlapping channels is more

detrimental to frequency hopping

systems than the first-adjacent or cochannel interference. According to

Intersil, wide band frequency hopping

systems employing overlapping

channels will experience a greater level

of mutual interference than existing

systems that use 1 MHz bandwidths. To

compensate, they assert that the systems

would likely resort to multiple

retransmissions, with the net effect that

wide bandwidth systems will transmit

continuously and totally occupy the

2400–2483 MHz band to the exclusion

of other devices. Silicon Wave supports

Intersil’s findings. Several parties state

that the Home RF proposal will cause

interference to devices under

development by Bluetooth, a crossindustry group formed to establish

industry-wide specifications for

unlicensed wireless voice and data

communications devices operating in

the 2.4 GHz band

4. WECA and other opponents of the

Home RF proposal offer several

proposals as a compromise to reduce the

potential for interference to other part

15 devices. They maintain that the

output power should be reduced much

further than the proposed 200

milliwatts. Several members of WECA

offer a compromise that would limit the

bandwidth of wide band frequency

hopping spread spectrum systems to 4

MHz, establish a minimum of 20

hopping channels, and restrict the

output power to 65 milliwatts. WECA

asserts that this proposal would be

consistent with European standard ETS

300 328. The ETS 300 328 standard

permits frequency hopping systems in

the 2.4 GHz band to use at least 20 nonoverlapping hopping channels, each

with up to 4 MHz bandwidth, and up to

100 mW effective radiated power, or 61

mW transmitter output power based on

an assumed antenna gain of 1.64. WECA

notes that, in a previous proceeding

where the Commission reduced the

number of required hops for spread

spectrum devices operating in the 915

MHz band, the output power was

reduced in proportion to the square in

the number of hopping frequencies. For

a system using a 4 MHz bandwidth the

number of hopping channels would be

reduced by a factor of approximately 4

(from 75 to 20 channels), and the output

power would need to be reduced by a

factor of 16 (from 1 watt to 60 mW).

WECA also suggests two additional

requirements. First, WECA proposes to

require interference rejection tests for

receivers in frequency hopping systems

having channel widths greater than 1

MHz. WECA states that the test is

necessary to ensure that receiver

performance is adequate to minimize

the need to retransmit packets, which,

57558 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq., has been amended by the Contract With

America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law

104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of

the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

2See ET Docket 99–231, FCC 99–149, 64 FR

38877, July 20, 1999.

3Thus, we could certify that an analysis is not

required. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

4See 5 U.S.C. 604.

in turn, will minimize interference to

other devices. Second, WECA suggests

that the Commission place a maximum

limit of 100 hops/sec for frequency

hopping systems using bandwidths

greater than 1 MHz.

As justification, WECA argues that

parties on both sides of the debate have

acknowledged that increasing the

hopping rate also increases interference.

However, WECA concedes that in some

cases faster hopping is necessary and

desirable for 1 MHz systems. Therefore,

WECA does not propose maximum

hopping rate restrictions for systems

using 1 MHz channels.

5. In response to the opposition,

supporters of the Notice offer

suggestions for accommodating wider

bandwidths without overlapping

channels. In an ex parte filing received

March 23, 2000, Proxim Inc. proposes to

allow manufacturers to use 3 MHz or 5

MHz wide, non-overlapping hopping

channels. The total number of channels

used would span at least 75 MHz.

Output power for systems using 3 MHz

and 5 MHz wide channels would

remain 320 mW and 200 mW,

respectively, as originally proposed in

the Notice. Under the Proxim proposal,

the average time of occupancy on any

hopping channel would be limited to

0.4 seconds within a 30 second period

or a period of 30 seconds divided by the

20 dB channel bandwidth, whichever is

less.

6. We find that the record supports

rule changes that will permit wider

bandwidths for frequency hopping

spread spectrum systems. We reject the

argument that such rule changes will

have little or no benefit. We note that

numerous parties filed comments

indicating that the proposed rule

changes would permit the introduction

of a wide array of new and improved

devices. We have no reason to doubt

these claims. We anticipate that any

technical constraints to higher data

speeds using wider bandwidths can be

overcome by appropriate equipment

design. We also agree that rule changes

to permit wide band frequency hopping

systems will encourage competition

with direct sequence technology, to the

benefit of consumers.

7. We believe it is appropriate to

adopt rules that represent a reasonable

engineering compromise between the

risks of increased interference and the

desire to accommodate new

technologies. We are concerned about

the comments submitted by the

opponents regarding the interference

potential of overlapping frequency

hopping channels. Intersil’s technical

analysis presents compelling arguments

why overlapping channels should not

be allowed. Supporters of the Notice

submitted modified proposals which

would eliminate the use of overlapping

channels. In light of this concession, we

will amend our rules to allow frequency

hopping systems in the 2.4 GHz band to

operate with at least 15 channels. The

channels must be separated by at least

their 20 dB bandwidths and may never

overlap. The total span of channels shall

be at least 75 MHz. We will also require

that systems have a greater output

power reduction than that proposed in

the Notice. In order to reduce any

potential impact on existing unlicensed

devices, we will limit transmitter output

power to 125 mW for any frequency

hopping system that operates with fewer

than 75 hopping channels. This power

level is consistent with that used by

many frequency hopping systems today

and is only 3 dB more than opponents

of the Home RF proposal. We are

concerned that any further power

reduction will constrain the useful

operating range to such an extent that

the devices will not be useful. The

provision for 15 non-overlapping

channels will accommodate up to 5

MHz bandwidths, which will allow

faster data speeds and enable backward

compatibility with existing devices.

8. In the Notice, we proposed

minimum hopping rates of 20 hops/s

(0.05 s/hop channel dwell time) and 50

hops/s (0.02 s/hop channel dwell time)

for systems using 3 MHz and 5 MHz

channels, respectively. However, in

order to remain consistent with former

regulations, we will leave the minimum

hopping rate unchanged at 2.5 hops/s.

Furthermore, we will not specify a

maximum hopping rate for wide band

frequency hopping systems, as WECA

suggested. We realize that choosing the

hopping rate for a system involves

trade-offs. For example, the Committee

for Unlicensed Broadband Enablement

(‘‘CUBE’’) noted that faster hopping may

be beneficial in some instances because

the result is less time spent, on an

instantaneous basis, on a channel that

may be experiencing interference. On

the other hand, faster hopping may also

decrease system efficiency due to the

greater amount of non-transmitting

transition phases. The Commission has

previously given manufacturers latitude

in choosing the hopping rate which best

suits their particular application. We are

confident that manufacturers will

continue to use good engineering

practices in order to achieve their

desired results without increasing the

risk of harmful interference.

9. We will not specify receiver

standards, as proposed in WECA’s April

10, 2000 letter. We find that

§ 15.247(a)(1), which requires receiver

input bandwidth to match hopping

channel bandwidth, provides ample

assurance that receivers are indeed

functioning as part of a spread spectrum

system. That is the intent of the rule

section. Additionally, we agree with the

Proxim letter dated April 14, 2000,

stating that this issue is not appropriate

for resolution in this First R&O since it

was neither proposed by the

Commission nor discussed by other

parties.

10. The Notice in this proceeding,

also proposed to modify the method for

measuring processing gain for certain

direct sequence spread spectrum

systems. Because of the large volume of

comments the Commission has received

in this proceeding, we have decided to

address the topics individually.

Accordingly, we are postponing

adoption of final rules for measuring

processing gain. We will address the

issue in a future Report and Order. The

action we take here is not dependent on

resolution of the processing gain issue.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

11. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’),1 an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(‘‘IRFA’’) was incorporated in the Notice

of Proposed Rule Making (‘‘NPRM’’) in

this docket, ET Docket 99–231.2 The

Commission sought written public

comment on the proposals in the NPRM,

including comment on the IRFA. As

described more fully below, we find that

the rules we adopt in the First Report

and Order will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.3 We have

nonetheless provided this Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(‘‘FRFA’’) to provide a fuller record in

this proceeding. This IRFA conforms to

the RFA.4

A. Need for and Objective of the Rules

12. The rules adopted in this First

Report and Order are intended to

facilitate the development of spread

spectrum technology, particularly for

high data-rate wireless applications. The

rules will permit frequency hopping

spread spectrum systems in the 2.4 GHz

band (2400–2483.5 MHz) to operate

with wider hopping channels. This

action is taken in response to a request

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 57559

filed by the Home RF Working Group

(‘‘Home RF’’). The Home RF request

stated that the increased bandwidth is

needed to meet business and consumer

demand for high-speed data

applications.

13. In the NPRM in this proceeding,

the Commission also proposed to

modify the method for measuring

processing gain for certain direct

sequence spread spectrum systems.

Because of the large volume of

comments the Commission has received

in this proceeding, we have decided to

address this second issue separately.

Accordingly, we are postponing

adoption of final rules for measuring

processing gain, and will address the

issue in a future Report and Order. The

action we take here is not dependent on

resolution of the processing gain issue.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised

by Comments in Response to the IRFA

14. We received six comments in

response to the IRFA in this proceeding.

Three were submitted by the Office of

Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business

Administration (SBA), one by Proxim,

Inc. (Proxim), which is a small business,

and one comment apiece by the U.S.

Senate and House Small Business

Committees.

15. In its comment dated October 4,

1999, SBA stated that the IRFA did not

comply with the RFA. Specifically, SBA

stated that the IRFA did not fully

consider the impact that the

Commission’s proposal would have on

small entities. Furthermore, SBA stated

that the IRFA failed to estimate the

number of small businesses affected,

describe the objectives of the proposed

rules, propose alternatives, and properly

state the paperwork burden the rules

would place on equipment

manufacturers. Accordingly, SBA stated

that the Commission should not adopt

final rules in this proceeding until the

Commission conducted a fuller,

superseding IRFA.

16. Subsequently, in the first of the

remaining five, ex parte comments filed

in response to the IRFA, Proxim filed a

comment dated January 11, 2000.

Proxim stated that approximately 80

small businesses filed comments in this

proceeding, constituting over 66 percent

of the almost 120 comments filed in

total. Proxim noted that small business

participated during both the comment

and reply comment periods, and filed

comments on both sides of the

proposals. Last, Proxim argued that the

proposal to permit frequency hopping

spread spectrum systems would benefit

small business by permitting ‘‘a low cost

means for home-based business to create

a low-cost network capable of

supporting high-capacity

communications’’—a network capability

that, currently, ‘‘likely is beyond the

financial and/or technical reach of many

small businesses and most very small

home-based businesses.’’

17. SBA’s second comment was dated

February 29, 2000. SBA clarified its

position in light of Proxim’s filing,

stating that even if the significant

economic effect of a proposal will be

beneficial for small business, the

proposal must be described and

analyzed in an adequate IRFA. SBA

stated that it did not wish to delay the

issuance of final rules, and that, in light

of the information provided by Proxim,

the Commission should rectify its IRFA

by conducting an adequate FRFA in

conjunction with the adoption of final

rules.

18. The Senate Committee on Small

Business, in its comment dated August

8, 2000, stated that the IRFA did not

sufficiently describe why the proposed

action was being taken, did not discuss

the reporting or recordkeeping

requirements or skills necessary to

satisfy the requirements of the rules,

and did not offer alternatives to the

proposed rules that would minimize the

impact on small business. The

Committee asked that the Commission

revise the IRFA. The House Committee

on Small Business, in its comment

dated August 15, 2000, concurred with

the Senate Committee’s position.

19. SBA, in its third comment, dated

August 18, 2000, stated that, in filing its

second comment, SBA ‘‘did not intend

to withdraw its critical comments or

relieve the FCC of its duty under RFA.’’

20. In response to these comments, we

have conducted this present, full FRFA.

We also take this opportunity to discuss

the previous analysis or IRFA, which,

although not exhaustive, was sufficient

to generate comments from the small

business community. We believe that

the record indicates that the IRFA met

the objectives of the RFA. Delaying

issuance of final rules at this time

would not, therefore, advance those

objectives.

21. First, concerning whether the

IRFA sufficiently described why the

proposed action was being taken, we

note that the reason for action is clearly

stated in the first paragraph of the

Notice. The paragraph reads in part,

‘‘We take this action to facilitate the

continued development and

deployment of spread spectrum

technology, particularly for high data

rate wireless applications.’’ Therefore,

interested parties who read the

document were notified in the

beginning of the item why the action

was being taken. While the IRFA did not

specifically mention the purpose of the

proposed action, we believe that the

Notice adequately informed interested

parties of the reason for the proposed

action, as required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

22. Concerning whether the IRFA

adequately discussed the reporting or

recordkeeping requirements or skills

necessary to satisfy the rule

requirements, we note that the IRFA

stated that the proposed rule changes

would not alter any current reporting or

recordkeeping requirements. We

emphasize that part 15 transmitters

must be authorized under the

Commission’s certification procedure

prior to marketing. The certification

procedure requires that the device in

question be tested to ensure that it is in

compliance with Commission

regulations. An application for

certification must contain a report

describing the test procedure as well as

the test results. The proposal in the

NPRM would permit alternative modes

of operation for frequency hopping

systems. However, the new operating

modes would not alter the reporting or

recordkeeping requirements for

manufacturers of these devices.

23. The NPRM also proposed a

modified test procedure for certain

direct sequence spread spectrum

systems. The Notice proposed that,

‘‘manufacturers of direct sequence

spread spectrum systems that use a

spreading rate less than 10 chips per

symbol to submit the results of the

jamming margin test as well as a

calculation of processing gain to verify

compliance.’’ This statement may have

created the impression that the

Commission was intending to impose

new reporting requirements. However,

as stated above, the certification

procedure already requires the

submission of test results and a report

showing compliance with the rules. Our

proposal only sought to clarify the

specific information to include in this

report.

24. Concerning whether the IRFA

should have offered and discussed

alternatives to the proposed rules that

would have minimized the impact on

small businesses, we believe that a

positive benefit will result to small

business as a result of this proceeding.

Thus, we did not offer alternatives.

Again, we should emphasize that the

proposals would not require

manufacturers to modify existing

products. Instead, the rules would allow

introduction of new devices into the

marketplace. We expect that the rules

will benefit small manufacturers by

allowing them to distribute more

diverse products. In turn, the more

57560 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

5 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

6See 5 U.S.C. 601(3).

7 15 U.S.C. 632.

8See 13 CFR 121.201, (SIC) Code 3663.

9See U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of

Transportation, Communications and Utilities

(Issued May 1995), SIC category 3663.

10 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 3571.

11U.S. Small Business Administration 1995

Economic CEnsus Industry and Enterprise Report,

Table 3, SIC Code 3571. (Burau of the Census data

adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small

Business Administration).

12 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 3575.

13U.S. Small Business Administration 1995

Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Report,

Table 3, SIC Code 3575. (Bureau of the Census data

adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small

Business Administration).

14 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 3577.

15U.S. Small Business Administration 1995

Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Report,

Table 3, SIC Code 3639. (Bureau of the Census data

adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small

Business Administration).

16 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 3639 (Household

Appliances, Not Elsewhere Classified).

17U.S. Small Business Administration 1995

Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Report,

Table 3, SIC Code 3639. (Bureau of the Census data

adapted by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small

Business Administration).

diverse product selection will provide

greater flexibility in designing wireless

networks, thereby benefiting small

businesses that use these types of

devices.

25. Concerning whether the IRFA

provided sufficient information so that

the public could react in an informed

manner, we note that, pursuant to the

Administrative Procedure Act, see 5

U.S.C. 553, the Commission must

provide ample opportunity for the

public to comment on proposed rules.

In this proceeding, the Commission

provided a 75-day filing window for

initial comments, followed by a 122-day

period for reply comments. In total, the

public had over six months to provide

comments. More than 200 comments

and other submissions were filed in this

proceeding. Many of the commenters,

including small businesses and

educational institutions,

enthusiastically endorsed the proposed

changes. With the exception of the

Small Business Administration, which

subsequently clarified its comments,

and Congress, no commenters raised

adverse concerns regarding the IRFA.

The Commission relies upon the public

record to develop its rules. The rules

changes in this proceeding were

initiated at the urging and support of the

small business community.

26. In addition, for existing

manufacturers to take advantage of the

revised rule and begin to supply

frequency-hopping equipment, the

manufacturer will need only to slightly

modify frequency control components

in their products. Such modification

appears to us, given common

understanding of the equipment, to be

achievable with minimal effort and cost.

In fact, as stated previously, many

manufacturers, including small

businesses, enthusiastically supported

this rule change.

27. Last, we note that, in light of

comments in response to the NPRM, we

have altered our equipment usage

parameters to eliminate the interference

potential that might have resulted under

the proposed rule. The changes have

included eliminating the use of

overlapping channels and reducing the

maximum permitted power output.

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Rules Will Apply

28. 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.5 The

RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental

jurisdictions.’’ In addition, the term

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.

632, unless the Commission has

developed one or more definitions that

are appropriate to its activities.6 A

‘‘small business concern’’ is one that: (1)

Is independently owned and operated;

(2) is not dominant in its field of

operation; and (3) meets any additional

criteria established by the Small

Business Administration (’’SBA’’).7

29. The Commission has not

developed a definition of small entities

specifically directed toward

manufacturers of unlicensed

communications devices. Therefore, we

will utilize the SBA definition

applicable to manufacturers of Radio

and Television Broadcasting and

Communications Equipment. According

to the SBA regulations, unlicensed

transmitter manufacturers must have

750 or fewer employees in order to

qualify as a small business concern.8

Census Bureau data indicates that there

are 858 U.S. companies that

manufacture radio and television

broadcasting and communications

equipment, and that 778 of these firms

have fewer than 750 employees and

would be classified as small entities.9

This action will not have a negative

impact on small entities that

manufacture unlicensed spread

spectrum devices.

30. According to SBA regulations, an

electronic computer manufacturer must

have 1,000 or fewer employees in order

to qualify as a small entity.10 Census

Bureau data indicates that there are 716

firms that manufacture electronic

computers. Of those, 659 have fewer

than 500 employees and qualify as small

entities.11 The remaining 57 firms have

500 or more employees; however, we

unable to determine how many of those

have 1,000 or fewer employees and

therefore also qualify as small entities

under the SBA definition.

31. According to SBA regulations, a

computer terminal manufacturer must

have 1,000 or fewer employees in order

to qualify as a small entity.12 Census

Bureau data indicates that there are 757

firms that manufacture computer

terminals. Of those, 162 have fewer than

500 employees and qualify as small

entities.13 The remaining 11 firms have

500 or more employees; however, we

unable to determine how many of those

have 1,000 or fewer employees and

therefore also qualify as small entities

under the SBA definition.

32. According to SBA regulations, a

computer peripheral equipment

manufacturer must have 1,000 or fewer

employees in order to qualify as a small

entity.14 Census Bureau data indicates

that there are 757 firms that

manufacture computer terminal

equipment. Of those, 701 have fewer

than 500 employees and qualify as small

entities.15 The remaining 56 firms have

500 or more employees; however, we

unable to determine how many of those

have 1,000 or fewer employees and

therefore also qualify as small entities

under the SBA definition.

33. According to SBA regulations, a

manufacturer of household appliances

must have 500 or fewer employees in

order to qualify as a small entity.16

Census bureau indicates that there are

55 firms that manufacture household

equipment in the ‘‘catch all’’ category

for such data. Of those, 42 have fewer

than 500 employees and qualify as small

entities.17 The remaining 13 firms have

500 or more employees, and therefore,

unless one or more has exactly 500

employees do not qualify as small

entities under the SBA definition.

D. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance

Requirements

34. Part 15 transmitters are already

required to be authorized under the

Commission’s certification procedure as

a prerequisite to marketing and

importation. See 47 CFR 15.101, 15.201,

15.305, and 15.405. The new regulations

will add permissible methods of

operation for frequency hopping spread

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 57561

18See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

spectrum systems. No new reporting or

recordkeeping requirements will be

required for the manufacturers of

frequency hopping spread spectrum

devices.

35. As previously noted, in the NPRM

in this proceeding, the Commission also

proposed a modified test procedure for

certain direct sequence spread spectrum

devices. Although this First Report and

Order does not address this second

issue, we emphasize that the proposed

processing gain measurement procedure

would not alter reporting or

recordkeeping requirements. As stated

above, the certification procedure

already requires the submission of test

results and a report showing compliance

with Commission rules. The proposal

would clarify the specific information to

include in this report.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities and

Significant Alternatives Considered

36. The rule changes adopted in this

First Report and Order are intended to

support the development of improved

frequency hopping spread spectrum

systems. These actions will benefit

frequency hopping spread spectrum

manufacturers, including small entities.

37. In the NPRM, we proposed to

allow frequency hopping systems in the

2400–2483.5 MHz band to operate with

bandwidths of up to 5 MHz. The

increase in bandwidth over 1 MHz

would be accompanied by a

proportionate decrease in output power.

The minimum number of hopping

channels would remain the same.

38. Supporters of the NPRM argued

that the rule changes were needed to

accommodate high-speed data

transmissions for home and business

applications. The opponents argued that

the proposed changes would cause

unacceptable interference to other part

15 devices already operating in this

spectrum. While they recognized that

part 15 devices have no interference

protection under the rules, opponents

asserted that the Commission should act

on public interest grounds to avoid

increasing interference to existing

consumer devices. They suggested

several modifications to the proposal

which, they claimed, would reduce the

interference threat. Proponents of the

NPRM also filed modified proposals in

an effort to reach a compromise.

39. In response to the comments filed

by interested parties, including small

businesses, the Commission modified

the proposal contained in the NPRM by

requiring frequency hopping systems to

use at least 15 non-overlapping

channels. We have also reduced the

maximum transmitter output power

from that which was proposed in the

NPRM. The new rules will accomplish

the objectives stated in the NPRM while

creating less of an interference threat to

other systems currently operating in the

2400—2483.5 MHz band. The changes

we adopt in this First Report and Order

will result in increased maximum data

rates for frequency hopping spread

spectrum devices operating in the 2.4

GHz band. The rules will benefit

manufacturers of home electronic

equipment, including small businesses,

by enabling them to offer customers a

greater variety of products that meet

their customers’ networking needs.

40. As noted, we received numerous

comments in this proceeding, and one

alternative would have been to deny the

request of Home RF and other

proponents. That alternative, which we

rejected, would not have resulted in the

introduction of high-speed data

applications that we believe will result

as a consequence of the rules we are

adopting.

41. Report to Congress. The

Commission will send a copy of the

First Report and Order, including this

FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant

to SBREFA.18 In addition, the

Commission will send a copy of the

First Report and Order, including the

FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the SBA.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

Communications equipment.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Rule Changes

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission amends 47 CFR part 15 as

follows:

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY

DEVICES

1. The authority citation for part 15

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304,

307, 544A.

2. Section 15.247 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 15.247 Operation within the bands 902–

928 MHz, 2400–2483.5 MHz, and 5725–5850

MHz.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) Frequency hopping systems in

the 2400—2483.5 MHz band may utilize

hopping channels whose 20 dB

bandwidth is greater than 1 MHz

provided the systems use at least 15

non-overlapping channels. The total

span of hopping channels shall be at

least 75 MHz. The average time of

occupancy on any one channel shall not

be greater than 0.4 seconds within the

time period required to hop through all

channels.

(b) * * *

(1) For frequency hopping systems in

the 2400–2483.5 MHz band employing

at least 75 hopping channels, all

frequency hopping systems in the 5725–

5850 MHz band, and all direct sequence

systems: 1 watt. For all other frequency

hopping systems in the 2400–2483.5

MHz band: 0.125 watts.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–24541 Filed 9–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P