[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62476-62481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25591]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 98-153 and 04-352; FCC 10-151]


Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document reaffirms certain rules and procedures for 
ultra-wideband (``UWB'') devices that operate on an unlicensed basis of 
the Commission's rules. This action terminates the Ultra-Wideband

[[Page 62477]]

Transmission Systems proceeding and thus provides certainty for the 
continued development of UWB equipment, including ground penetrating 
radars for underground imaging, through wall imaging systems, short-
range high capacity data links, and other applications.

DATES: Effective November 12, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Ansari, Policy and Rules 
Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2431, e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET 
Docket No. 98-153 and ET Docket No. 04-352, adopted August 10, 2010, 
and released August 11, 2010. The full text of this document is 
available on the Commission's Internet site at http://www.fcc.gov. It 
is also available for inspection and copying during regular business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be 
purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, 
DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563; e-mail 
[email protected].

Summary of the Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Memorandum 
Opinion and Order

    1. In this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission 
dismisses as procedurally defective a Petition for Reconsideration 
filed by the Satellite Industry Association (``SIA'') in response to 
the Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order 
(``Second R&O'' and ``Second MO&O'') in ET Docket No. 98-153, 70 FR 
6771, February 9, 2005, that argues that the power level adopted for 
UWB devices is too high to protect C-band (3.7-4.2 GHz) fixed satellite 
service (``FSS'') earth stations from interference. In this Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, the Commission also dismisses in part and denies in 
part a Petition for Reconsideration filed by SIA and denies a Petition 
for Reconsideration filed by Cingular Wireless LLC (``Cingular'') (now 
AT&T) in response to the Order (``Order'') in ET Docket No. 04-352. 
Both petitions argue that the waiver granted by the Order of the 
measurement procedures for UWB devices operating in the 3.1-5.03 GHz 
and 5.65-10.6 GHz bands would significantly increase the potential for 
interference to C-band fixed satellite and cellular operations.

Background

    2. On February 14, 2002, the Commission adopted the First Report 
and Order (``First R&O'') in ET Docket No. 98-153, 67 FR 34852, May 16, 
2002, amending part 15 of its rules to permit the marketing and the 
unlicensed operation of products incorporating UWB technology. UWB 
devices operate in frequency bands that are allocated both to Federal 
and to non-Federal operations, including certain frequency bands where 
unlicensed devices generally are restricted from transmitting, i.e., 
the restricted frequency bands, due to the extremely wide bandwidths 
UWB devices use. Consequently, before the Commission adopted its 
technical and operational rules for UWB devices, it evaluated several 
measured and simulated analyses regarding the potential for UWB devices 
to cause harmful interference to the authorized services.
    3. Two additional orders were adopted in response to several 
Petitions for Reconsideration. On February 13, 2003, the Commission 
adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making (``MO&O'' and ``FNRPM'') in ET Docket No. 98-153, 68 FR 
19746 and 68 FR 19773, April 22, 2003, addressing fourteen Petitions 
for Reconsideration of the First R&O and proposing changes to the UWB 
regulations. On December 15, 2004, the Commission adopted the Second 
R&O and Second MO&O, addressing the proposals in the FNPRM in addition 
to denying the Petitions for Reconsideration of the MO&O filed by 
Cingular and by SIA. In the Second MO&O, the Commission also addressed 
the interference analysis submitted by the Coalition of C-Band 
Constituents (``Coalition''). The Coalition had contracted with Alion 
Science and Technology (``Alion'') to determine what, if any, 
interference potential exists to Fixed Satellite Service (``FSS'') 
reception from UWB operation. The Commission found that the test report 
on this matter (``Alion Report'') was based on multiple worst-case and 
unrealistic assumptions and provided no justification to warrant 
reducing the allowed UWB emission levels in the FSS frequency band.
    4. On March 10, 2005, the Commission adopted an Order granting a 
waiver of the measurement procedures to permit emissions from UWB 
transmitters operating in the 3.1-5.03 GHz and 5.65-10.6 GHz bands that 
employ frequency hopping or stepped frequency modulation techniques, or 
that gate the transmitted signal, to be measured with the transmitter 
operating in its normal transmission mode. This action waived the UWB 
measurement requirements not only for Multi-band OFDM Alliance Special 
Interest Group (``MBOA-SIG'') but also for any UWB device using hopped, 
stepped or sequenced modulation techniques or that gates the 
transmittal signal.

SIA Petition for Reconsideration of the Second MO&O

    5. I/N Level and Alion Report. SIA asserts, as it has on previous 
occasions in this rulemaking proceeding, that the power limit adopted 
for UWB devices is not sufficient to protect C-band FSS earth stations 
from interference because, in devising this power limit, the 
Commission's analysis relied on a 0 dB interference-to-noise ratio 
(``I/N'') for earth station receivers, which SIA states is too high. 
SIA also disagrees with the Commission's conclusion in the Second MO&O 
that the Alion interference study was based on multiple worst-case 
assumptions that were not realistic and thus did not support modifying 
the UWB power limits. SIA further asserts that the Commission's 
reliance on complaint procedures to protect FSS stations from 
interference from UWB devices, as discussed in the Second MO&O, is 
ineffective. Opposing comments were filed by Freescale Semiconductor, 
Inc. (``Freescale''), and joint supporting comments were filed by Fox 
Broadcasting Company, Fox Cable Networks and Home Box Office, Inc. 
(``Fox et al.'').
    6. While SIA states that its petition is a Petition for 
Recondiseration of the Second R&O and Second MO&O, it does not address 
any changes to the regulations that were adopted in the Second R&O 
portion of that document. SIA is essentially making the same arguments 
here that it made in its Petition for Reconsideration of the Order, 
asserting that the Alion Report supports the need to modify the UWB 
technical requirements. The Commission explained in the Second MO&O 
that its reasons for recalculating the analysis in the Alion study were 
based on its rejection of the application of a signal aggregation 
factor for UWB devices and its rejection of the assumption that most 
UWB devices would operate outdoors in proximity to FSS earth stations. 
As the Commission indicated in the Second MO&O, the inclusion of either 
of these factors was sufficient to demonstrate that there was no need 
to modify the UWB emission limits to protect FSS earth stations. SIA 
presents no new arguments or information in its Third Reconsideration

[[Page 62478]]

Petition--it merely disagrees with the Commission's analysis and 
conclusion. Further, SIA is essentially requesting reconsideration of 
an Order denying a petition for reconsideration. In that action, 
however, the Commission did not make any changes to the UWB 
regulations. Accordingly, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(i), the Commission 
is dismissing this portion of SIA's Third Reconsideration Petition as 
repetitious.
    7. Reliance on Complaint Procedure to Protect FSS. SIA protests 
that the Commission's complaint procedures would not be effective for 
addressing claims of interference from UWB devices to FSS earth 
stations, and thus requests that the Commission modify the UWB power 
limits to reduce the likelihood of interference. SIA's concern is based 
on the Commission's statement in the Second MO&O that it will monitor 
the situation and will take whatever appropriate action is necessary to 
ensure that UWB operation does not result in harmful interference to 
FSS receivers. This statement was made in conjunction with the 
Commission's conclusion that the Alion Report did not justify a 
reduction in the UWB emission levels in the FSS frequency band, i.e., 
that UWB devices were not a potential threat of harmful interference to 
FSS operations. The Commission's acknowledgement that it will continue 
to monitor this situation and investigate any interference complaints 
from unlicensed UWB devices to authorized services is consistent with 
Commission regulations and policies and is not by itself a basis for 
reconsidering the UWB emission limits that were adopted in the First 
R&O. Further, SIA's Third Reconsideration Petition is requesting 
reconsideration of an action that responded to a petition for 
reconsideration, but does not address any changes that were made to the 
UWB regulations. Accordingly, consistent with 47 CFR 1.429(i), the 
Commission is dismissing this portion of SIA's Third Reconsideration 
Petition.

SIA and Cingular Petitions for Reconsideration of the Order

    8. When the Commission adopted its UWB regulations in 2002, it 
established standards that were technically neutral, permitting the use 
of any type of technology or modulation technique that resulted in the 
transmitter's compliance with the minimum bandwidth specification and 
the limits on radiated emissions. The Commission recognized in the 
First R&O that measurement procedures had not been established to 
address transmitters, UWB or otherwise, employing stepped frequency, 
frequency hopping, or swept frequency transmissions, and that their 
interference aspects had not been evaluated based on the different 
measurement results that would be obtained from measurements taken with 
the system operating in its normal operating mode. At the time the 
Commission adopted the UWB rules, its rules already required that 
frequency swept devices be measured with the frequency sweep stopped at 
the frequency chosen for the measurements reported. With respect to the 
First R&O, the Commission adopted a rule specifying measurement 
procedures for UWB devices using pulsed gated modulation schemes, which 
were under development at that time, requiring measurements to be made 
with the pulse train gated on if the transmitter is quiescent for 
intervals that are long compared to the nominal pulse repetition. The 
Commission, consistent with its existing regulations, also adopted a 
rule stating that it may consider alternative measurement procedures. 
The Commission stated, but did not codify in the rules, that UWB 
transmitters employing stepped frequency, frequency hopping, or swept 
frequency transmissions need to be measured with the step, hopping, or 
sweep function disabled and with the transmitter operating continuously 
at a fundamental transmission frequency.
    9. Subsequent to the adoption of the UWB standards, on August 26, 
2004, the MBOA-SIG filed a petition for waiver of the UWB measurement 
procedures as applied to UWB systems employing multiband orthogonal 
frequency division multiplexing (``MB-OFDM'') modulation, which is a 
stepped or sequenced modulation scheme, operating in the 3.1-5.03 GHz 
and 5.65-10.6 GHz bands. MBOA-SIG requested a waiver of the measurement 
procedures for such systems, as discussed in paragraph 32 of the First 
R&O. MBOA-SIG also requested a waiver of the measurement procedure in 
47 CFR 15.521(d), as adopted in the First R&O, for pulse gated systems 
to the extent that this rule applied to MB-OFDM systems. Freescale 
Semiconductor, Inc. (``Freescale''), which produces a UWB device based 
on a direct-sequence spreading of binary-phase-shift-keyed pulses 
(``DS-UWB'') employing pulse gating techniques, requested that the 
Commission extend any waiver of the measurement rules and procedures to 
permit any UWB device to be measured in its normal operating mode so as 
to retain technical neutrality in the Commission's UWB regulations. In 
support of its request, MBOA-SIG submitted simulated and actual test 
data demonstrating that the interference potential of frequency hopped 
or stepped systems, measured in their normal operating modes, is less 
than that of a UWB transmitter employing impulse modulation. In 
addition, NTIA and the Commission developed detailed measurement 
procedures for frequency hopping and stepped frequency systems.
    10. In reaching its decision to adopt the waiver, the Commission 
recognized that the interference aspects of a transmitter employing 
frequency hopping, stepped frequency modulation, or gating are quite 
similar, as viewed by a receiver, in that transmitters using these 
burst formats appear to the receiver to emit for a short period of time 
followed by a quiet period. The Commission thus concluded that any 
requirement to stop the frequency hop, band sequencing, or system 
gating serves only to add another unnecessary level of conservatism to 
already stringent UWB standards. Accordingly, the Commission granted a 
waiver of the measurement procedures, permitting the emissions from UWB 
transmitters that employ frequency hopping or stepped frequency 
modulation techniques, or that gate the transmitted signal, to be 
measured with the transmitter operating in its normal transmission 
mode. This allows the measurements to account for the time averaging 
during which the UWB emitter is not transmitting.
    11. On April 11, 2005, Cingular and SIA filed Petitions for 
Reconsideration of the Order requesting that it be vacated. SIA also 
requested that operation of UWB devices under the terms of the Order 
not be allowed in the 3650-4200 MHz band used for satellite downlinks, 
pending the outcome of NTIA studies of interference from UWB devices to 
satellite digital television receivers in this band. Supporting 
comments were filed by Sprint Corporation (``Sprint'') and supporting 
reply comments were filed by Cingular and by SIA. Opposing comments 
were filed by the WiMedia Alliance (``WiMedia-MBOA'').
    12. Cingular and SIA raise various objections to support their 
central argument that the waiver of the UWB measurement procedures will 
effectively and significantly increase the potential for harmful 
interference from UWB devices. SIA also argues that multiple studies 
demonstrate that the existing UWB power limits expose FSS receivers to 
unacceptable interference, and it continues to request the application 
of a -20 dB I/N as a protection requirement for FSS

[[Page 62479]]

operation. This portion of SIA's petition is merely a request to 
reconsider the standards adopted in the First R&O. The Commission 
rejects SIA's petition on this same issue. Because SIA's petition for 
reconsideration raises the same arguments as its earlier petition and 
does not address any decision made in the Order, the Commission 
dismisses this portion of its petition. The Commission discussed in 
paragraphs 17-19 of Third MO&O and MO&O the other arguments raised by 
Cingular and SIA in their petitions for reconsideration of the Order 
and conclude that the petitions offer no new evidence that would 
support vacating or changing the Order. Accordingly, these petitions 
are being denied.
    13. Argument that the waiver violated the Administration Procedure 
Act (``APA'') and other statutes and eviscerates the rules. The 
Commission concludes that the waiver of the measurement procedures for 
certain UWB devices does not constitute a rule in violation of the APA 
and that the waiver does not ``eviscerate'' the rules. Indeed, the 
Commission's action is entirely consistent with its rules. The 
Commission permits the use of alternative measurement procedures, 
provided the applicant can demonstrate that the requested procedure is 
reasonable. For example, the Commission's rules provide that the 
Commission will accept measurement data that meets various standards or 
procedures established and published by the Commission or recognized 
bodies as well as ``any measurement procedure acceptable to the 
Commission * * * demonstrating compliance with [its] requirements * * 
*.'' The Commission's rule specifying measurement procedures for pulsed 
gated UWB devices, 47 CFR 15.521(d), also states that alternative 
measurement procedures may be considered by the Commission. Even if one 
considers the Commission's statements in the First R&O regarding 
measurement procedures for gated, stepped frequency, frequency hopping 
or swept frequency transmissions to be tantamount to a ``published'' 
measurement procedure, the Commission's rules clearly allow it to 
consider alternative measurement procedures for UWB devices without 
conducting a rulemaking proceeding.
    14. While the Commission could have addressed the measurement 
procedure requested by MB-OFDM without a notice and comment proceeding, 
it believed that the prudent course of action was to analyze MBOA-SIG's 
request within the context of its waiver standard. It issued a Public 
Notice and entertained comments from interested parties. It is 
important to note that no changes were made to the emission standards 
on which the non-interference probability of UWB devices is based. 
Rather, the Commission relaxed an overly conservative measurement 
procedure that artificially constrained the emissions from UWB devices 
employing certain modulation types to levels that were effectively 
below the levels permitted under the regulations. Further, only the 
portion of 47 CFR 15.521(d) applicable to pulsed gated UWB devices was 
waived; the measurement procedure for swept frequency transmissions was 
not waived. Thus, the Commission's determination does not constitute 
``evisceration'' of the rules.
    15. It is a well-established principle that the Commission will 
waive its rules in specific cases only if it determines, after careful 
consideration of all pertinent factors, that such a grant would serve 
the public interest without undermining the policy which the rule in 
question is intended to serve. In the Order the Commission determined 
that permitting use of the new measurement procedures was in the public 
interest because it enabled a new technology to be introduced to the 
market to the benefit of businesses and consumers. In addition, the 
Commission demonstrated how granting the waiver would not undermine the 
policy which the rule is intended to serve, i.e., the prevention of 
harmful interference to the authorized radio services. Test information 
evaluating the interference potential of these emission types, based on 
measurements performed with the equipment in its normal operating mode 
was submitted by MBOA-SIG. Through testing and interference analysis, 
MBOA-SIG provided convincing information that the application of these 
test procedures to systems employing MB-OFDM modulation would not 
result in an increased risk of harmful interference. In the Order, the 
Commission supplied a reasonable explanation as to why a similar 
application to DS-UWB systems also would not result in an increased 
risk of interference but would retain the technical neutrality of the 
UWB regulations. Thus, the Commission concludes that the waiver granted 
in the Order permitting UWB transmitters employing frequency hopping, 
stepped frequency or gated modulation techniques to be measured in 
their normal operating mode does not constitute a violation of the APA. 
Further, as the Commission has not amended its rules, the issuance of 
the subject waiver did not violate the Congressional Review Act or the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Accordingly, this portion of Cingular's 
petition is denied.
    16. Argument that the waiver increases the threat of harmful 
interference by 6 dB or more. Cingular claims that the change in 
measurement procedures allowed by the waiver effectively will increase 
the power levels of UWB devices by 6 dB or more and will introduce 
additional interference that cannot be mitigated through error 
correction coding or other means. Cingular argues that the OFDM 
waveform addressed under the waiver was not envisioned during the 
original rulemaking, that there were no measurements or tests with this 
technology, and that the waiver deviates from the Commission's policy 
of proceeding cautiously with regulations. Cingular continues to 
contend that additional testing is needed to address the impact on 
wideband receivers. It argues that measurements or tests were not 
performed for the MB-OFDM system nor was there an analysis of 
interference potential. SIA states that because the Commission believed 
that the UWB emission limits were conservative, a view SIA does not 
share, it thought that additional interference could be permitted by 
granting the waiver.
    17. The petitioners' arguments are based on a mistaken assertion 
that the UWB emission limits were somehow relaxed as a result of the 
waiver. The Commission did not change the emission levels for UWB 
devices in the Order. Instead, the Commission merely allowed the use of 
different measurement procedures that demonstrate, consistent with our 
rules, that the devices comply with the power limits for UWB devices.
    18. The UWB limits on radiated emissions were based on extensive 
and extremely conservative analyses in the First R&O and on the 
supposition that a transmitter would operate continuously within a 
single frequency band. However, the MB-OFDM transmitter envisioned by 
MBOA-SIG hops to three different channel frequencies. The transmission 
duty cycle on a specific channel is 26 percent (5.9 dB). By requiring 
the emissions to be measured with the MB-OFDM transmitter operating 
continuously on the same operating frequency, the duty cycle per 
channel is artificially increased to 100 percent and an emission level 
is measured that is 5.9 dB higher than what would be obtained with the 
transmitter functioning in its normal operating mode. Thus, Cingular is 
not correct that the waiver permits the

[[Page 62480]]

UWB emission levels to increase by 6 dB or more. Rather, the 
measurement procedures described in the First R&O for this type of 
transmission scheme would require testing in an artificial operating 
mode that results in the actual emissions from the MB-OFDM transmitter 
being restricted to 5.9 dB below the limits specified in the rules. The 
effect of the waiver is to provide a more realistic representation of 
the signal level actually produced by the UWB device, permitting the 
UWB transmitters to function at the emission levels permitted by the 
regulations.
    19. As stated in the Order, contrary to Cingular's claims, the 
MBOA-SIG members conducted simulated and actual testing of devices 
employing the MB-OFDM modulation format to demonstrate that, under 
normal operating conditions, there is no greater interference potential 
from an MB-OFDM UWB waveform than from an impulse-generated UWB 
waveform even when compliance with the emission limits is demonstrated 
with the frequency hop or step function active. The Commission stated 
that these results are consistent with the theory, as expressed by 
NTIA, that RMS measured emission levels are proportional to the 
measured bandwidth and the spectral power density, irrespective of 
pulse rate or modulation. Indeed, an integrated RMS measurement 
provides true average power readings, even for non-continuous signals 
such as frequency hopped UWB waveforms. Thus, the 6 dB potential 
increase claimed by Cingular will not be seen by a victim receiver and 
is irrelevant with regard to interference potential. Instead, the 
victim receiver will see the RMS average of that signal. This is the 
reason that the Commission adopted RMS average limits for UWB devices.
    20. The Commission took a cautious approach throughout this 
proceeding, limiting the applications for UWB and adopting knowingly 
conservative emission limits. This approach was not contravened by the 
waiver since no changes were made to the emission masks. Cingular and 
SIA have provided no new information to support their claims of 
increased interference potential and no arguments which undermine our 
rationale in granting the waiver. Accordingly, these portions of 
Cingular's and SIA's Petitions for Reconsideration are denied.
    21. Argument that the Commission did not meaningfully respond to 
Cingular's comments. In response to MBOA-SIG's waiver request, Cingular 
argued that the waiver could not be granted without tests comparing the 
measurements of transmissions from MBOA-SIG's proposed system that 
would result with and without the frequency hopping stopped. In the 
Order, the Commission concluded that the tests submitted by MBOA-SIG 
demonstrated that, under normal operating conditions, MBOA-SIG's 
proposed system does not increase the potential for interference 
relative to a UWB transmitter using impulse modulation. Based on that 
conclusion, the Commission concluded that there was no need for the 
additional testing recommended by Cingular.
    22. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Cingular argues that the 
Commission failed to address its comments adequately because it did not 
conduct the tests that Cingular recommended. The Commission disagrees. 
The Commission considered the record fully, including Cingular's 
arguments, in determining whether additional testing was needed. The 
Commission also explained fully why it concluded that MBOA-SIG's 
proposed system did not increase the potential for interference 
relative to a UWB transmitter using impulse modulation, and that, 
therefore, the additional tests recommended by Cingular were 
unnecessary. Accordingly, we find that the Commission did consider 
Cingular's comments in this proceeding, and we are denying this portion 
of Cingular's petition.
    23. Furthermore, the Commission continues to conclude that there 
was no justification to delay the outcome of this proceeding by 
requiring MBOA-SIG to perform the additional testing requested by 
Cingular in its comments responding to the MBOA-SIG Petition for 
Waiver. By proposing testing of MBOA-SIG's proposed system with the 
frequency hopping stopped, Cingular in effect advocated testing that 
system while artificially forced to operate at a 100 percent per 
channel duty cycle. MBOA-SIG's proposed system is designed to operate 
at a 26 percent per channel duty cycle. Testing such a system at a 100 
percent duty cycle will show an emission level that is 5.9 dB higher 
than it would be at a 26 percent duty cycle. However, such a test would 
be irrelevant, as it would not reflect the actual operation of the 
equipment and would not be indicative of the interference potential of 
the UWB emissions
    24. Argument that the Commission gave no weight to Freescale's 
comments that contradicted the MBOA-SIG test results and the waiver was 
overbroad. As stated in the Order, several of the comments contained 
technical discussions on whether or not the MB-OFDM modulation format 
resulted in greater or lesser interference than the DS-UWB format. 
However, the Commission added that this issue is not relevant to the 
request for waiver. What is important with regard to the waiver request 
is whether or not the MB-OFDM modulation format, when measured in the 
normal operating mode, has a sufficiently greater interference 
potential than a UWB transmitter employing impulse modulation so as to 
increase the risk of harmful interference. While the comments argued 
this issue based on different criteria, the Commission rejected as 
improbable the theoretical analyses that were performed assuming a zero 
background noise level, a zero bit error rate and a victim receiver 
with a bandwidth that is greater than the UWB band switching rate. 
Instead, it favored the analysis from MBOA-SIG as being representative 
of an actual operating system where the background noise level will 
mask a low level undesired signal and bit error rates are greater than 
zero. Based on this real-world analysis and actual measured test data 
submitted by MBOA-SIG, the Commission stated that it was clear that the 
interference potential of the MB-OFDM format, based on compliance with 
the rules being demonstrated with the frequency hop active, is no 
greater than that of an impulse UWB emission. Thus, contrary to the 
claims of the petitioners, the Commission did explain why it favored 
the MBOA-SIG analysis over that of the conflicting analysis from 
Freescale and did address the objections to the petition.
    25. The Commission also disagrees with SIA's statement that any 
increase to the number of FSS symbols that potentially could be 
affected by interference due to the use of frequency hopping waveforms 
will also result in harmful interference. In adopting rules for UWB 
devices, the Commission chose to rely on emission limits as the tool 
for preventing harmful interference irrespective of the duty cycle of 
the UWB device or its specific modulation type. Because the waiver does 
not change the emission limits, the Commission concludes that the 
potential for harmful interference will not be increased. Neither SIA 
nor Cingular provided any new information demonstrating that the 
Commission erred in its decision.
    26. The Commission also disagrees with SIA's argument that 
application of the waiver to all MB-OFDM devices and to DS-UWB devices 
was overbroad. NTIA's technical analyses clearly demonstrated that the 
average power of the transmitted signal, not its instantaneous power 
such as would be measured in a static mode, was the

[[Page 62481]]

appropriate basis for determining interference potential. Further, this 
reasoned analysis by the Commission allowed for continued technology-
neutral treatment of various UWB design formats without undermining the 
policy which the rule is intended to serve, i.e., the prevention of 
harmful interference to the authorized radio services. Based on the 
above information, the Commission therefore finds that these portions 
of SIA's and Cingular's Petitions for Reconsideration are without merit 
and are denied.
    27. Argument that Multiple devices operating in an area will 
synchronize and fill up the spectrum. There is no evidence or valid 
analysis to support Cingular's claims that multiple, co-located UWB 
devices will synchronize their transmissions. Freescale did make such 
claims in its comments to MBOA-SIG's Petition for Waiver. However, this 
issue was specifically addressed by MBOA-SIG in its reply comments and 
by Texas Instruments in its ex parte comments. As they show in these 
findings, such synchronization would require nanosecond time-scale 
synchronization between devices--an improbable task, particularly if 
the devices were attempting to monitor the spectrum to determine open 
operating windows. These transmitters are thus uncoordinated and will 
employ different on-off starting times, and possibly different timing 
intervals, which will be further degraded by timing drifts between the 
devices. Further, the Commission has already demonstrated that SIA's 
claims of cumulative interference are misplaced. Even if 
synchronization were possible, the emissions from co-located 
transmitters with synchronized operations still would not be expected 
to add linearly at a victim receiver as slight differences in path 
lengths due to multipath and other factors would skew any 
synchronization as well as the levels of the received signals. If the 
Commission assumes the unlikely condition where an FSS receiver will 
receive signals from multiple UWB devices and that these UWB signals 
are synchronized with respect to reception by the FSS receiver and not 
by the UWB receiver, three devices operating simultaneously on the 
three channels would result in a maximum increase in the received level 
of approximately 4.8 dB. This is exactly the same increase that would 
be caused by three impulse devices operating under the same conditions. 
Therefore, waiving of the measurement rule would not increase the 
likelihood of aggregation.
    28. The Commission finds that there is no evidence from the 
petitioners that UWB devices will synchronize or interleave their 
transmissions or that there will be any aggregate or cumulative effects 
from multiple UWB transmitters operating in the same area. Thus, no 
rule prohibiting such operation is necessary. Accordingly, these 
portions of Cingular's and SIA's Petitions for Reconsideration are 
denied.
    29. Argument that the Commission needs to exclude operation in the 
3.65-4.2 GHz band under the waiver, just as it did in the 5.03-5.65 GHz 
band, pending completion of ITS testing. The Commission delayed 
implementation of its waiver provisions on the 5.03-5.65 GHz band, 
pending completion of the ITS study, solely as a matter of deference to 
NTIA and not because of any demonstrated potential for harmful 
interference to these systems. Such action is within the Commission's 
discretion. When spectrum, such as the 5.03-5.65 GHz band, is allocated 
for use by Federal Government agencies, the Commission consults with 
NTIA on any proposed non-Federal use of that spectrum. However, when 
spectrum is allocated exclusively for non-Federal operations, the 
Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and apply 
interference analyses and studies in determining emission limits and 
operating parameters. Because the Commission had already determined in 
its rulemaking proceeding that there was no potential for harmful 
interference to FSS reception, there was no need to delay implementing 
the waiver in the 3.65-4.2 GHz FSS band.
    30. In addition, the Commission notes that Microwave Landing 
Systems operate in the 5.03-5.65 GHz band, which are used for precision 
approach and landing of civilian and military aircraft. The Commission 
finds that it was a reasonable exercise of its discretion for the 
Commission to be more cautious with respect to MLS because of the 
public safety function that those systems serve. On the other hand, 
while we agree with SIA that commercial FSS merits protection from 
interference in the 3.65-4.2 GHz band, FSS generally does not serve the 
same public safety function as MLS. Accordingly, the Commission finds 
that it was a reasonable exercise of the Commission's discretion for it 
to conclude based on the record in the Order that granting MBOA-SIG's 
waiver request with respect to 3.65-4.2 GHz band would not create an 
unreasonable increase in the potential for interference to FSS in that 
band.
    31. The Commission continues to maintain that FSS C-band receivers 
are more than adequately protected from UWB emissions, as shown in the 
various interference analyses when rational operating conditions are 
employed. This conclusion has been verified through the Alion 
interference study submitted by the C-band Coalition and through the 
analysis and real world tests performed by MBOA-SIG. Further, the 
completed ITS study, which analyzed whether there were discernible 
differences between different modulation formats that could be used in 
UWB devices, does not alter our conclusion that FSS C-band receivers 
are unlikely to suffer harmful interference from UWB emissions. 
Accordingly, this portion of SIA's Petition for Reconsideration is 
denied.

Ordering Clauses

    32. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 302, 303(f), 303(r), and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 303(f), 
303(r), and 405, the Petition for Reconsideration from the Satellite 
Industry Association in response to the Commission's Second Report and 
Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in ET Docket No. 98-153 
is dismissed.
    33. The Petition for Reconsideration from the Satellite Industry 
Association in response to the Commission's Order in ET Docket No. 04-
352 is dismissed in part and denied in part. The Petition for 
Reconsideration from Cingular Wireless LLC in response to the 
Commission's Order in ET Docket No. 04-352 is denied.
    34. The Commission will not send a copy of this Order, pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act. The Memorandum Opinion Order does not 
change any rules; it reaffirms certain rules and procedures for ultra-
wideband (UWB) devices that operate on an unlicensed basis under part 
15 of the Commission's rules, and dismisses and denies Petitions for 
Reconsideration.
    35. It is further ordered that ET Docket No. 98-153 and 04-352 are 
terminated.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25591 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P