WPCA 2BJZ Courier#|j 2x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4MP (PCL)HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\$+VX@26 F ZJK#|j/ >ըHP LaserJet 4MP (PCL)HPLA4MPC.PRSX\  P6G;\$+VP"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(#x 2  > a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2  x7a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2aa8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2oa2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2L" 3Ha7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:iE?^Freference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2L@OHA IBJCrKfooter!@!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2AgendaC2QDBLErLKFMKOa1AgendaAgenda ItemsD7D yP ) I. a3AgendaE"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNYHa"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddxHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxdmhzo5  6Stable of allo (mhz)=($*$o5  EF  ` `   INTERNATIONAL!FF". ||0,,79?kk@ UNITED STATES   Region 1` ` | Region 2!|FF"Region 3.||0Band,,7|9National?|kk@Government$$M|%%ONonGovernment**[|t+t+\Remarks MHz` ` | MHz!|FF"MHz.||0MHz,,7|9Provisions?|kk@Allocation$$M|%%OAllocation**[| ` ` | !|FF".||01,,7|92?|kk@3$$M|%%O4**[|t+t+\5   tables  6STables of Frequency Allocations*$o5  EG     '3 #H|@E@#` F,k$%*D+  ` `   INTERNATIONAL !FF".||0,,79?kk@ UNITED STATES   Region 1` ` | Region 2!|FF"Region 3.||0 Band,,7|9National?|kk@Government$$M|%%ONonGovernment**[|D+D+\Remarks kHz` ` | kHz!|FF"kHz.||0 kHz,,7|9Provisions?|kk@Allocation$$M|%%OAllocation**[| ` ` | !|FF".||0 1,,7|92?|kk@3$$M|%%O4**[|D+D+\5   ` F,k$%*t+GHZo5  6SGHz TABLE OF FREQ ALLOS8 *$o5  EH  ` `   INTERNATIONAL!FF". ||0,,79?kk@ UNITED STATES   Region 1` ` | Region 2!|FF"Region 3.||0Band,,7|9National?|kk@Government$$M|%%ONonGovernment**[|t+t+\Remarks GHz` ` | GHz!|FF"GHz.||0GHz,,7|9Provisions?|kk@Allocation$$M|%%OAllocation**[| ` ` | !|FF".||01,,7|92?|kk@3$$M|%%O4**[|t+t+\5   2hI4fJfKgLdhHeadingChapter HeadingIJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingK0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddL+. 2lMhNiO1_jP1kDRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateM X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offN@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5O 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Pf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   2DpQ1lR1$nSnUoToLETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11QL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14R 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentSK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedTN X 2tUdvpVjpWDqXEcsHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeUB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredV V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsWu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math InvoiceX ,, $0$0  2zY-tZ8v[8?w\wxMEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatYD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceZ:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro[z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice\+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 2{]XJz^[z_[z`[X{NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle]SMALLSmall Typestyle^FINEFine Typestyle_LARGELarge Typestyle`2v~a[{b[@|c|dX~EXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleaVERY LARGEVery Large TypestylebENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Headerc+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1ddf23e~fHghlDŽStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginse$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5f$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIgJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabsh )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !2iejk|l Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsiDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontj4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5k$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointl$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO 2)mۈn{op"Style 7Swiss 11.5m$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointn$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedo U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggpi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2{q[r`s}vtStyle 9Initial Codes for Intermediateq )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Moduler )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 a1Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8s$ a2Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8t/ 2:uv?wݠxa3Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8u:` ` `  a4Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8vE a5Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8wP   a6Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8x[   2ͤylz+{l|laa7Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8yf  a8Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8zq Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font{ Document 8Document 8| 2}x~lwllODocument 4Document 4}  Document 6Document 6~ Document 5Document 5 Document 2Document 2 2lYwlDocument 7Document 7 Right Par 1Right Par 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3Document 3 23QoRight Par 3Right Par 3` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2eݴ($ARight Par 7Right Par 7` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 1Document 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2$ll'$Technical 6Technical 6` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2 Technical 3Technical 3 Technical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2l$U$yTechnical 1Technical 1 Technical 7Technical 7` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2e )Gtoc 2toc 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#2gv+Itoc 6toc 6` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2ivindex 1index 1` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaption 2l4_Equation Caption_Equation Caption a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  2 m,a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# a71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2&qca81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  1, 2, 3,teNumbersotation"H('0\F H rW?I 1.2dm*A, B,3,teUppercase LettersH('0\F H rW?I .TitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#NotesTrianglee NotesH('0\F H rW?I Works CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I 99         2M'eoPage TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I #  `  footnote reference# footnote text%endnote referenceendnote reference44#Xx6X@DQX@##Xv6X@CX@#2l}_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  2Qa42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( 2 bl=a82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#2($!Elcbly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (# Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C 2jlk:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# ރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: ~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#2 Ec : , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#е ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2)l [ 2)[,,0kjH Default Para,6%Default Paragraph FontO7V -*g4çFM7VE;1;2#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#toa heading,6%toa heading4=(g4O7V 9*g4çFM7VEIJ!(# ` hp x (#_Equation Ca,6%_Equation Captiong4O7V ;*g4çFM7VE;M;N#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#2p[qe<e2XwE~wKRn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@RH*G>FwE~wK\Emn` ` ` 3XwE~wKSn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@SH*G>FwE~wK\Eo p . 4XwE~wKTn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@TH*G>FwE~wK\E qr 5XwE~wKUn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@UH*G>FwE~wK\E st 2h8p;6XwE~wKVn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@VH*G>FwE~wK\E*uv   7XwE~wKWn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@WH*G>FwE~wK\Ewx` ` ` 8XwE~wKXn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E8yz@   9XwE~wKYn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EA{|@` `  ` ` ` 26/10wE~wKZn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@ZH*G>FwE~wK\E0} ~    11wE~wK[n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EJ` ` @  ` `  12wE~wK\n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\ES` `  @  13wE~wK]n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E\` `  @hh# hhh 2zh'14wE~wK^n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 15wE~wK_n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\En` `  hh#(@- ( 16wE~wK`n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 17wE~wKan6bDocument Style=(G>wK@aH*G>FwE~wK\EF D*  ׃  21R18wE~wKbn6bTechnical Document StylewK@bH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 19wE~wKcn6bTechnical Document StylewK@cH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 20wE~wKdn6bTechnical Document StylewK@dH*G>FwE~wK\E*    21wE~wKen6bTechnical Document StylewK@eH*G>FwE~wK\E'   2g ]22wE~wKfn6bTechnical Document StylewK@fH*G>FwE~wK\E&   23wE~wKgn6bTechnical Document StylewK@gH*G>FwE~wK\E4$     24wE~wKhn6bTechnical Document StylewK@hH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 25wE~wKin6bTechnical Document StylewK@iH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 2# F!!s"Format Downln6bFormat Downloaded DocumentK@uH*G>FwE~wK\EU XX    X\ #d6X@7@#a127\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F8@   a227\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FA@` `  ` ` ` a327\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FJ23&I##$k%a427\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FS` `  @  a527\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F\` `  @hh# hhh a627\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fe` `  hh#@( hh# a727\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fn` `  hh#(@- ( 2(e&v6'v'v"(a827\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp heading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 2*v(v@)v),*heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #2>0*+w1-/Word222Null(Dt—Word222Null( >fWRK+P—!t >f—+b1{1|#/x PX##/x PX#NORMAL INDENDt—7!wB( >f`RK+P—!t >f—+b'4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#enumlev1x(Dt—7!wB( >faRK+P—!t >f—+b$p  N hp x (#aa#&n P&P#4` hp x (#footnote refDt—footnote reference >fbRK+P—!t >f—+b>#V\  P UP#25vp00K1)3page number(Dt—page number( >feRK+P—!t >f—+b26 >fx(Dt—footnote text >ffRK+P—!t >f—+b* ??US"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNA.SSxSSJR"RNOdxSxS8JSVSSSSS;88VVS++SSdSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxxqS]^^^z0^88^^^zxzzzggx8E]S^/zU*FJSvggxxxxxzzzzKxggqU^^^zxxxxzzH|lr]d]oJixJc|YoSx^_^eSSiJxJodx]ddd|ixxdd88SS2mA K.6 Ky8 K:^="i~'^DO]uuĶOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuAAgרOYͨۨOAOkuOgugugOuuAAuAuuuuOYAuuuugp/p~O=~kOOO=OOOOOOuOuAggggg͘gggggOAOAOAOAuuuuuuuuuuguruuuuggggg~ggggguuu~u~uOAOuOOOu~~uA]OOAuuuuuͨOOOYYY~bAkuuuuuuۨ~ggguOuYOu=uuN*NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTTkuOguuuuuAKuFKuFOOgguPPuu匱T錌TOguF"u錇~u匌u"i~'^DOuuOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuOOuۨYuۨ騨OAOuOuggOuAOAăugYOuuug]3]yO=yOOO=OOOOOOuOAuuuuu騨gggggVAVAVAVAuuuuuuuuuuuuuggyggggguuuyuYAYYOYyyAiO]Auu稨gggYYYywO騨ygggOYOu=uuN?NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTT|uOuuuuuuFOuFOuFOOuuuPPuu錱T錌TOuuF"u錊~u匌u"i~'^&&1KKuY..4M&.&&KKKKKKKKKK&&MMMKYY``YSh`&CYKp`hYh`YS`Y}YYS&&&=KKKCKK&KKCpKKKK.C&KC`CCC.$.M.&M<...&......K.S&YKYKYKYKYKu`CYKYKYKYK&&&&&&&&`KhKhKhKhK`K`K`K`KYCYK`KhShKYC`KXKYKYKYK`C`C`M`C`SYKYKYKYKhKhKhKhMhK`M`K&.S..⪼MMYCKK'K.K-K`KP`K`KhKhK}`.`.`.YCYCYCYMS3S&S<`K`K`K`K`K`K}`YMSCSCSC`KK.`KYCS.YKS%CKW]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN0PP0HK.SKKKKK31ppK.0ccKp-..K..PKKPe0PP0MjjCC-Cu-"XXXXee{CePCHCMPPCzy.X80,IX\  P6G;P{7jC:, Xj\  P6G;XP&|7nC:,Xn4  pG;X}W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hP~H5!,,5\  P6G;,P&y.\80, [\4  pG;5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XX{,W80,%?W*f9 xr G;Xy.V80,<V\  PAP@|ND,i:|\  P6G;P &@ND,,4  pG;d!I,&,C,jI2PG;Pxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx2A X4 X   K X4w B Federal Communications Commission`(# FCC 98119 ă   yxdddy Պ+` Before the w Federal Communications Commission  X'-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X4In the Matter of ) )  X_4Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the)ET Docket No. 9895  XH4Commission's Rules to Allocate the)RM9096  X145.8505.925 GHz Band to the hhC)  X 4Mobile Service for Dedicated Short q) Range Communications of Intelligent) Transportation Services)  X 'l  NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING \  Xy4 Adopted: June 11, 1998hhCqpp Released: June 11, 1998  XK' Comment Date: [75 days after Federal Register publication] Reply Comment Date: [105 days after Federal Register publication]  X4 By the Commission:  X4E INTRODUCTION ă  X|4 e K1.` ` By this action, we propose to allocate 75 megahertz of spectrum for use by  xDedicated Short Range Communications ("DSRC") of Intelligent Transportation Systems ("ITS").  xDSRC systems are being designed that require a short range, wireless link to transfer information  x"between vehicles and roadside systems. ITS services are expected to improve traveler safety,  x_decrease traffic congestion, and facilitate reduction of air pollution and conservation of fossil  xfuels. We are also proposing basic technical rules establishing power limits and unwanted  xemission limits for DSRC operations. Additionally, we seek comment on the need for nationwide  x"operational standards and channelization, and on the potential for DSRC operations in this band  x/to share spectrum with other services. We are deferring consideration of licensing and service  xrules. This action furthers the goals of the U. S. Congress, Department of Transportation and the  x[ITS industry to improve the efficiency of the Nation's transportation infrastructure and to facilitate the growth of the ITS industry. "#,))ZZ!"  X4K BACKGROUND ă  X4 e >2.` ` The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ("ISTEA")x yOK' "8 ԍPub. L. No. 102240, 105 Stat. 1914 (1991). Section 6052 of ISTEA identifies some of the goals for ITS  x as: (1) widespread implementation of ITS to enhance the capacity, efficiency, and safety of the nation's highways;  xg (2) enhancement, through more efficient use of the nation's highways, of efforts to attain air quality goals; (3)  x enhancement of safe and efficient operation of the nation's highways; (4) development and promotion of an ITS  yOk' xx  industry in the United States; (5) reduction of societal, economic, and environmental costs associated with traffic  x congestion; and (6) enhancement of United States competitiveness and productivity by improving the free flow of people and commerce and by establishing a significant United States presence in this emerging field of technology.  X4 xestablished a national program within the U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") to develop  xS"Intelligent Transportation Systems" or "ITS" (previously referred to as "Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems") within the United States. Section 6059 of ISTEA defines ITS as:   (XThe development or application of electronics, communications, or information  processing (including advanced traffic management systems, commercial vehicle  operations, advanced traveler information systems, commercial and advanced  vehicle control systems, advanced public transportation systems, satellite vehicle  tracking systems, and advanced vehicle communications systems) used singly or  in combination to improve the efficiency and safety of surface transportation systems.   xThe DOT, in cooperation with public and private partners throughout the United States, has  x/sought to foster the development of ITS through the creation of a "National ITS Program Plan"  x/and "National ITS Architecture." The National ITS Program Plan and Architecture identify 30  x"user services" or applications that comprise the collaborative public/private vision of ITS, as well  xas the technological framework for implementing these services. These ITS applications rely  x<upon the integration of advanced communications systems and highway infrastructure systems.  xICommunications are an essential component of the backbone of all ITS applications, which rely  x}heavily on swift and accurate flow of information. Many ITS communications requirements are  xbeing met within the framework of existing telecommunications systems, such as broadcast  xrelated systems, commercial and private wireless systems, and landline telecommunication  xsystems. The National ITS Architecture, however, identifies a need for spectrum for reliable  xshortrange wireless communications links between vehicles traveling at highway speeds and  X4 xroadside systems, i.e., DSRC. Specifically, the National ITS Architecture cites the critical  xfunctions of DSRC user services and the locationdependent nature of these communications links.  X94 e 3.` ` We note that on June 9, 1998, the President signed the Transportation Equity Act  X"4 xyfor the 21st Century." {O%'ԍSee Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Pub. L.105178, signed June 9, 1998. Section 5206(f) of this Act states that "[t]he Federal Communications  x<Commission shall consider, in consultation with the Secretary, spectrum needs for the operation" ,-(-(ZZ"  x0of intelligent transportation systems, including spectrum for the dedicated short-range  x3vehicle-to-wayside wireless standard. Not later than January 1, 2000, the Federal Communications  xCommission shall have completed a rulemaking considering the allocation of spectrum for  xVintelligent transportation systems." By this action, we are initiating a proceeding that will enable us to meet the statutory requirements and deadline.  Xv4 e 4.` ` On May 19, 1997, the Intelligent Transportation Society of America ("ITS  xAmerica") filed a Petition for Rulemaking ("Petition") requesting that the Commission allocate  xV75 megahertz of spectrum in the 5.8505.925 GHz band on a coprimary basis for DSRCbased  X14 xITS services.|1 {O ' "/ ԍSee Public Notice, DA 971106, RM9096, released May 28, 1997. ITS America is a nonprofit, educational  x association dedicated to the development and deployment of intelligent transportation systems to improve the safety  x^ and efficiency of the nation's transportation infrastructure. ITS America states that, since its inception in 1991, it  x has provided a leadership role in the public/private partnership to deploy ITS and currently serves as a Utilized  x Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Federal Advisory Committee Act,  {O' xZ Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (1972), codified at 5 U.S.C. App. 2.  See Petition at 2; see also DOT Comments, filed July 28, 1997, at 12 & n.2. The Petition states that DSRC links are needed for eleven ITS user services and  X 4 x[places DSRC needs into three categories: current DSRC applications;  yO' " ԍCurrent DSRC applications include Electronic Payment services and Commercial Vehicle Electronic Clearance. emerging DSRC  X 4 xapplications;N d  yO' " ԍEmerging DSRC applications include Traffic Control (including the subcategories of Transit Vehicle Signal  x Priority and Emergency Vehicle Signal Preemption); Incident Management; Enroute Driver Information (including  x Invehicle Signing and Driver Advisory); Automated Roadside Safety Inspection; Public Transportation Management;  x Freight Mobility (including Automatic Equipment Monitoring and Fleet Management); Access Control; Trip Log; and HighwayRail Intersection.N and future DSRC applications.  yO'ԍFuture DSRC applications include Intersection Collision Warning Systems and Automated Highway Systems. See Appendix B for DSRC applications  xdescription. While the benefits of some DSRC applications such as automatic toll collection in  xthe 900 MHz range already are being realized, ITS America's Petition describes several new  xDSRC applications that would be made possible by an allocation in the 5.9 GHz range. For  xexample, one emerging DSRC application, Automated Roadside Safety Inspection, would enable  xVthe transmission of vehicle safety and other data between roadside inspection stations and large  xcommercial trucks moving at highway speeds. The trucks would thus not need to stop unless  xsignalled to do so by authorities at the inspection station. Another application, Incident  x+Management operations, would use roadway sensors and DSRCequipped vehicles to more  X44 x<quickly detect traffic congestion (i.e., accidents, traffic from sporting events, etc.) and dispatch  xany necessary emergency personnel or take other needed action. ITS America contends that these  xand other DSRCbased user services will help facilitate the safety and efficiency goals of the  X4 xISTEA legislation. {OF&'ԍSee supra note 1 (ISTEA goals). DSRC applications are described more fully in Appendix B, infra. ITS America states that the 902928 MHz band, currently used on a shared"6,-(-(ZZP"  X4 xbasis for some DSRCtype applications within the Location and Monitoring Service ("LMS"), {Oy' " ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  90.353. For instance, Electronic Payment Services and Commercial Vehicle Electronic Clearance are provided within the LMS.  xdoes not have sufficient spectral capacity to support ubiquitous deployment and national  x interoperability of all the DSRC applications and expresses concern that increased use of the 902928 MHz band could lead to congestion of that spectrum.  X4 e m5.` ` The 5.8505.925 GHz band is allocated internationally on a primary basis for Fixed  Xv4 xServices, Fixed Satellite Service ("FSS") Earthtospace links ("uplinks"), and Mobile Services.  X_4 xAdditionally, in Region 2,X Z_" yO2 ' "  ԍThe International Telecommunications Union ("ITU") Radio Regulations divide the world into three regions  {O ' x for the purposes of its rules and North America is within Region 2. For a precise description of these regions, see 47 C.F.R. 2.104(b).X this band is allocated on a secondary basis to the Amateur Radio  xService and the Radiolocation Service. Finally, the 5.8505.875 GHz segment is designated  X14 x8internationally for industrial, scientific and medical ("ISM") applications.n X1D yO&' " ԍInternational Footnote S5.150 incorporates the older provisions of Footnote 806 designating the 5.7255.875  xo GHz band for ISM applications and stating that radiocommunication services operating within this band must accept harmful interference which may be caused by these applications.n Domestically, the  xentire band is currently allocated on a coprimary basis for the Government's Radiolocation  X 4 xEService (i.e., for use by highpowered military radar systems) and for nonGovernment FSS  x/uplink operations. ISM devices and unlicensed Part 15 devices are also permitted to operate in  xthe 5.8505.875 GHz segment. Finally, the Amateur Radio Service has a secondary domestic  X 4allocation in the entire band.p d  {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  2.106, Table of Frequency Allocations.p  X4 e z6.` ` In response to ITS America's Petition, the Commission received 15 comments and  x11 reply comments. The majority of the comments support an allocation of spectrum for the use  x/of DSRCbased ITS services. However, some entities oppose the use of the 5.8505.925 GHz  x_band for such services, claiming such use could interfere with incumbent operations or could create unsafe levels of electromagnetic energy.  X4U DISCUSSION ă  X4A. Need for DSRCbased Services and Spectrum Allocation.  X4 e 7.` ` The record in this proceeding overwhelmingly supports the use of spectrum to  xsupport ITS services to increase the safety and efficiency of the Nation's transportation  xNinfrastructure. We are cognizant of the substantial efforts by both Government and non x}Government entities to develop, in response to Congress' ISTEA legislation, a National ITS Plan  x@and Architecture addressing ways of using communications technologies to increase the efficiency"; ,-(-(ZZy"  xof the nation's transportation infrastructure. The limited ITS services now available well serve  X4 x3the public interest,u  {Ob'ԍSee generally 47 C.F.R. Part 90, Subpart M, governing the LMS.u and their future development could potentially increase traveler safety, reduce  xAfuel consumption and pollution, and continue to advance the country's economy. We are  xencouraged that the National ITS Plan and Architecture incorporates, where possible, the use of  xexisting communications infrastructure and services to efficiently meet the communications needs  xof ITS services. We believe the record sufficiently justifies a proceeding to explore the additional  xradio spectrum needs of, and to consider a proposed allocation for, a wider range of DSRCbased  xITS services. We also believe that a proposed new allocation of spectrum for DSRC applications  xmight encourage the private sector to develop operational standards facilitating nationwide compatibility and interoperability of these applications.  X 4 e `8.` ` In support of this proceeding, DOT comments that the General Accounting Office  x}has projected that congestion in metropolitan areas could worsen by 300 to 400 percent over the  xnext 15 years unless significant changes are made to the existing transportation infrastructure.  xCongress, DOT observes, has chosen to emphasize the development and use of communications  xtechnologies for improving the performance of the transportation infrastructure and increasing the  X4 xcefficiency of existing roads rather than relying primarily on additional road construction.M Z {O'ԍSee DOT Comments at 3.M DOT  xsubmits that a new allocation of spectrum is needed to support the requirements of emerging and  xfuture DSRC services particularly those with public safety implications as well as to support  XK4 x<the growth and interoperability of existing services.OK {O'ԍSee DOT Comments at 45.O Further, DOT claims, a new allocation of  xpspectrum for DSRC applications will facilitate their nationwide compatibility and interoperability,  X4 xas well as permit innovative new uses for DSRCbased services.M~ {OL'ԍSee DOT Comments at 8.M No commenter challenges the  x}need for a DSRC allocation or the public benefits that would accrue from the anticipated DSRC  xEoperations, but, as addressed below, some commenters do question the wisdom of allocating  xspectrum in the 5.8505.925 GHz band for DSRC or state that there is an inadequate basis to support the full 75 megahertz allocation proposed by ITS America.  X4 e F9.` ` In their comments, ITS proponents state that the 5.8505.925 GHz band is optimal  xfor a DSRC allocation because: the band has favorable frequency propagation characteristics for  x}DSRC; a DSRC allocation in the band would be consistent with international allocations for, and  xAdeployment of, similar services; and DSRC operations would be compatible with existing  xoperations in the band. Specifically, Saab Systems, Inc. ("Saab") states that frequencies in this  xrange exhibit short range propagation characteristics that, in combination with the use of small  xDSRC transceivers, deployment of multiple transponders, and use of triangulation techniques," ,-(-(ZZ"  X4 xfacilitate the tailoring of signal coverage to meet the needs of individual applications. {Oy' " ԍSee Saab Comments at 2. In particular, Saab stresses that these techniques will allow development of high accuracy toll collection systems. Similarly,  xcITS America states that the propagation characteristics in this frequency range would facilitate  xVDSRC use of narrowlyfocused and rapidly dissipating signals and, thus, heavy channel reuse in  x"nearby locations. ITS America asserts that such DSRC links would be able to achieve desired  xcommunications distances of 30 to 90 meters, even with transmission at relatively low power, and  X4 xpunder all weather conditions.V" {O` 'ԍSee ITS America Petition at 44.V Further, ITS America states, unlike lower frequency ranges, the  x<5.9 GHz range offers adequate spectrum capacity for DSRC, yet, unlike higher frequencies for  xwhich equipment may be prohibitively expensive, this frequency range allows for use of  xaffordable communications equipment. The American Automobile Manufacturers Association  x[("AAMA"), Saab and others also point out that the 5.9 GHz frequency range is generally  X 4 x&consistent with the allocation for DSRC in Europe%  yO' " ԍThe Comit) Europ)en de Normalisation ("CEN") has approved the 5.7955.805 GHz band for DSRC and  {OG'may consider the 5.8055.815 GHz band for additional DSRC applications. See ITS America Petition at 45.% and some countries in Asia.BZ  yO' " ԍJapan, Singapore, Korea, and other Asian countries have agreed to DSRC use of 40 megahertz of spectrum  {O' x chosen from ISM frequencies within the 5.7255.875 GHz range. See ITS America Petition Attachment 4 to Appendix L at 6.B They state that  xthis factor will facilitate lower production costs for 5.9 GHz DSRC equipment, encourage quicker  xdevelopment and deployment of DSRC equipment globally, stimulate increased competition  x@among equipment manufacturers, and spur U.S. equipment manufacturers to compete in the global  X 4 xDSRC market.e 0  {O'ԍSee Saab Comments at 3 and AAMA Comments at 1.e Finally, ITS America and DOT point out that the Public Safety Wireless  X 4 xpAdvisory Committee ("PSWAC")  yO' " ԍPSWAC is a joint committee established by the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information  {O' x Administration ("NTIA") to explore the spectrum needs of public safety agencies. See, e.g., Second Notice of  {O' x Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of the Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for  {Ov' x Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 9686, 12FCCRcd.17706 (1997). in its Final Report stressed the important public safety value  X4of ITS and recommended the allocation of the 5.8505.925 GHz band for DSRC systems.nx {O 'ԍSee ITS America Petition at 34 and DOT Comments at 34.n  Xb4 e  10.` ` However, some parties with interests in this band question whether the allocation  x/of the 5.8505.925 GHz band is appropriate for DSRC applications. Specifically, the American  x Radio Relay League, Inc ("ARRL") claims that alternatives to this band have not been adequately  xexplored and urges that frequencies above 40 GHz ("millimeter wave frequencies") are largely  xundeveloped and also have short range capabilities. Additionally, ARRL argues that millimeter  xwave frequencies provide significant frequency reuse capability, and DSRC applications in those" ,-(-(ZZ"  xfrequencies would not receive interference because of the current dearth of commercial users in  xthat spectrum. The ARRL also claims that the 5.8505.925 GHz band is necessary for the future  xpdevelopment of amateur wideband digital transmissions and video. It also states that, of the 275  xmegahertz of spectrum allocated to the amateur service in the 5.8 GHz range, 175 megahertz  xwould be rendered significantly less useful to amateurs by ITS America's proposal in combination  x&with our recent decision to allow unlicensed National Information Infrastructure ("UNII") devices  Xv4 x}to operate in the 5.7255.825 GHz band.zv {O'ԍSee Report and Order, ET Docket No. 96102, 12 FCC Rcd 1576 (1997).z Additionally, ARRL argues that the DSRC spectrum  xallocations being considered in Europe and Asia operate on spectrum below 5.850 GHz and, thus,  xpare not consistent with the allocation proposed in the Petition despite ITS proponents' contention  X14 xpto the contrary.N1Z {O< 'ԍSee ARRL Comments at 8.N Further, Resound Corporation ("Resound"), a manufacturer of unlicensed low  xRpower auditory assistance devices used by people with hearing disabilities, opposes a DSRC  xallocation in the 5.8505.875 GHz segment, claiming that such operations could interfere with  X 4hearing assistance devices it plans to manufacture for operation in this segment.S  {O'ԍSee Resound Comments at 5. S  X 4 e  11.` ` Regarding the size of the spectrum allocation, ITS America states that 75  xcmegahertz of spectrum is needed in this frequency range to accommodate all existing, emerging  xand future DSRCbased ITS services. ITS America's Petition includes as an attachment ARINC's  xSpectrum Requirements for DSRC Report ("ARINC Report") which indicates that 75 megahertz  xof DSRC spectrum is necessary to permit frequency coordination with existing spectrum users  xand other DSRC users; to allow the development of affordable invehicle transponders; and to  xImaintain consistency with the design of many operational and experimental DSRC systems that  X4 xuse channel bandwidths ranging from 5 to 10 megahertz.~ {OL' " ԍSee ITS America Petition at 37. ITS America's Petition does not endorse a particular channeling plan or  x specific channel bandwidth. However, the spectrum requirements study, prepared by ARINC, Inc. for ITS America,  x presupposes that the DSRCbased services anticipated for this band will need at least eight 6megahertz channels,  x as well as additional channels to allow for flexibility in channel assignment and coordination of frequencies among  {On'various DSRC users. See id, App. H (ARINC Report) at 55. Additionally, ITS America argues that  x+a 75 megahertz allocation will permit future DSRCbased services to evolve without further  x3regulatory action. Moreover, ITS America, AAMA, the American Trucking Association ("ATA")  x/and others state that the existing LMS allocation at 902928 MHz cannot support all developing  X4DSRCbased user services.2  {O"'ԍSee ITS America Petition at 43, AAMA Comments at 1 and ATA Comments at 1.  X4 e i 12.` ` Opposing comments contend that if an allocation is made, it should be less than  x75 megahertz. BellSouth Corporation ("BellSouth"), though generally supporting a primary  xallocation of contiguous spectrum for DSRC that would be sufficiently large to accommodate the  xcontemplated public safety applications, stresses that the existing record is not sufficient to justify"N ,-(-(ZZ"  X4 xan allocation of 75 megahertz.S {Oy'ԍSee BellSouth Comments at 4.S Similarly, ARRL considers premature ITS America's 75  xmegahertz allocation proposal because the record is insufficient to determine the amount of  X4spectrum minimally necessary for DSRC applications.ZZ {O' "} ԍARRL prefers that any such allocation be outside the 5.9 GHz range. See supra para. 10. However, ARRL  x argues that if an allocation must be made in this band it generally supports a DSRC allocation substantial enough to facilitate use of efficient interference mitigation techniques such as roaming channel selection.  X4 e  13.` ` Proposal. We find that the record justifies proposing a substantial allocation for  xDSRC in the 5.9 GHz band. While the DSRC spectrum in Europe and Asia does not overlap the  x5.8505.925 GHz band, we believe it is close enough to enable equipment manufacturers to  xbenefit from global economies of scale. Such an allocation would likely facilitate global research,  xtechnological innovations, and industry standardssetting activities that would result in the mass  xproduction of equipment to take advantage of economies of scale. We believe that, in the 5.9  xGHz band, equipment can be designed with builtin flexibility, allowing, for example, use of  xhighly directional antennas to focus signals where needed. In contrast, we believe that the  x&development of DSRC equipment for the emerging millimeter wave band, as suggested by ARRL,  xmight increase considerably production costs. Further, we believe that the 5.9 GHz range offers  xAadequate spectral capacity for DSRC applications and that, below this range, it would be  xextremely difficult to find an available spectrum block with adequate spectral capacity. For  x<instance, the 902928 MHz LMS band is currently used for DSRClike applications and, though  xwe intend to allow continued use of that band for such applications, we agree with comments that  x+the limited amount of spectrum in the band and its increasing use by other services render it  XM4 x_inadequate to support the full panoply of DSRC applications."M| yOz' "c ԍWe note that ITS America has not requested any rule changes for existing DSRCtype LMS operations in  x the 902928 MHz band and that several incumbent parties support continued use of the 902928 MHz band for such  {O ' xo operations. See, e.g, International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association Comments at 3; and Mark IV Industries, LTD, I.V.H.S. Division Comments at 5.  The record indicates that the  xspectral environment and propagation characteristics of the 5.9 GHz band are appropriate for  x"short range DSRC applications, enabling sufficient signal coverage and considerable frequency reuse.  X4 e 5 14.` ` Regarding the specific amount of spectrum needed for a DSRC allocation, we  xbelieve it important to propose an allocation sufficiently large to accommodate existing and  x}emerging services plus future development of the full panoply of DSRC applications which have  xgreat potential to improve highway safety and efficiency, even in those areas where Fixed  xSatellite Service ("FSS") operations or high powered Government radar systems may reduce the  xavailability of some channels. Nevertheless, we question whether the 6 megahertz channels used  XP4 xlas a basis for the spectrum requirements study\Pf  {Og&'ԍSee supra para. 11 and note 26.\ will truly be needed for DSRC applications,  xespecially in the rapidly advancing age of digital communications. Further, we have some"9 ,-(-(ZZ_"  X4 xconcern as to whether certain technical approaches identified in the record,  {Oy' "l ԍ See i.e.,  ARINC Report at 6162, ITS America Petition at 5254 and ITS America Petition Attachment 5 to Appendix L at 1. such as passive  xIbackscatter and active transceivers requiring wide bandwidth channels, would pose a spectrally  xefficient solution for DSRC applications, and we discuss this issue below in greater depth. In any  xevent, we propose to allocate 75 megahertz of spectrum, at 5.8505.925 GHz, to the Mobile  x'Service and to designate its use for DSRC operations. We tentatively conclude that this  xsignificant amount of proposed spectrum would further the goals of the National ITS program  xand encourage the development of advanced technologies to increase the safety and efficiency of  xthe national transportation infrastructure well into the future. Additionally, a 75 megahertz  x@allocation should enable avoidance of occupied frequencies in areas where incumbent use is heavy  x+and should be sufficient to meet the spectrum demands of future DSRC operations, such as  X 4 xAutomated Highway Systems,! " yO ' " ԍAutomated Highway Systems ("AHS") would transfer full control of equipped vehicles to an automated system operating on designated AHS lanes. which could require several dedicated wideband channels to  xensure reliability. We request comment on whether this proposed allocation is excessive given  xpthat efficient spectrum use techniques exist and our goal of promoting spectrum efficiency. We  X 4welcome alternative suggestions for an allocation for DSRC.  X 4  V 4B. Spectrum Sharing.  Xy4 e 15.` ` In its Petition, ITS America states that ARINC's technical analysis indicates that  x"DSRCbased services can successfully share the 5.8505.925 GHz band on a coprimary basis  x}with existing Government and nonGovernment users. ITS America also states that the Federal  xDepartment of Highways ("FDHW") and the Department of Defense ("DOD") are currently  X4 xdeveloping a test program to identify and alleviate any interference concerns.V"z {OH'ԍSee ITS America Petition at 48.V ITS America  x}indicates that coordination and testing activities are ongoing and contends that suitable mitigation  xtechniques should be able to alleviate interference from DOD emitters. Further, the ARINC  xReport, relied upon by ITS America, states that most of the Nation's roadways will be free of  xinterference to DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz range, but in those areas where high powered  x weather radar operations and satellite stations have a potential to interfere with DSRC operations,  X4 xhdesign adaptations (e.g., highly directional antennas, filters, signal absorption or reflection  X~4 xdevices) could be used to compensate for unwanted signals.[#~  {O;"'ԍSee supra n. 26, ARINC Report at 79.[ Similarly, ITS America points out  xthat because there are few FSS Earth station transmitters, DSRC transceivers can easily be located to avoid interference.  X"4 e 16.` ` ITS America also avers that low power DSRC devices would be designed to  xlsuppress unwanted emissions and therefore would provide little likelihood of causing harmful"  #,-(-(ZZ"  xinterference to current RF spectrum users. The ARINC Report attached to the ITS America  xPetition states that low power DSRC signals will be pointed down towards the roadway or  xhorizontal to the roadway, reducing their potential to interfere with other operations. ARINC's  xReport adds that the FSS has only space station receivers in this band and no terrestrial receivers  x<for DSRC operations to influence. Similarly, ITS America points out that the high directionality  x/of the FSS links reduces the interference potential with DSRC operations. ITS America states  xthat while it is not aware of any ISM devices currently operating in the 5.8505.925 GHz band,  xRexisting ITS operations under the LMS service at 902928 MHz currently coexist with ISM  x}operations with minimal interference, and it reasons that similar sharing should be possible at 5.9  X14 xGHz.Y$1 {O 'ԍSee ITS America Petition at 4851.Y Additionally, ITS America states that it is working with representatives of the ARRL and  xRResound to develop a potential sharing plan with amateur and unlicensed Part 15 operations,  xVrespectively. The ARINC Report states that the full 75 megahertz allocation will permit DSRC  xoperations to choose channels within the band to avoid interference with other operations in  X 4certain geographic areas.N% Z {O'ԍSee ARINC Report at 80.N  X 4 e `17.` ` However, one DSRC proponent argues that spectrum sharing may not be possible  xbetween certain incumbent operations and new DSRC operations. Specifically, the Minnesota  xMining and Manufacturing Company ("3M") argues that DSRC communications require  x}protection from secondary and unlicensed operations such as amateur, Part 15 devices and ISM  xdevices because harmful interference to DSRC systems could jeopardize the safety of drivers.  xl3M claims that the amateur radio operations have the greatest potential to interfere with ITS  xoperations because their stations are permitted to transmit at 1.5 kilowatts ("kW") peak envelope  xoutput power ("PEP") with unlimited gain antennas. 3M states that an amateur station at this  X4 x3power could "swamp out" an entire area, rendering DSRC services there unusable.I& {O'ԍSee 3M Reply at 6.I Additionally,  x3M states that the amateur service has access to 1624 megahertz of spectrum between 50 MHz  xand 50 GHz and makes only light use of the 5.9 GHz band. Therefore, 3M argues that the  xcamateur service could be displaced from the band without suffering any substantial impact upon  xpits current or future operations. Further, 3M points out that unlicensed ISM devices in the same  xRfrequency range have no power or field strength limitations. Therefore, 3M urges that ISM, secondary and unlicensed operations be removed from the 5.8505.925 GHz band.  X74 e S18.` ` Additionally, incumbent interests argue that spectrum sharing potential in this band  xchas not been demonstrated. Specifically, the ARRL states that, though DSRC applications may  x8not necessarily be incompatible with incumbent and future amateur use of the spectrum, the  xrecord in this proceeding is insufficient to demonstrate such compatibility. ARRL also argues  xthat no one has explored the impact on secondary amateur use of the band if DSRC facilities are  xVpermitted to operate on a primary basis. ARRL states that the public safety nature and Part 90  xcstatus of this allocation implies that those operations will need to be interference free, a concern"! ~&,-(-(ZZf "  xthat is reinforced by 3M's request (opposed by ARRL) to remove secondary operations from this  X4 xband.N' {Ob'ԍSee ARRL Comments at 7.N ARRL claims that if 3M is correct that DSRC public safety applications would be  x"susceptible to interference from amateur operations, then the proposed DSRC allocation would  X4 xbe unjustified.K(Z {O'ԍSee ARRL Reply at 5.K Nevertheless, ARRL states that it is ready to work with the ITS entities to  X4 xpresolve spectrum sharing issues, but until this issue is resolved any action is premature. Further,  xEResound states that the ITS America Petition offers no protection for low power unlicensed  xuoperations in the 5.8505.875 GHz band. Resound adds that the Petition does not contain  xAsufficient information to determine whether DSRC devices will interfere with low power  xunlicensed operations. Additionally, Resound and ARRL stress that there are no specific designs  x<or technical standards for DSRC devices, so that it is impossible to evaluate whether and under  xwhat conditions these devices would cause or receive interference. Nevertheless, Resound asserts  x that DSRC systems as described in the Petition are certain to create interference to cofrequency  x&low power hearing assistance devices in a mobile environment. Resound states its concerns could  X 4 xbe addressed by excluding DSRC applications from the 5.8505.875 GHz segment.N)  {Or'ԍSee Resound Reply at 4.N Resound  xadds that although the Petition states that ITS America is working with Resound and ARRL to  xaddress spectrum compatibility, they have only had one meeting and no testing has been done.  x/3M responds that the Commission's Rules do not provide any protection to Resound's proposed  Xy4 xunlicensed operations.I*y~ {O'ԍSee 3M Reply at 6.I The Land Mobile Communications Council ("LMCC"), however, states  xthat Resound's auditory assistance devices do serve the public interest and the parties should,  XK4therefore, work to achieve a sharing protocol between these operations.K+K {O 'ԍSee LMCC Reply at 2.K  X4 e F19.` ` Proposal. As discussed above, we believe that DSRCbased ITS services are in  xthe public interest and should be accommodated in the 5.9 GHz range if possible. We also  xbelieve the band at issue does offer spectrum sharing capabilities because of the operating  xMcharacteristics of the incumbent services and the apparent light use of the band, but seek comment  x_on likely future use of the band by current operators. Specifically, we note that Government  xradar systems and ISM devices typically would not be susceptible to interference from DSRC  xapplications and that DSRC operations, in turn, could use frequency and geographic separation to avoid interference from those Government and ISM operations.  XP4 e 20.` ` As mentioned above, this band is also used for FSS uplinks. However, a review  x4of the Commission's records indicates that there are 55 FSS earth stations, including two  x}transportable stations, licensed to use this band. Given the limited number of FSS earth stations  xccurrently authorized, we believe that spectrum sharing between FSS and DSRC operations may"  +,-(-(ZZ@"  xbe possible. However, we seek comment on the likely future needs for this spectrum for FSS  x/earth stations. In this regard, we note that given the much higher power of FSS operations and  xthe relatively low power of DSRC operations, individual DSRC operations should not cause  xharmful interference to incumbent FSS satellite operations. We also do not expect that DSRC  x"devices in the aggregate would negatively impact existing or future FSS operations, particularly  xgiven that there are several other potentially significant contributors to the overall noise level in  xthis band, such as government radars and ISM devices. We request comment on this preliminary  xZassessment. We also seek comment on what, if any, effects the widespread deployment of DSRC  x_devices could have on future development of FSS operations in this band. In this regard, we  xobserve that widespread deployment of mobile devices, including devices with potential public  xsafety uses, could make it more difficult to coordinate new FSS operations. We also seek  xcomment on whether there are any instances in which DSRC services might be unacceptably  x[impaired by FSS operations. We seek comment on whether terrain shielding, directional  X 4 xantennas,,  yON' " ԍFor example, the use of directional antennas to point DSRC transmissions down towards the roadway or horizontally to the road surface would reduce the strength of unwanted DSRC signals received by the satellite.  RF fencing and other techniques can be employed by DSRC operators to avoid  xMreceiving or causing interference. Alternatively, should interference situations arise where the two  x@services are not compatible in a specific area or over a range of frequencies, we request comment  xpon the feasibility of relocating the FSS operations to other geographic areas or frequency bands  Xy4 xusing the principles outlined in the Emerging Technologies rulemaking.-y  {OJ' "[ ԍSee Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications  {O' x! Technologies, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7 FCC Rcd 6886 (1992); Second  {O' x Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6495 (1993); Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC  {O' x Rcd 6589 (1993); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1943 (1994); Second Memorandum Opinion and  {Or'Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7797 (1994). That is, if the DSRC  xlicensee needs spectrum used by an FSS licensee, the DSRC entity would be responsible for the  xVexpense of modifying the FSS uplink to another location or frequency and ensuring that the FSS entity is able to achieve comparable operations.  X4 e 21.` ` Unlicensed low power operations in the 5.850-5.875 GHz segment may be affected  xAby this potential allocation. We agree with Resound that its proposed low power hearing  xassistance devices, which may operate pursuant to Part 15, could receive harmful interference if  xuused in a roaming mobile environment in close proximity to co-channel DSRC operations.  xAlthough unlicensed devices have no allocation status and are not protected by our Rules, we  xRbelieve that the provision of hearing assistance devices to those with disabilities is a valuable  xservice in the public interest. At present, any mobile Part 15 hearing assistance device operations  xin the 5.8505.875 GHz band could encounter interference problems from various higher powered  xincumbent operations such as Government radar operations, FSS and ISM operations. To our  xknowledge Resound has not yet manufactured devices that use this band, but merely plans to  xmanufacture such devices. Therefore, we request comment on whether the 5.8505.875 GHz  xsegment is currently being used for hearing assistance device operations, the likelihood of any such future uses, and whether any measures can or should be taken to protect such uses. " -,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X4 e Sԙ22.` ` We also note that the secondary amateur radio allocation which overlaps the band  xrequested by ITS America appears to be lightly used. We acknowledge that amateur operations  X4 xare permitted to operate at up to 1.5 kW PEPQ. {OK'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  97.313.Q output with high gain antennas which could  xinterfere with DSRC receivers if operated on similar frequencies in the same geographic area.  x&Nevertheless, amateur operations have access to 275 megahertz in the 5.6505.925 GHz band and  x&we believe any amateur use of the 5.9 GHz range could be engineered to avoid DSRC operations.  xAlso, amateurs may be able to continue use of these frequencies in rural areas where DSRC  xapplications may not be extensively deployed. We anticipate that any interference problems that  xmay develop between amateur stations and DSRC operations could be resolved by changing the  x+frequency of the amateur operation in order to protect primary status operations or by other engineering techniques, such as power reduction or directional antennas.  X 4 e 23.` ` Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that DSRCbased ITS services can share  xspectrum with incumbent operations in this frequency range. We request comment on this issue  x and solicit further analysis of the spectrum sharing potential between DSRCbased operations and the incumbent use of the 5.8505.925 GHz band.  Xy4 e >24.` ` Finally, even with the apparent compatibility of DSRC applications with the  xlexisting operations in this band, we believe it is necessary to outline an order of responsibility  xin resolving interference problems, if they occur. Specifically, we note that DSRC operations are  xnot likely to interfere with Government radar operations and ISM operations, but the reverse may  xgnot always be the case. We propose to require DSRC operations to accept interference generated  X4 xby ISM operations in this range, as is generally the case in ISM bands.]/Z {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  2.106 footnote 806.] Additionally, we note  x"that DSRC operations, Government radar operations and FSS Earthtospace operations would  xoperate on a coprimary basis in this frequency range. Therefore, we propose to place the  xAresponsibility for coordination equally on each of those operations through the Frequency  x"Assignment Subcommittee of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee. As is generally  xthe case with coprimary services, any licensee initiating new or modified service in the band  xwould be required to avoid interference to existing operations. Finally, secondary amateur  x"operations would not be permitted to cause harmful interference to primary licensed operations  xin this frequency range. Nonetheless, to the extent that DSRC applications may operate on an  xunlicensed basis under Part 15, they would be required to avoid causing interference to and  xcannot claim interference protection from all operations with secondary and primary allocation status. We request comment on this issue and encourage suggestions for alternative approaches.  X4C. Technical Standards.  X!4 e 25.` ` In its Petition, ITS America states that it does not endorse a particular technical  xapproach to DSRC deployment and indicates that the record should illustrate many alternative"" /,-(-(ZZ!"  x technical approaches to deployment and channelization. ITS America does not propose a specific  xchannelization plan, licensing method or technical rules, but argues that these issues require  x<development of consensus through standardization activities and the Commission's deliberations  X4 xin this proceeding.V0 {O4'ԍSee ITS America Petition at 41.V Nevertheless, ITS America does propose amendments to Part 90 of our  xRules that would permit 5.9 GHz DSRC operations, but these rules would only require that an  xapplicant include the technical details of its system within its license application. ITS America  xoffers to work with the Commission and interested parties during the proceeding to examine and  x'accommodate as many different technical approaches as possible for DSRC operations.  xAdditionally, ITS America indicates that several standardssetting bodies are currently developing air interface and other technical standards for DSRC operations.  X 4 e B26.` ` Comments from DSRC proponents generally agree that nationwide, as well as  xglobal, DSRC device compatibility and interoperability is desirable to permit users to benefit from  X 4 xITS services as they travel among different geographic areas. For example, the American  xAssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO") and the International  xcBridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association ("IBTTA") state that it is important for motorists to be  x/able to purchase a single DSRC device capable of receiving roadside ITS transmissions from a  Xy4 xvariety of information systems in all regions of the country.h1yZ {O'ԍSee AASHTO Comments at 4 and IBTTA Comments at 3.h The State of Minnesota argues that  x}the lack of a national standard would be a problem for DSRC implementation and that it is being  xaddressed in several committees of standards development organizations. Similarly, 3M contends  xthat the adoption of technical standards is necessary for optimal spectrum utilization, coordination,  X4 xand to facilitate orderly development of future DSRC systems.L2 {O'ԍSee 3M Comments at 9.L DOT states that it is funding  xthe development of DSRC standards through recognized standardssetting organizations, including  xthe Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers ("IEEE") and the American Society of  xTesting and Materials ("ASTM"), and anticipates that this process will lead to a consensus DSRC  X4standard for the nationwide allocation.M3~ {O'ԍSee DOT Comments at 8.M  X4 e 27.` ` The DSRC proponents add that it is too early to propose technical operating  x_standards, but they encourage the Commission to proceed with an allocation while standards  Xe4 xorganizations develop consensus operating parameters. Specifically, Amtech Corporation  xp("Amtech") asserts that while standards may lower costs and facilitate interoperability, the early  xfreezing of standards could saddle the public with suboptimal solutions. Amtech suggests that  x"the Commission encourage field testing of various systems as standards development proceeds  X 4 xand adds that the standards setting process should include participation by various stakeholders.M4  {O&'ԍSee Amtech Reply at 9.M " 4,-(-(ZZ"  xNAmtech believes that the choice of technology for ITS will be sorted out in the standards  xdevelopment process and the Commission should not preclude any technology. Therefore,  xcAmtech urges the Commission to proceed with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") to  xprovide the allocation, followed by a second proceeding focused on service rules. Because  xdifferent DSRC applications may call for different technologies, Amtech recommends that the  x"Commission limit unwanted emissions, but that service rules be considered only after standards  xhave matured and among other things, accommodate the need for flexibility and broadly define  X_4 x"transportation" to accommodate related services, such as cashless transactions for food and fuel.M5_ {O'ԍSee Amtech Reply at 8.M  xSimilarly, 3M states that the Commission's first step should be to allocate spectrum to ITS for  xDSRC, and then it should allow DSRC systems to be deployed on a developmental basis, subject  x"to adoption of final technical standards. 3M also states that the Commission should propose an  x+emission mask to minimize unwanted emissions and reduce interference, as well as propose  X 4appropriate maximum power levels for general types of DSRC applications.M6 Z {O'ԍSee 3M Comments at 10.M  X 4 e  28.` ` Proposal. We propose only rules necessary to prevent harmful interference among  xthe licensees of the DSRC systems and incumbent radio services with equal or greater allocation  xstatus. This approach will offer licensees the maximum technical flexibility so that market forces  xcan optimize development. The weight of the comments support this proposal. Below, we  xpropose power limits, unwanted emission limits, and RF safety guidelines. These rules are  x<necessary to enhance spectrum sharing compatibility and efficiency, rely on market forces, and  xapply our existing RF safety guidelines to protect spectrum users and the general public. We also  xseek comment on other technical issues in order to encourage industry to begin a process that,  xwe believe, will lead to consensus on standards that will permit nationwide interoperability for  xsome DSRC applications and that may bear fruit in a future proceeding to establish licensing and service rules.  V4 C.1. Power.  X~4 e 29.` ` While no party proposed specific power limits for DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz  xband, the record contains information regarding the necessary operating range of these operations  xand the power needed to achieve reliable communications. Specifically, ITS America states that  xDSRC systems must be able to transmit over distances of 30 to 90 meters (98 to 295 feet) at  x<relatively low power levels under all weather conditions. While it does not propose a maximum  X 4 xpower limit,W7  {O#'ԍSee ITS America Petition at 44. W in its reply comments ITS America states that a typical DSRC transmitter is  xanticipated to have an Effective Isotropically Radiated Power ("EIRP") of 4 watts ("W") and  X4 x+certain highpowered transmitters are anticipated to have an EIRP of 40 W.]8~ {O ''ԍSee ITS America Reply Attachment at 2.] Further, ITS"8,-(-(ZZ"  xAmerica's Petition indicates that the European Prestandard for DSRC operations permits DSRC  xroadside units ("beacons") to operate with an EIRP of 2 W (33 dBm) to achieve communications  X4 xdistances of up to 15 meters (50 feet).9 {OK'ԍSeeĠARINC Report at Appendix D page 7 and ITS Petition Attachment 3 to Appendix L at 15. Additionally, the Japanese draft standard, "Road Traffic  x+and Transport Telematics (RTTT) DSRC Standard Using Microwave in Japan," anticipates  xcommunications over distances of 10 to 50 meters (33 to 164 feet) and points to experiments with  x<beacons operating with less than 300 milliwatts ("mW") EIRP and onboard units with less than  xg10 mW EIRP. However, ITS America states that the RTTT Standard permits beacons to transmit  X_4 xwith a maximum power of 40 W (46 dBm) EIRP.:_Z {Oj 'ԍSee ITS America Petition Attachment 4 to Appendix L at 6 and Attachment 5 at 1. As mentioned above, Saab supports the use  xof directional antennas to tailor coverage to meet the needs of individual applications and to  X14 xVenable triangulation techniques for increased system accuracy for toll collection.N;1 {O 'ԍSee Saab Comments at 2.N Additionally,  xAmtech states that service rules should provide great flexibility regarding power and antenna height to easily accommodate highway situations such as elevated roadways and bridges.  X 4 e 30.` ` Proposal. We recognize that different DSRC applications could have different  xrange and power requirements and that the specific requirements for each application will be  xcustomized for the application and may be established in an informal standards setting process.  xpWe do believe it is beneficial to propose a maximum power limit for DSRC operations sufficient  xto achieve the necessary communication ranges while also limiting their potential to cause  xZharmful interference. The operational characteristics of DSRC operations should generally require  xprelatively low power levels, would cover very short distances and could require a high degree of  xEfrequency reuse. We acknowledge the need for flexibility to accommodate various antenna  xheights and levels of antenna directionality dependent on the DSRC application and transportation  x[infrastructure. In addressing power limits, we take into account the likelihood that use of  xdirectional antennas will be crucial to DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz range in order to increase  xfrequency reuse, reduce interference with other spectrum users, increase accuracy and reliability  x_of communications between roadside beacons and individual vehicles, and permit specialized DSRC applications such as triangulation.  X~4 e m31.` ` We note that DSRC type LMS operations in the 902928 MHz band are permitted  x}to operate with a maximum power of 30 watts Effective Radiated Power ("ERP"), measured as  XP4 xWpeak envelope power.T<P~ {O"'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  90.205(j).T Further, the maximum antenna height above ground for non X94 xlmultilateration LMS systems is 15 meters.T=9 {O$'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  90.353(h).T We recognize that signals in the 5.9 GHz range  x=propagate shorter distances than equivalently powered signals in the 900 MHz range.  xINevertheless, LMS operations in the 902928 MHz band are not necessarily limited to the short" =,-(-(ZZ@"  xrange communications anticipated for most DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz range. We also note  xcthat Appendix A of the ARINC Report indicates that several ITS equipment manufacturers are  xmaking equipment in both the 900 MHz and 5.8 GHz range capable of communicating over  xdistances ranging from a couple of feet to a mile, using a transmitter power much less than 1 watt  xcoupled with various antenna gains. Given that LMS operations are permitted 30 W ERP and  x&that such power can permit communication ranges much farther than that needed for DSRC links;  xwe tentatively conclude that a 40 W EIRP limit would be excessive for the relatively short range  x}communications to be provided by DSRC links. Nevertheless, we request comment on whether  xsuch higher powered operations should be permitted for DSRC applications. We believe most  x/DSRC applications would reliably be achieved using less than 4 W EIRP, but in order to permit  xVflexibility of services and system design, we propose to permit DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz  xrange to operate with a maximum transmitter output power of 750 mW with up to 16 dBi gain  xantennas (30 W EIRP). We propose to allow DSRC equipment to use antennas with more than  x<16 dBi gain if the maximum permitted transmitter output power is reduced by 1 dB for each dB  X 4 xcthat the antenna gain exceeds 16 dBi, i.e., as long as the 30 W EIRP limit is not exceeded. We  xybelieve that specifying DSRC power limits in this fashion and allowing use of directional gain  xantennas will promote frequency reuse, customization of signal coverage areas, and reduction of  xhinterference potential with other operations. We believe that such rules will allow DSRC  xoperations a high degree of flexibility and will lead to the manufacture of affordable DSRC  x/equipment. We request comment on our proposal. Specifically, should the DSRC power limits  xbe expressed only in terms of EIRP or is an approach such as considering antenna gain preferable? Is there a need to restrict or prohibit wide area DSRC operations?  V4C.2.  Unwanted Emission Limits.  X4 e 32.` ` Some DSRC proponents recommend that the Commission establish limits on  xcunwanted emissions to minimize interference problems, but no party proffers any specific limits.  xWe agree that it is important to limit the amount of unwanted emissions, both those occurring  xoutside of the DSRC spectrum band and those emanating from one channel to the next within the  xDSRC band. As pointed out above, some DSRC applications may have travelersafety  xuimplications that would require reliable communications. Therefore, interference from an  xadjacent channel DSRC operation may create safety concerns. We tentatively conclude that the  X"4 xexisting emission mask requirements for LMS operations in the 902928 MHz bandt>" {O'#X\  P6G;IP#э See 47 C.F.R.  90.210(k).t would  x4satisfactorily address those concerns and therefore would also be appropriate for DSRC  x<applications in the 5.9 GHz range. We believe that this level of unwanted emission suppression  xAis necessary to permit the use of adjacent DSRC channels in any given geographic area.  xpAccordingly, we propose to amend the emission mask requirements of Section 90.210(k) to also  X!4apply to DSRC operations in the 5.9 GHz band.a?!Z {O%'ԍSee proposed rule 90.210(k) in App. A.a ""?,-(-(ZZ!"Ԍ X4C.3. RF Guidelines.  X4 e S 33.` ` Two parties oppose the allocation of spectrum for DSRC operations because they  x claim that such operations would generate sufficient levels of RF energy to cause health problems  X4 xto the public. Specifically, the Cellular Phone Taskforce ("CPT") and the Electrical Sensitivity  xNetwork ("ESN") claim that some people are especially sensitive to RF energy and oppose the  xpuse of DSRC devices along highways, claiming that these operations will not permit "electrically  xsensitive" people to travel safely. According to ESN, the general notion that RF exposure to low  xpower DSRC operations would not pose any biohazard concern fails to consider "electrical  xEsensitivity," which reduces one's tolerance to "normal" electromagnetic exposures. Until the  x8electrically sensitive population is considered in the overall planning of wireless exposures in  X 4 xpublic areas, ESN argues that no further approval of wireless systems should be considered.J@  {O~ 'ԍSee ESN Reply at 3.J  X 4 xCPT claims that the Commission's RF exposure level guidelines are based on studies of acute  X 4 xVexposure to RF emissions at levels of 1 mW per square cm or more and have no bearing on the  X 4safety of chronic exposure to much smaller levels of RF exposure.  X4 e !34.` ` DSRC proponents respond that the Commission's guidelines adequately address  xany scientificallybased RF exposure concerns. 3M and ITS America point out that the  xCommission specifically rejected ESN's and CPT's RF exposure arguments in the Second  XQ4 xVMemorandum Opinion and Order ("Second MO&O") in ET Docket No. 9362.JAQZ {O\'ԍSee 3M Reply at 10.J ITS America  xpadds that the Commission in its Second MO&O amended the Commission's Rules to clarify and  xrefine the regulations governing the evaluation of the environmental effects of RF electromagnetic  x emissions. The Commission also issued a new OET Bulletin 65 to be used in evaluating  x<compliance with the new requirements. ITS America states that DSRC operations will comply  xcwith the Commission's RF exposure rules and stresses that neither CPT nor ESN has submitted  xany technical information showing why these rules should not apply to DSRC operations in the  X45.9 GHz band.RB {OM'ԍSee ITS America Reply at 6.R  X4 e 5"35.` ` Proposal. The issues raised by CPT and ESN were addressed in the Second  xMO&O in ET Docket No. 9362, in which we amended our rules regarding safe levels of RF  XV4 xcelectromagnetic emissions.tC^V~ {O"' "y ԍSee Report and Order, ET Docket No. 9362, 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1997), Second Memorandum Opinion  {OO#' x and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at para. 31, ET Docket No. 9362, 12 FCC Rcd 13494 (1997). See  {O$'also, 47 C.F.R.  1.1307(b). t Additionally, as is always the case for FCC approved devices, we  xVwill require all DSRC equipment to comply with our RF safety guidelines. We believe this level  xof protection is appropriate and will not result in the generation of unsafe levels of RF energy. "(C,-(-(ZZ<"  xWe request comment, however, on whether any specific aspects of our RF safety guidelines are inappropriate for the deployment of DSRC equipment.  V4C.4. Channelization and Frequency Stability.  X4 e #36.` ` The DSRC proponents generally support adoption of a channelization plan to  xpfacilitate the goal of nationwide compatibility and interoperability. 3M states that it is imperative  xto promptly move towards adoption of a channelization plan in order to accommodate orderly  xdevelopment of both broadband and narrowband DSRC operations. 3M argues that different  x}DSRC services will require different operational limits; for instance, both oneway low data rate  x and twoway high data rate operations are anticipated. For applications that only require low data  xprate oneway links, a narrowband channelization plan would allow many channels to exist within  X 4 xthe same bandwidth occupied by a single broad channel.LD  {Oe 'ԍSee 3M Comments at 5.L BellSouth suggests that the  xcCommission solicit comment on whether it would be useful to channelize the spectrum based on  X 4 x@the particular services offered.SE Z {O'ԍSee BellSouth Comments at 6.S Additionally, Amtech states that the Commission should consider  xhow a limited amount of spectrum could be employed on an uncoordinated nonexclusive basis  xfor use without individual station licenses. Amtech adds that unlicensed devices would serve  xvarious transportation needs involving the use of portable and vehiclemounted tag readers to  Xb4identify "passive electronic landmarks"Fb yO' " ԍIn this scenario, for example, a vehiclemounted, beacontype transmitter would emit signals that would reflect off and convey data from passive devices attached to the landmark. such as street addresses and intersections.MGbD {OW'ԍSee Amtech Reply at 8.M  X44 e $37.` ` Another issue related to channelization and technical flexibility is the use of both  xactive transceiver tags and passive backscatter DSRC mobile units. Amtech and others point out  X4 x@that current DSRC mobile units employ either passive backscatter tagsH yO' "} ԍAmtech explains that backscatter tags contain circuitry that modulates a signal striking the tag so that the  x reflected (backscatter) signal can be received by a reader and then decoded. Backscatter tags do not contain a  xZ transmitter and may operate without a battery, relying on the incident signal as a source of electric power. By  x contrast, active DSRC tags (transceivers) contain transmitters and receivers for communicating with beacons and must  {O 'be connected to batteries or some other source of electric power. See Amtech Reply at 7. or active transceiver tags  x to communicate with roadside beacons. Amtech states that, on the one hand, passive backscatter  x}tags are more reliable than active transceivers and are more "frequency agile," having the ability  xto communicate over a wider range of frequencies. On the other hand, Amtech points out, active  x transceiver tags can communicate over longer distances with less power than passive backscatter  x"tags, but may have a limited battery life. ITS America indicates that a dual mode environment,  xin which both backscatter and active equipment could operate in the band, is possible. For  x8instance, ITS America states, backscatter equipment could operate in the separation spaces"e H,-(-(ZZ"  xbetween the active device channels. ITS America adds that backscatter equipment could also  X4operate in the active device channels in those locations where active devices are not used.pI {Ob'ԍSee ITS America Petition Attachment 5 to Appendix L at 1.p  X4 e %38.` ` Proposal. Although we may defer decisions on channelization issues to a later  xproceeding addressing service rules and licensing of DSRC services, we believe it useful now to  xdiscuss, explore and solicit comment on these issues. This process should assist standards setting  xorganizations that are currently studying and evaluating channelization concerns. While the  xanticipated variety of DSRC services and technologies may complicate considerably the ultimate  xresolution of channelization issues, we believe that some channelization of the DSRC spectrum  xmay be essential to promote spectrum efficiency and to facilitate interoperability. Any DSRC  xEchannelization plan would almost certainly have to accommodate needs to deploy affordable  xequipment, to transmit and receive both narrowband and broadband data, and to handle a variety  x<of communications, including oneway lowspeed data links, twoway highspeed data links and  xso forth. Given the varying capacity demands of the anticipated DSRC applications, there appears to be a need for DSRC channels of different bandwidths.  X4 e #&39.` ` We agree with commenters that active and passive backscatter tags have been used  xadvantageously for existing DSRCtype services, but we do have some concerns as to how these  xtechnologies may be best put to use in the proposed spectrum. Though passive backscatter  XM4 xdevices are affordable and suitable for many DSRC applications, they are typically less spectrum  xAefficient than active transceivers. To accomplish the same coverage distances as active  x/transceivers, backscatter system beacons must transmit with much higher power, which in turn  x"reduces system frequency reusability. Additionally, backscatter system beacons sweep across  xwide bandwidth channels to activate the passive backscatter device and then to receive the  xreflected signal. By contrast, active tag systems could employ channels of narrower bandwidth.  xFurther, active devices can employ higher order modulation techniques capable of transmitting  xcmore data in narrower bandwidth channels. We also note that ITS manufacturers are currently  xAdeveloping both active and passive DSRC equipment for the 5.8 GHz range with various  x3bandwidth requirements. As DSRC services and technologies develop, we anticipate that a desire  xfor higher data throughput and increased spectrum efficiency may favor a migration to active  x"devices using efficient modulation techniques. Further, we believe that economies of scale will cause active DSRC devices to become more affordable as DSRC services develop.  X 4 e '40.` ` We solicit comment and proposals for a channelization plan. We encourage  x<commenters and standards setting organizations to consider and discuss the following factors in  xdeveloping a DSRC channelization plan: optimization of spectrum use; use of informal standards  xhto promote compatibility or interoperability of certain DSRC applications; flexible channel  X!4 xoptions for emerging services;JZ !Z yO%' "} ԍWe note that ARINC's Report indicates that some DSRC applications may need to operate at data rates of  xZ up to 508,707 bits/sec, while others may only need data rates as low as 12,646 bits/sec. To allot the same size  {OJ'' x channel for both applications would be wasteful. See supra Section A (discussion of size of DSRC allocation). We"J'I,-(-(Z'"  x especially note that current technology permits active transceivers to operate at the higher data rate with channel  x widths of less than 500 KHz and therefore are skeptical of the asserted need for 6 megahertz channels. Therefore,  x" we encourage entities working on channelization plans to consider spectrum efficiency issues and avoid channelization that could result in the use of inefficient modulation techniques. diversity of DSRC services; and equipment affordability. For"!J,-(-(ZZ "  x"example, a proposed DSRC channelization plan could provide for a few wideband channels for  xcertain purposes, such as backscatter automatic toll collection, and reserve a number of  xcnarrowband channels for active transponder DSRC services or other services with smaller data  xthroughput requirements. We request comment on whether provision for different channel  xbandwidths for different data requirements or technologies would significantly effect the viability  xor cost of DSRC equipment. Further, we request comment specifically on whether to permit use  x/of both passive and active DSRC devices and on whether and how reliance on informal DSRC  xltechnical standards, as opposed to Commissionadopted standards, may facilitate a smoother transition or integration among DSRC technologies.  X 4 e (41.` ` Another important technical parameter, which affects the ability of DSRC  xoperations to avoid causing interference to DSRC operations on other channels or to other  xservices in nearby spectrum, is frequency stability. We propose to require DSRC emissions to  X 4 xcomply with the requirements specified in Section 2.995 of our Rules.$K  {O6' " ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  2.995. (Frequency stability to be measured with ambient temperature variation of -30$ to  yO'+50$ Centigrade and with variation of primary supply voltage of 85-115% of nominal value.)$ The technical  xrequirements we propose above should be achievable with existing technologies without  xlunnecessarily or unreasonably increasing the cost of DSRC equipment. These requirements  xlwould be incorporated into the certification process by requiring equipment manufacturers to  xcertify as part of their application for certification that their equipment meets the necessary  x8technical requirements. Therefore, licensees and new applicants would be assured that any  xequipment they purchase would comply with these requirements. We request comment on the technical requirements proposed above.  V4C.5. Unlicensed DSRC Technical Standards.  X4 e )42.` ` As previously observed, Amtech has requested that some DSRC channels be made  xIavailable on an uncoordinated nonexclusive basis. We note that Part 15 of our Rules currently  x/permits operation of some unlicensed devices in the 5.8 GHz range that may be appropriate for  xDSRC use. Specifically, Section 15.245 of our Rules permits unlicensed field disturbance sensors  xpto operate in the 5.7855.815 GHz band. While these field disturbance sensors are not available  xfor twoway information communications, our Rules would permit backscatter type tolltag  x[operations in this band with a permitted average field strength of 500 millivolts/meter at a  X74 xhdistance of 3 meters (75 mW EIRP).TL7  {O$'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  15.245(b).T Additionally, Section 15.247 of our Rules permits  x unlicensed spread spectrum communications devices to operate in the 5.7255.850 GHz band with" L,-(-(ZZ"  X4 xca maximum peak transmitter output power of 1 watt with antenna gain of up to 6 dBi.TM {Oy'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  15.247(b).T Finally,  xSection 15.249 permits unlicensed communications devices to operate in the 5.7255.875 GHz  xband with a maximum average field strength of 50 millivolts/meter at a distance of 3 meters (0.8  X4 xmW EIRP).TNZ {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  15.249(a).T We note that each of these three sections may have some limiting factors, such as  xprestrictions on power, modulation technique and type of operations permitted. Nevertheless, we  xpbelieve there are several DSRC applications that could be deployed on unlicensed spectrum and  xcould benefit from the flexibility typically permitted these operations. For example, the low  xpower, short range aspect of some unlicensed operations would permit many businesses within  xVthe same area to establish cashless transaction services at drivethrough windows. We request  xcomment on the sufficiency of the existing rules with respect to employment of unlicensed devices for DSRC.  X 4D. Other Issues.  X 4*43.` ` In its proposed rules, ITS America defines DSRC services as:  "XThe use of nonvoice radio techniques to transfer data over short distances between  "roadside and mobile radio units, between mobile units, and between portable and mobile  "units to perform operations related to the improvement of traffic flow, traffic safety and  "other intelligent transportation service applications in a variety of public and commercial  "environments. DSRC systems may also transmit status and instructional messages related to the units involved.(#  x}3M states that the Part 90 LMS rules limit the 902928 MHz band to nonvoice radio techniques  xcto determine the location and status of mobile radio units, but it argues that ITS could extend far  x beyond the "location and status" functions of LMS under Part 90. 3M contends that the  xCommission should not create the impression that it is substantially identical to the LMS, which has a far more limited application than the new and evolving DSRC systems.  Xg4 e `+44.` ` While some ITS proponents assert that DSRC implementation should be driven by  xpublic safety and roadway government authorities and licensed under the Part 90 Private Land  X94 x"Mobile Radio Service rules,jO9 {O!'ԍSee e.g.,Ġ3M Reply at 9 and ITS America Reply at 8.j BellSouth contends that commercial DSRC applications provided  x[by nongovernment entities should be considered as commercial services and licensed by  xcompetitive bidding. BellSouth questions the impact of new DSRC services on existing  x3commercial wireless service providers and requests the Commission to seek comment on licensing  X4 xand competition issues.SP~ {O ''ԍSee BellSouth Comments at 5.S ITS America and others acknowledge that further consideration and"P,-(-(ZZ"  xconsensus building is needed regarding issues of licensing, commercialization, and other  xIimplementation matters, but believes that these issues could be resolved through standardization  X4activities and the Commission's deliberations in this proceeding.VQ {OK'ԍSee ITS America Petition at 41.V  X4 e i,45.` ` Proposal. We acknowledge that ITS operations, including those of the DSRC  x4type, could expand well beyond the current functions of the LMS. Similarly to the LMS,  xhowever, we do not anticipate a need for voice communications as part of DSRC applications,  xbut request comment on this issue. Further, we believe it is appropriate for now to include the  XJ4 xlDSRC rules under Part 90 of our Rules and as part of Subpart M, " Intelligent Transportation  X34 x Systems Radio Service."R"3Z yO> ' " ԍWe note that the name of Subpart M of Part 90 has recently been changed from the "Transportation  yO ' x Infrastructure Radio Service" to the "Intelligent Transportation Radio System Service." T herefore, 3M's request to  {O ' x rename this subpart is moot. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 9361, 12 FCC Rcd 13942 (1997). We anticipate no difficulty in distinguishing between LMS and DSRC  x[rules where necessary. Further, we propose to adopt ITS America's definition of DSRC applications. We request comment all these matters.  X 4 e r-46.` ` We also acknowledge that DSRC applications could include a varied mix of  xIcommercial, private and public safety services. This mix of services could possibly be provided  xover designated channels to each service or all DSRC channels could possibly be used for any  xmix of services. It is also possible that the licensing of these services will depend on many  x<factors, including the structure of the channelization plan and whether licenses will be issued on  xa mutually exclusive basis. In any event, we believe it is premature to address BellSouth's  xcompetition and licensing concerns and will defer discussion of these issues to a later proceeding  x addressing service and licensing rules. Nevertheless, we request comment on the extent to which  xpthe potential licensing issues and the private versus commercial nature of DSRCbased services effects the allocation, channelization and other technical issues discussed in this proceeding.  X' % PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Đ\  X4 ".47. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. We have certified under the Regulatory  xqFlexibility Act that this present action will not have a significant economic impact on a  xsubstantial number of small entities, and have nonetheless voluntarily written an Initial Regulatory  xFlexibility Analysis (IRFA) of our action. The certification and voluntary IRFA can be found  xin Appendix C. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments should must  x"be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on this  X"4NPRM provided in paragraph 50, infra.  X4 "W /48. Ex Parte Presentation. This is a permitbutdisclose rule making proceeding. Ex  X4 xpparte presentations are permitted, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission Rules.  X 4See generally 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a)." DR,-(-(ZZb"Ԍ X4 "[ԙ049. Authority. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),  x<and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157(a),  x303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r). The Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference  xOperations Division, will send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the  xRInitial Regulatory Flexibility Certification and voluntary Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  Xv4  X_4 "150. Comment. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419  XH4 xcof the Commission's Rules, interested parties may file comments on or before [75 days after  X14 x^Federal Register publication] , and reply comments on or before [105 days after Federal  X 4 xRegister publication] . All relevant and timely comments will be considered by the Commission  xbefore final action is taken in this proceeding. To file formally in this proceeding, participants  xmust file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments.  xIf participants want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an original  xplus nine comments must be filed. Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office of  xthe Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and  xreply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC  x@Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554.  X44 "251. Additional Information. For further information concerning this rule making  xproceeding contact Tom Derenge at (202) 4182451, internet: tderenge@fcc.gov, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:հ    #Xj\  P6G; XP# 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations * * * * *    dB'  #I2PG; ,jP# h ddx !<<<arrrrrr h   && "> International tableS"-PUnited States tableS" e'FCC use designators$  a$ && "ibRegion 1 allocation `MHz" Region 2 allocation  MHz"gNRegion 3 allocation LMHz"Government"pNonGovernment"&Rule part(s)"]+Specialuse ^+frequencies(   S(" (1)s"c (2)s" l (3)s"Allocation MHz (4)"tAllocation MHz f!(5)"+( '(6)"y%- s,(7)  | !<<<arrrrrr A<<<xf{oxl | (   ( && "*u"I*u"*u">*u"!*u"(*u"w -*   | A<<<xf{oxl a<<<urrrrrr | &  "  & &?&  5850 !5925 FIXED FIXEDSATELLITE (Earthtospace) MOBILE S5.150? 5850 !5925 FIXED FIXEDSATELLITE (Earthtospace) MOBILE Amateur Radiolocation S5.150? 5850 !5925 FIXED FIXEDSATELLITE (Earthtospace) MOBILE Radiolocation S5.150? 5850 !5925 RADIOLOCATION S5.150 US245 G2? 5850 !5925 FIXEDSATELLITE (Earthtospace) MOBILE Amateur S5.150 US245?  Amateur (97) PRIVATE LAND MOBILE (90)? &"    u& &?& "*"I*"*"=*"!*"(*"w -*  FFh "?RxZ"  X4 '3'3StandardHPLA4MPC.PRSX\ 3'3'StandardHPLA4MPC.PRSX\ հ # Xj\  P6G; XP#  X' PART 90 PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES  X4FFh 31. The authority citation for Part 90 is amended to read as follows:  X' H"FFh Authority: Sections 4, 302, 303, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154,  Xv'302, 303, and 332, unless otherwise noted.  XH4 HFFh 2. Section 90.7 is amended by adding a new definition for Dedicated Short Range Communications Service to read as follows:  X 4FFh  90.7 Definitions. * * *  X 4 xDedicated Short Range Communications Services (DSRCS) The use of nonvoice radio  x techniques to transfer data over short distances between roadside and mobile radio units, between  xmobile units, and between portable and mobile units to perform operations related to the  ximprovement of traffic flow, traffic safety and other intelligent transportation service applications  xin a variety of public and commercial environments. DSRC systems may also transmit status and instructional messages related to the units involved. * * *  X4FFh 3. Section 90.210(k) is amended to read as follows:  X4 FFh 90.210 Emission masks. FFh(a) * * *  X~4 HFFh(k) Emission Mask K. For transmitters authorized under subpart M that operate in the 902 x928 MHz band or the 5.8505.925 GHz band, the peak power of any emission shall be attenuated  xcbelow the power of the highest emission contained within the licensee's subband in accordance with the following schedule:  X 4FFh(1) On any frequency within the authorized bandwidth: Zero dB.  HFFh(2) On any frequency outside the licensee's subband edges (as identified in paragraph (k)(6)  X 4 xof this section): 55 + 10 log(P) dB , where (P) is the highest emission (watts) of the transmitter inside the licensee's subband.  HFFh(3) The resolution bandwidth of the instrumentation used to measure the emission power of  xLMS operations in the 902928 MHz band and DSRC operations in the 5.8505.925 GHz band"j$R0*%%ZZ""  xshall be 100 kHz. If a video filter is used, its bandwidth shall not be less than the resolution bandwidth. FFh(4) Emission power (P) shall be measured in peak values.  HqFFh(5) The LMS subband edges for multilateration systems for which emissions must be  xattenuated are 904.00, 909.75, 919.75, 921.75, 927.50, 927.75 and 928.00 MHz. If the 919.75 x921.75 and 921.75927.25 MHz subbands are aggregated by a single licensee, the emission mask  xlimitations at the band edges at 921.75 and 927.50 MHz may be ignored. The LMS subband  xedges for nonmultilateration systems for which emissions must be attenuated are 902.00, 904.00, 909.75 and 921.75 MHz. * * *  X 4FFh 4. Section 90.350 is amended to read as follows:  X'FFh  90.350 Scope.  x The Transportation Infrastructure Radio Service is for the purpose of integrating radiobased  xtechnologies into the nation's transportation infrastructure and to develop and implement the  xnation's intelligent transportation systems. It includes the Location and Monitoring Service  x(LMS) and the Dedicated Short Range Communications Service (DSRCS). Rules as to eligibility  xfor licensing, frequencies available, and any special requirements for services in the Transportation Infrastructure Radio Service are set forth in this subpart.  X4FFh 5. A new Section 90.371 is added to subpart M to read as follows:  X'FFh  90.371 Dedicated Short Range Communications Service  xThese provisions authorize the licensing of systems in the dedicated short range communications  xservices (DSRCS). DSRCS systems utilize nonvoice radio techniques to transfer data over short  x/distances between roadside and mobile radio units, between mobile units, and between portable  x"and mobile units to perform operations related to the improvement of traffic flow, traffic safety  x8and other intelligent transportation service applications in a variety of public and commercial  xenvironments. DSRCS licensees authorized to operate a system in the 58505925 MHz band may  xserve individuals, federal government agencies and entities eligible for licensing in this Part 90,  X 4and must comply with the following requirements.  x (a) The peak transmit output power over the frequency band of operations shall not exceed 750  x<mW or 28.8 dBm with up to 16 dBi in antenna gain. If transmitting antennas of directional gain  x<greater than 16 dBi are used, the peak transmit output power shall be reduced by the amount in"#R0*%%ZZ!"  X4 xdB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 16 dBi, i.e., the device's maximum EIRP shall not exceed 30 W EIRP.  x (b) The frequency stability of DSRC equipment should be sufficient to ensure that the emission  x"stays within whatever band it is authorized/licensed (over the specified temperature, -30 to +50 C, and voltage, 85-115%, variations, as specified in  2.995).  xy (c) These standards will be incorporated into the certification process by having equipment  xmanufacturers certify as part of their application for certification that their equipment meets these technical requirements."JR0*%%ZZ"  a4?  #|\  P6G; i:P#Appendix B: DSRC Applications # Xj\  P6G; XP#у o Current DSRC applications include: Electronic payment services Allows cars to pay tolls automatically without stopping.  HyFFhCould be expanded in the future to be used at parking garages, drive through restaurants and other business applications.(#F Commercial Vehicle Electronic Clearance Installed by highway departments to allow  HFFhcommercial vehicle operators pass over weighinmotion sensors at inspection stations without  Hstopping while the vehicle transmits relevant information such as: credentials, size, weight, cargo, and safety information.(#F o Emerging DSRCbased services include: Traffic Control This service gathers traffic data from stationary traffic surveillance  HFFhmonitors and DSRCequipped vehicles and uses the data to assign rightsofway to certain  H_vehicle types. Rightsofway are assigned through control of traffic signals, freeway ramps, reversible lanes, and information signs.(#F Transit Vehicle Signal Priority A DSRCequipped transit vehicle (city bus), when  HFFhidentified by a DSRCequipped intersection, can give priority to proceed ahead of other traffic at a traffic signal.(#F Emergency Vehicle Signal Preemption Emergency vehicles are given priority at traffic FFhsignals.(#F Incident Management (Incidents include accidents, sporting events, parades,  HFFhconstruction, etc.) Roadway sensors and DSRCequipped vehicles will allow incident  Hmanagement users to reduce congestion by accelerating incident detection and response time.  HcThe system can track cars as they travel to their destination and use the information to estimate traffic flow and detect incidents.(#F Enroute Driver Information Provides drivers with realtime advisories about traffic FFhconditions, accidents, construction and transit schedules.(#F FFh*Invehicle Signing Displays information from roadside transmitters on video (#F  H8FFhmonitors or "headsup" displays within the vehicle to provide the driver information pertinent  Hyto their specific circumstances based on their destination, surroundings and current activities.  HyInformation could include roadway conditions, alert drivers to railroad crossings, construction  Hzones, fallen rocks, chemical spills, winding curves and other hazards. Invehicle signing also serves as the driver interface for many other DSRCbased applications. (#F  X 4 cz *Driver Advisory Allows traffic managers to control the content of realtime and locationspecific traffic advisory information.(22)(# Automated Roadside Safety Inspection DSRC would download information from a  H+FFhcommercial vehicle's transponder memory about the driver, the vehicle (braking system and  Hload distribution), the carrier and previous safety inspection, and upload inspection results to"$R0*%%ZZ""  Hthe transponder's memory. This function can increase the number of inspections while not increasing the number of inspectors or delaying commercial vehicle travel.(24)(#F Public Transportation Management DSRCequipped transit vehicles can realize  H8FFhincreased use and efficiency by improving service reliability, ontime performance, schedule information accuracy and reduced costs of public transit.(#F Freight Mobility Allows dispatchers to locate and track commercial fleet vehicles,  H_FFhtransit vehicles and there cargo, and reroute vehicles based on realtime traffic information.  HlAllows fleet operators to optimize performance by enabling justintime pickup and delivery,  Hdreducing driver hours sitting in congestion and waiting to deliver or receive goods, and automating cargo inventory and tracking systems.(#F  HFFh*Automatic Equipment Monitoring Transponders on vehicles, trailers, rail cars, cargo  Hcontainers may be tracked, information such as type and temperature of cargo, delivery schedule, hazardous materials, etc. can be checked.(#F FFh*Fleet Management (#F  cFFhw©Access control regulate and restrict access to freight yards, maintenance bays, and other restricted areas(#  cFFhw©Trip log downloads all DSRC events made during a trip into a log while the vehicle is  cstopped at a freight yard enabling fleet managers to determine the vehicle's route, time on the route and safety information.(27)(# HighwayRail Intersection DSRC equipment used to trigger warning systems at railroad FFhintersections when a train is approaching. (#F o Future DSRCbased services: Intersection Collision Warning Systems Roadside speed and location sensing equipment,  HEFFhDSRC equipment, invehicle signing and trajectory computing and control electronics will be used to help drivers avoid intersection collisions.(#F Automated Highway System System that will transfer full control of equipped vehicles FFhto automated system operating on designated AHS lanes.(#F"|R0*%%ZZ,"  X'U APPENDIX C  X4  X'F Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, and Voluntary Initial Regulatory Flexibility  X'%QAnalysis (Voluntary IRFA)   X4\FFh The Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"),SZX {O' x #X\  P6G;IP#э See 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq.#]\  PCIP#, has been amended by the Contract With America  xt Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).5 U.S.C.  603. requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for noticeandcomment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a  XH4substantial number of small entities."fTHX yO '#X\  P6G;IP#э 5 U.S.C.  605(b).f The RFA generally defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small government jurisdiction." In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1)is independently owned and operated; (2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").  X 4FFhThis Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("Notice") proposes to allocate the 5.850-5.925GHz band to the Private Land Mobile Service ("PLMS") for use by Dedicated Short Range Communications Services ("DSRCS") in the provision of Intelligent Transportation Services ("ITS"). DSRCS communications are used for nonvoice wireless transfer of data over short distances between roadside and mobile radio units, between mobile units, and between portable and mobile units to perform operations related to the improvement of traffic flow, traffic safety and other intelligent transportation service applications in a variety of public and commercial environments. This action is taken in response to a Petition for Rulemaking filed  X4by the Intelligent Transportation Society of America ("ITS America"). While this Notice does propose an allocation and some basic technical parameters, the issues of licensing, channelization, and other complex technical matters are being deferred to a later proceeding. Therefore, because this present action will not result in the provision of these operations, we certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FFhDespite the certification, we have performed a voluntary Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), below, to create a fuller record in this proceeding and to give more information to entities, small and not, that might be affected by our action. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA  X4and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided in paragraph 50," zT0*%%ZZ"  X4infra. The Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, will send a  X4copy of the Notice, including this certification and voluntary analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy will also be published in the  X4Federal Register.lUX {O8'#X\  P6G;IP#э See id.  603(a).l  X' A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules\  Xc4 The objective of this action is to provide sufficient spectrum to permit the development of DSRCS technologies to improve the Nation's transportation infrastructure and bolster the involvement of United States companies in this emerging industry.  X 4  X ' B. Legal Basis This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r).  X}' C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply  XO4 The 5.855.925 GHz band is currently available to the U.S. Federal Government for Radiolocation purposes, Fixed Satellite Service licensees for international intercontinental links, amateur radio operators and by various entities using Part 18 Industrial, Scientific and Medical ("ISM") equipment and Part 15 unlicensed device equipment. We note that there are only 45 FSS licenses issued for operation in 5.855.925 GHz band and most if not all are held by large corporations. Further, amateur radio operators and the Federal Government do not qualify as small entities. We also note that Part 18 ISM devices are protected in this band, which only generate electromagnetic energy, are not used for communication purposes and therefore cannot receive interference or be impacted by this action. Finally, while Part 15 unlicensed devices are permitted to operate in the 5.855.875 GHz portion, they do so on an unlicensed, unprotected basis. Further, the Commission has no means to determine the number of small entities that might use unlicensed Part 15 equipment that operates in the band  X$4at issue. The Notice discusses means by which the potential DSRCS would be able to share the spectrum with incumbent operations and requests comment on ways to ensure such spectrum sharing. Accordingly, we do not believe this action would have a negative impact on small entities that operate in the 5.855.925 GHz band, but nevertheless request comment on this assessment. "!!ZU0*%%ZZ "ԌRegarding the Fixed Satellite Service licensees for international intercontinental links, the Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to licensees in the international services. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is generally the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere  X4Classified (NEC).VX yO'#]\  PCIP#э An exception is the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service, infra. This definition provides that a small entity is expressed as one with $11.0  X4million or less in annual receipts.xWXX yO'#]\  PCIP#э 13 C.F.R.  120.121, SIC code 4899. x According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 848 communications services providers, NEC, in operation in 1992, and a total of 775 had  X_4annual receipts of less than $9,999 million.3X_X yO ' xQ #]\  PCIP#э 1992 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Receipts Size Report, Table 2D, SIC code 4899 (U.S. Bureau of the Census data under contract to the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration). 3 The Census report does not provide more precise data. Regarding the future use of the 5.855.925 GHz band by DSRCS equipment, we believe it is too early to make an determination on such operations. A future rulemaking proceeding will propose further technical standards, licensing and service rules and a separate regulatory flexibility analysis will address all issues relevant to that proceeding.  X 4  X ' D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements  Xy4 In this proceeding, we are proposing to allocate this spectrum for a new service. The licensing and technical regulations governing these operations will be addressed in a separate proceeding. Therefore, this proposed action does not create any reporting or compliance requirements.  X' E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and  X'Significant Alternatives Considered  X4The attached Notice proposes basic technical rules such as power limits, unwanted emission limits and a frequency stability requirement. It also requests comment on whether operational standards should be adopted to facilitate nationwide interoperability of DSRCS. The development of DSRCS operational standards could delay the initial deployment of such equipment, but could ultimately result in equal footing for all manufacturers, including small entities, in producing equipment that meets uniform standards. We request comment on further alternatives that might minimize the amount of economic impact on small entities. " "@X0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X' F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules None.  X4