Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| REVELATION L.L.C.                | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Request for Clarification or     | * |                              |
| Waiver of Section 101.111(c) of  |   |                              |
| the Commission's Rules to Permit | * |                              |
| Licensing of Radio Frequency     | * |                              |
| Identification Systems           | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted:** October 15, 2001 **Released:** October 18, 2001

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

# Introduction

1\. On September 14, 2000, Revelation L.L.C. (Revelation) filed a letter
with the Commission, requesting either confirmation that its proposed
radio frequency identification (RFID) operations are consistent with
Section 101.111(c) of the Commission's Rules,[^1] or, in the
alternative, a waiver of that rule.[^2] For the reasons stated below, we
find that the subject equipment does not comport with the Commission's
Rules and, in addition, we deny the waiver request.

# BACKGROUND

2\. Revelation's equipment consists of multiple temporary fixed base
stations (interrogators) and fixed and mobile passive transponders
(tags). The base stations transmit a radio frequency (RF) signal, which
is reflected by the tags back to the interrogator. Revelation seeks to
use frequencies in the 900 MHz Multiple Address Systems (MAS) band,[^3]
because its system resembles the master station/remote station
architecture of MAS systems licensed under Part 101 of the Commission's
Rules.[^4] In addition, Revelation believes that the propagation
characteristics of the 900 MHz band are the most technically suitable
and cost-effective for its functional requirements.[^5] Revelation
states that its equipment detects, locates, identifies, sorts and counts
various people and objects for the purpose of increasing safety and
productivity while reducing costs. According to Revelation, potential
uses of its equipment include detecting and alerting air traffic
personnel of misdirected airplanes and other vehicles on runways;
detecting persons entering restricted areas; and operating gates, doors,
toll booths, medicine dispensers, etc.[^6]

# Discussion

3\. We first address Revelation's request for confirmation that its
operations are consistent with Section 101.111(c) of the Commission's
Rules. Section 101.111(c) of the Commission's Rules prohibits the
emission of an unmodulated carrier on systems licensed under Part 101 of
the Commission's Rules, except for test purposes as required for proper
station and system maintenance.[^7] Modulation is the process of
changing some property of a carrier in accordance with the original
source information.[^8] When there is no change in the carrier, it is
said to be an *unmodulated* carrier. Revelation argues that its proposed
signal is not unmodulated,[^9] but rather is characterized by high duty
cycle On-Off Keying (OOK) and 0.1 Hz Amplitude Modulated (AM). We reject
this characterization. An AM signal emission has two components: a
carrier frequency plus the modulating frequency. This creates a
bandwidth spanning the carrier frequency plus and minus the modulating
frequency.[^10] In the case of Revelation's signal, the emission would
be composed of a 928,500,000 + 0.1 Hertz signal, and a 928,500,000 - 0.1
Hertz signal. Because 0.1 Hertz is negligible compared to 928,500,000
Hertz, this signal appears as a 928,500,000 continuous carrier, which
cannot be discerned from the carrier plus or minus the information, thus
rendering it as an unmodulated signal. Also, because this type of high
duty cycle OOK results in the carrier being present from 99.979 to
99.998 percent of the time, this signal appears as an uninterrupted
carrier. Consequently, we conclude such a signal is unmodulated and not
allowed under Section 101.111(c). We therefore deny Revelation's request
for a ruling that the Commission's Part 101 Rules permit its proposed
operations.

4\. In the alternative, to the extent that its system does not meet the
requirements of Section 101.111(c), Revelation asks for a waiver of that
rule. A petitioner may obtain a waiver of the Commission's Rules by
demonstrating that (i) the underlying purpose of the rule(s) would not
be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case, and
that a grant of the requested waiver would be in the public interest; or
(ii) in view of unique or unusual factual circumstances of the instant
case, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly
burdensome, or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no
reasonable alternative.[^11] Based upon our review of the record, we
conclude that Revelation has not demonstrated that grant of the
requested waiver is warranted under the circumstances presented.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.944444444444445e-4in"
height="6.944444444444445e-4in"}

5\. Revelation advances several arguments in support of its waiver
request. First, Revelation argues that the underlying purpose of Section
101.111(c) would not be served here.[^12] It contends that the
Commission did not advance any specific reason when it adopted the
prohibition now codified in Section 101.111(c).[^13] Second, Revelation
argues that the application of this rule provision to its proposed
operations would be inequitable and unduly burdensome, and would leave
it with no reasonable alternative.[^14] More specifically, it argues
that it would be unfair to apply the prohibition against unmodulated
emissions to its proposed operations because no such prohibition applies
to similar operations in the Part 90 Radiolocation Service and Location
and Monitoring Service (LMS).[^15] Further, Revelation states that its
technology is incompatible with operations in other rule parts where its
form of emission is permitted.[^16]

6\. We believe that one purpose of Section 101.111(c) of the
Commission's Rules is to promote the efficient use of spectrum.[^17]
Given the fact that MAS frequencies are licensed on an exclusive basis
to one licensee in a given area, it could be argued that this underlying
purpose of the rule would not be served by its application in this case
because only the licensee's operations would be affected.[^18] On the
other hand, we are concerned that Revelation has not provided any
evidence that its system would provide the same amount of co-channel
interference protection as is currently provided in the MAS rules.[^19]
Moreover, we are concerned about Revelation's statement that a 410 kHz
guard band is necessary.[^20] If such a guard band is needed between an
MAS channel being used by Revelation and the next available channel that
can be used, then we do not believe that such a system would be an
efficient use of the MAS spectrum. Thus, based on the information
available, we conclude that Revelation has not demonstrated that its
proposal is consistent with the underlying purpose of Section
101.111(c).

7\. We also conclude that Revelation has not shown unique or unusual
circumstances that make application of the rule inequitable or unduly
burdensome, or leave it with no reasonable alternative. Contrary to what
Revelation states, other than as required for tests, continuous
radiation of an unmodulated carrier is not permitted in the LMS, and is
permitted in the Radiolocation Service only on certain frequencies on an
as-needed basis.[^21] Moreover, to the extent such operations are
permitted, Revelation has reasonable alternatives under the Commission's
Rules. Though Revelation states generally that its technology is
incompatible with operations in other rule parts where its form of
emission would be permissible, it does not explain why propagation
conditions in the RFID frequencies would render its system technically
inoperable in these portions of the spectrum. Thus, based on the
information before us, we find that Revelation has not presented a
compelling showing that grant of its waiver request to operate in other
than the assigned RFID bands is warranted.

**IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES**

8\. We conclude that Revelation's contemplated operations are not
consistent with Section 101.111(c) of the Commission's Rules, because it
proposes to use an unmodulated signal. In addition, based on the record
before us, we conclude that a waiver of the rule is not warranted.
Revelation has not demonstrated that its proposed operations would be
consistent with the underlying purpose of the MAS rules regarding
protection from harmful interference. In addition, we believe that
alternative frequencies are available for the operations proposed by
Revelation.

9\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309,
and Sections 1.2 and 1.925(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
1.2, 1.925(b)(3), the request to clarify or waive Section 101.111(c) of
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 101.111(c), filed by Revelation L.L.C.
on September 14, 2000 IS DENIED.

10\. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections
0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> D'wana R. Terry

Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.111(c).

[^2]: Letter from counsel for Revelation, L.L.C. to D'wana R. Terry,
    Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (dated Sept. 14,
    2000) (Letter).

[^3]: Revelation proposes to use 928.5 MHz, or some other frequency in
    the 900 to 930 MHz range. *See* Report by William N. Reining, P.E.,
    at 1 (Sept. 5, 2000) (Engineering Report).

[^4]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.3.

[^5]: *See* Letter at 2.

[^6]: *Id.*

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.111(c).

[^8]: *See* Electronic Communications Systems, Wayne Tomasi, 1988
    Prentice-Hall, Inc. at 2.

[^9]: *See* Engineering Report at 1.

[^10]: *See* Transmission Systems for Communications, Bell Telephone
    Laboratories, Fifth Edition at 94-95.

[^11]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(1).

[^12]: *See* Letter at 3.

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: S*ee id.* at 5.

[^15]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.101 (Radiolocation Service), 90.350
    (Location and Monitoring Service).

[^16]: Letter at 5.

[^17]: Unmodulated carriers generally do not convey information, and
    therefore are considered an inefficient use of spectrum.

[^18]: In cases where spectrum is licensed on an exclusive basis, the
    Commission tries, where possible, to afford licensees the technical
    flexibility to choose the technology that it believes best meets its
    communications requirements or the requirements of its customers.
    *See*, *e.g.*, Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the
    37.0-38.6 GHz and 3806-40.0 GHz Bands, *Report and Order and Second
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, ET Docket No. 95-183, 12 FCC Rcd
    18600, 18631 ¶ 63 (1997).

[^19]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.105(c)(3).

[^20]: *See* Engineering Report at 1. This statement implies that the
    closest adjacent channel assignment that can be made in an area
    where a Revelation system is operating is 410 kHz away. Under the
    current MAS rules, channels normally are available every 12.5 kHz.
    47 C.F.R. § 101.147(b).

[^21]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.103(c)(22), 90.403(f).