[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37332-37335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14982]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 98-153; FCC 00-163]


Revision of the Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission 
Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document is proposing regulations that would permit the 
operation of ultra-wideband (UWB) radio systems on an unlicensed basis 
under the Commission's rules. Comments are requested on the standards 
and operating requirements that are proposed to be applied to UWB 
systems to prevent interference to other radio services.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 12, 2000, and 
reply comments on or before October 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, 
Magalie Roman Salas, Office of Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Reed, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-2455.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No. 98-153, adopted May 10, 2000, 
and released May 11, 2000. The complete text of this Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making is available for inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, 
SW, Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's 
copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-
3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making

    1. This Notice of Proposed Rule Making responds to an earlier 
Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding, 63 FR 50184, September 21, 1998. 
We are proposing to amend 47 CFR 15 to permit products incorporating 
ultra-wideband (UWB) technologies. While comprehensive tests have not 
been completed, UWB devices appear to be able to operate on spectrum 
already occupied by existing radio services without causing 
interference. This would permit scarce spectrum resources to be used 
more efficiently. Further testing and analysis is needed before the 
risks of interference are completely understood. Such testing is being 
planned by a number of organizations, and an ample opportunity will be 
provided to ensure that the test results are submitted into the record 
for public comment.
    2. Most near-term applications involve relatively low powers and 
short operating ranges. Further, it appears that UWB devices are 
intended to be mass marketed to businesses and consumers such that 
individual licensing of each device would be impractical. Accordingly, 
it is proposed that UWB devices be regulated under part 15 of the 
rules.
    3. UWB definition. We propose to employ the definition established 
by the OSD/DARPA UWB radar review panel with some modifications. The 
OSD definition states that the -20 dB fraction bandwidth of an UWB 
emission must be at least 0.25, i.e., the -20 dB bandwidth must be at 
least 25% of the center frequency. We propose to define a UWB device as 
any device where the -10 dB fractional bandwidth is greater than 0.25 
or the -10 dB bandwidth is greater than 1.5 GHz. The center frequency 
is proposed to be defined as the average of the upper and lower -10 dB 
points. We also propose that the bandwidth be determined using the 
antenna designed to be used with the UWB device. Comments are requested 
on the following: (1) Should the fractional bandwidth be changed to 
account for the narrower bandwidth that would be measured using the -10 
dB emission points instead of the -20 dB points. (2) Should some other 
method be used to determine the emission bandwidth, such as a 
calculated bandwidth based on pulse width. (3) Should UWB be defined as 
limited to devices that solely use pulsed emissions where the bandwidth 
is directly related to the narrow pulse width. (4) Should extremely 
high speed data systems that comply with the UWB bandwidth requirements 
only because of the high data rate employed, as opposed to meeting the 
definition solely from the narrow pulse width, be permitted. (5) What 
alternative definitions should be considered?
    4. Frequency bands of operation. We observe that ground penetrating 
radars (GPRs) must operate at frequencies below 2 GHz in order to 
obtain the penetration depth and resolution necessary to detect and 
obtain the images of buried objects. GPRs can neither avoid nor notch 
out the restricted frequency bands. However, it appears that the risk 
of interference from GPRs is negligible because the overwhelming 
majority of their energy

[[Page 37333]]

is directed into the ground where most of the energy is absorbed and 
emissions in other directions can be easily shielded. Accordingly, we 
propose to allow GPRs to operate in any part of the spectrum.
    5. It is unclear whether the same arguments that apply to GPRs 
concerning penetration depth and resolution similarly apply to other 
imaging devices. We invite comments on whether we should treat such 
imaging systems the same as GPRs or restrict the operation of such 
devices below a certain frequency. Comments should address whether the 
operation of through-wall imaging systems should be limited to parties 
eligible for licensing under the Public Safety pool of frequencies in 
part 90 of our rules. Comments also are requested on whether through-
wall imaging systems should be required to incorporate automatic power 
control feathers that would reduce power levels to the minimum 
necessary to function based on the composition of the surface and its 
absorption of RF energy.
    6. We believe that most other UWB devices generally can operate in 
the region of the spectrum above approximately 2 GHz without causing 
harmful interference to other radio services. We have significant 
concerns about the operation of UWB devices, except for GPRs and 
possibly through-wall imaging systems, in the region of the spectrum 
below approximately 2 GHz. We invite comments on UWB operations, 
potential restrictions on operation for UWB below 2 GHz and the impacts 
such restrictions would have on any potential applications for UWB 
technology. We also invite comments as to the precise frequency below 
which operations of UWB devices may need to be restricted. We also wish 
to consider a number of alternative approaches to expressly prohibiting 
operations below 2 GHz. We invite comment as to whether and at what 
levels, if any, we should permit operation in the restricted bands 
below 2 GHz, the viability of establishing a general emission limit for 
UWB devices below 2 GHz, and whether a very stringent limit, or notch, 
should be applied to the GPS band. We will consider allowing access to 
the spectrum below 2 GHz provided test results and detailed technical 
analysis are submitted demonstrating that there is no risk of harmful 
interference to GPS, to other services operating in restricted 
frequency bands, or to TV broadcasting.
    7. Further testing and analysis. We understand that certain 
manufacturers of UWB devices and other interested parties are planning 
tests. We encourage parties to submit the test results into the record 
by October 30, 2000. We will issue a public notice to provide an 
opportunity to provide comments and replies on the test results and 
analysis.
    8. Emission limits. We tentatively conclude that it is necessary to 
regulate both the peak and average emission levels above 1 GHz and the 
quasi-peak emission levels below 1 GHz. We request comment on whether 
it is possible for UWB designers to select system parameters to space 
the UWB spectral lines in places within the GPS band where GPS 
receivers are less sensitive to interference. We also seek comment on 
whether we should require use of a scrambler technology that prevents 
long strings of unchanging bits or, alternatively, a performance 
requirement that would show that the transmitted spectrum remains noise 
like in the case of unchanging input data.
    9. We believe that the general emission limits contained in 
Sec. 15.209 of our rules appear appropriate for UWB operations. 
However, for emissions from UWB devices other than GPRs and, possibly, 
through-wall imaging systems we tentatively propose that emissions that 
appear below approximately 2 GHz be attenuated by at least 12 dB below 
the general emission limits. Comments are requested on whether such an 
attenuation level is necessary, or whether additional attenuation below 
2 GHz is possible or necessary. We also seek comment on whether the 
proposed reduction in the emission levels should apply to all emissions 
below 2 GHz or only to emissions below 2 GHz that fall within the 
restricted bands. Comments also are requested on whether UWB devices 
other than GPRs, and possibly through-wall imaging systems, should be 
permitted to operate below 2 GHz provided they comply with these 
reduced emission levels.
    10. A limit on peak emissions is necessary to reduce the potential 
for UWB emitters to cause harmful interference to radio operations 
above 1 GHz. The Notice proposes to establish peak emission limits 
above 1 GHz as follows: (1) the peak level of the emission when 
measured over a bandwidth of 50 MHz shall not exceed the maximum 
permitted average emission level by more than 20 dB; and (2) the 
absolute peak output of the emission over its entire bandwidth shall 
not exceed the maximum permitted average emission level by more than 
[20 + 20log10(-10 dB bandwidth of the UWB emission in Hz/50 
MHz)] dB or 60 dB, whichever is the lower value. We intend to rely 
heavily on submitted test data in determining what peak emission 
standards should apply to UWB products. We believe that further testing 
and analysis is desirable on the cumulative impact of emissions from 
multiple UWB transmitters.
    11. We believe that the existing limit in Sec. 15.207 for 
controlling the amount of energy permitted to be conducted onto the AC 
power lines is a reasonable starting point for establishing standards 
until additional experience can be gained with this equipment. We do 
not agree that higher conducted limits, equivalent to the limits for 
Class A digital devices, should be permitted in non-residential 
environments.
    12. Measurement procedures. Below 1 GHz, we propose to require 
emissions to be measured using a quasi-peak detector. Above 1 GHz, we 
propose to require average measurements to be made with a 1 MHz 
resolution bandwidth (RBW) as we currently do for intentional and 
unintentional radiators. We also propose that spectrum analyzer video 
averaging with a video bandwidth (VBW) of no greater than 10 kHz or 
less than 10 Hz be used in conjunction with peak hold to determine the 
average level as a function of frequency. We request comments on 
applying the measurement procedures specified in HP Application Note 
150-2.
    13. We propose to measure the peak emission levels of UWB signals 
directly in the time domain. For peak measurements over a 50 MHz 
bandwidth, the IF output of a microwave receiver that uses a wide 
bandwidth, e.g., 50 MHz, can be analyzed using a conventional 
oscilloscope. We believe that the total peak output can be measured 
with standard sampling oscilloscope techniques for UWB signals with 
evenly spaced identical elements, such as radar signals, and for UWB 
signals with modulation on their amplitude or spacing. We also request 
comments on allowing peak measurements to be made using the pulse 
desensitization correction factor (PDCF) provided the applicant can 
show that the measurements, as corrected by the PDCF, is the true peak 
for the waveform being tested. As with average measurements, the 
procedures specified in HP Application Note 150-2 would be applied. We 
recognize that the peak level measured with a spectrum analyzer is the 
RMS peak and must be adjusted to obtain the true peak. We seek comment 
on the type of UWB signals, if any, for which this latter measurement 
procedure would be appropriate. Comments also are sought on whether the 
PDCF should be calculated based on an effective pulse width, i.e., two 
divided by the bandwidth, in Hertz, of the emitted

[[Page 37334]]

fundamental lobe. We seek comment on what type of measurement antennas 
are needed to make accurate peak measurements and the least restrictive 
way we might specify this in our rules.
    14. For impulse systems, we believe that the center frequency, as 
determined by the -10 dB points, should be used as the reference for 
determining the upper frequency range over which emissions should be 
measured. However, we are concerned that a manufacturer could employ a 
low frequency carrier with an extremely narrow pulse or that a narrow 
pulse impulse system could be used with a low frequency antenna, 
resulting in emissions extending far beyond the tenth harmonic, the 
normal upper range of measurements. Accordingly, comments are requested 
on whether a different method of determining the frequency measurement 
range should be employed, e.g., based on pulse rise time and width. In 
addition, commenting parties should note that the lower frequency range 
of measurements would continue to be determined by the lowest radio 
frequency generated in the device. Comments are requested on whether 
the pulse repetition frequency, pulse dithering frequency, modulating 
frequency or other factors would permit the investigation of a low 
enough frequency to address the possible amplification of the emitted 
signal due to antenna resonances below the fundamental emission.
    15. Prohibition against Class B, damped wave emissions. We agree 
that we should eliminate the prohibition against Class B, damped wave 
emissions for UWB devices as this prohibition does not appear relevant 
at the power levels being proposed.
    16. Other matters. In the Notice we proposed specific regulations 
regarding the frequency of operation and emission levels that would 
apply to UWB devices. We also propose to amend 47 CFR 15.215(c) to 
state that intentional radiators operated under the provisions of 47 
CFR 15.217 through 15.255 or subpart E of the current regulations must 
be designed to ensure that the main lobe or the necessary bandwidth, 
whichever is less, is contained within the frequency bands designated 
in those rule section under which the equipment is operated. The 
requirement to contain the fundamental emission within one of the 
specified frequency bands would include the effects from frequency 
sweeping, frequency hopping and other modulation techniques that may be 
employed as well as the frequency stability of the transmission over 
variations in temperature and supply voltage. If a frequency stability 
is not specified, the regulation would continue to recommend that the 
fundamental emission be kept within at least the central 80 percent of 
the band in order to minimize the possibility of out-of-band operation.
    17. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ the Commission has prepared this 
present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Notice''). Written 
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified 
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for 
comments on the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of this Notice, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). We have included this 
IRFA, although we expect that this action will not cause interference 
to existing radio stations. We have determined to do this analysis to 
create a fuller record in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has 
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, 
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the 
CWAAA is the Small Business Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 
(SBREFA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This rule making proposal is initiated to obtain comments regarding 
proposed changes to the regulations for radio frequency devices that do 
not require a license to operate. The Commission seeks to determine 
whether its standards should be amended to permit the operation of 
ultra-wideband transmission systems.

B. Legal Basis

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

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

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\2\ The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same 
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and 
``small business concern.'' \3\ A small business concern is one which: 
(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its 
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the SBA.\4\ Nationwide, there are approximately 4.44 
million small business firms, according to SBA reporting data.\5\ A 
small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which 
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
\6\ Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small 
organizations.\7\ ``Small governmental jurisdiction'' generally means 
``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 
50,000.'' \8\ As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such 
jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes 38,978 
counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have 
populations of fewer than 50,000.\9\ The Census Bureau estimates that 
this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. 
Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91 
percent) are small entities. SBA has defined a small business for 
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) category 4812 (Radiotelephone 
Communications) to be small entities when they have no more than 1500 
employees.\10\ According to the Bureau of Census, only 12 
radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated 
during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.\11\ Given this definition, 
nearly all such companies are considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \3\ Id. Section 601(3).
    \4\ Id. Section 632.
    \5\ 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6 
(special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of 
the U.S. Small Business Administration).
    \6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
    \7\ 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6 
(special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of 
the U.S. Small Business Administration).
    \8\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \9\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, ``1992 Census 
of Governments.''
    \10\ See 13 CFR 121.201.
    \11\ U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, UC92-
S-1, Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, 
Employment Size of Firms, 1992, SIC code 4812 (issued May 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Part 15 transmitters already are required to be authorized under 
the Commission's certification procedure as

[[Page 37335]]

a prerequisite to marketing and importation. The reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements associated with these equipment 
authorizations would not be changed by the proposals contained in this 
Notice. These changes to the regulations would permit the introduction 
of an entirely new category of radio transmitters. All radio equipment 
manufacturers, large and small, would be provided with the opportunity 
to produce this equipment.

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

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of 
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take 
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. We 
do not expect that the rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making will have a significant economic impact on small entities.
    In response to the Notice of Inquiry, in this proceeding no party 
raised small entity issues. We have considered several alternatives to 
the proposed standards, however. For example, in response to some of 
the comments, we considered the possibility of prohibiting all UWB 
operation below 2 GHz, (except for ground penetrating radar systems) in 
order to provide additional interference protection to the authorized 
radio services operating below this frequency. Instead, we have 
indicated our concerns about operation below 2 GHz and have stated that 
such operation would be considered provided test results and technical 
analysis demonstrated that there was no risk of harmful interference to 
other authorized entities (which would include small authorized 
entities). Similar issues were considered for all of the standards 
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making. The proposed standards 
are intended to accommodate most of the systems presented to us without 
favoring any particular manufacturer's design.

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

    None.
    18. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 301, 
302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 
304, and 307.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14982 Filed 6-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P