**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  | ET Docket No. 98-153         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Revision of Part 15 of the       | ** |                              |
| Commission's Rules               |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Regarding Ultra-Wideband         | *) |                              |
| Transmission                     | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Systems                          | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making**

**Adopted: February 13, 2003 Released: March 12, 2003**

**Comment Date: (90 days after publication in the Federal Register)**

**Reply Comment Date: (120 days after publication in the Federal
Register)**

By the Commission: Chairman Powell and Commissioner Copps issuing
separate statements.

Page

I. Introduction [2](#introduction)

II\. BACKGROUND [2](#background)

III\. Petitions for Reconsideration [5](#petitions-for-reconsideration)

A. Petitions for reconsideration from the UWB equipment developers:
[5](#petitions-for-reconsideration-from-the-uwb-equipment-developers)

1\. Public safety imaging systems [5](#public-safety-imaging-systems)

2\. Ground penetrating radar systems
[10](#ground-penetrating-radar-systems)

3\. Wideband radar and other low PRF systems in the 3.1-10.6 GHz band
[16](#wideband-radar-and-other-low-prf-systems-in-the-3.1-10.6-ghz-band)

4\. Vehicular radar systems in the 22-29 GHz band
[18](#vehicular-radar-systems-in-the-22-29-ghz-band)

5\. Indoor UWB operation [20](#indoor-uwb-operation)

B. Petitions for reconsideration from representatives of the authorized
radio services:
[21](#petitions-for-reconsideration-from-representatives-of-the-authorized-radio-services)

1\. UWB emissions in the cellular and PCS frequency bands
[21](#uwb-emissions-in-the-cellular-and-pcs-frequency-bands)

2\. UWB emissions in the SDARS frequency bands
[41](#uwb-emissions-in-the-sdars-frequency-bands)

3\. UWB emissions in the FSS frequency bands
[51](#uwb-emissions-in-the-fss-frequency-bands)

4\. UWB emissions in the aviation frequency bands
[53](#uwb-emissions-in-the-aviation-frequency-bands)

5\. UWB emissions in the MDS and ITFS frequency bands
[54](#uwb-emissions-in-the-mds-and-itfs-frequency-bands)

C. MSSI Petition for Reconsideration regarding non-UWB standards:
[56](#mssi-petition-for-reconsideration-regarding-non-uwb-standards)

IV\. Other Matters [58](#other-matters)

V. Further Notice of Proposed rule making
[59](#further-notice-of-proposed-rule-making)

VI\. Administrative Provisions [64](#administrative-provisions)

A. Memorandum Opinion and Order [64](#memorandum-opinion-and-order)

B. Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
[66](#further-notice-of-proposed-rule-making-1)

VII\. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY
ANALYSIS..................\...................Appendix A

VIII\. CHANGES TO THE
REGULATIONS........................................................Appendix
B

IX\. PARTIES FILING PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
COMMENTS....Appendix C

X. STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED IN REGARDS TO THE FCC OFFICE OF
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (OET) TECHNICAL RESEARCH BRANCH (TRB)
EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT
REPORT...........................................\.........Appendix D

# Introduction

1.  By this action, we are amending Part 15 of our rules regarding the
    unlicensed operation of ultra-wideband (UWB) transmission systems.
    These amendments respond to fourteen petitions for reconsideration
    that were filed in response to the *First Report and Order*
    ("*R&O*") in this proceeding.[^1] In general, this Memorandum
    Opinion and Order ("MO&O") does not make any significant changes to
    the existing UWB technical parameters.[^2] We are reluctant to do so
    until we have more experience with UWB devices. We also believe that
    any major changes to the rules for existing UWB product categories
    at this early stage would be disruptive to current industry product
    development efforts. We have reviewed the requests from the
    petitioners and are granting those that will not increase the
    interference potential of UWB devices. We are denying those requests
    that sought, without factual support, further restrictions on UWB
    operations. We believe that the next 12 to 18 months should allow
    the introduction of UWB devices under our recently adopted rules. We
    also hope that additional tests using commercially available UWB
    devices will have been completed within that time frame. We
    understand that such tests currently are being contemplated by the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department
    of Transportation (DOT), by the Department of Defense, and by
    commercial entities. As these steps occur, we intend to continue our
    review of the UWB standards to determine where additional changes
    warrant consideration.

2.  Based on these petitions, we are amending the rules to facilitate
    the operation of through-wall imaging systems by law enforcement,
    emergency rescue and firefighter personnel in emergency situations;
    we are eliminating the requirement that GPRs and wall imaging
    systems operate with their ‑10 dB bandwidths below 960 MHz or above
    3.1 GHz; we are clarifying the limitations on who may operate ground
    penetrating radar (GPR) systems and wall imaging systems and for
    what purposes; we are eliminating the requirement for non-hand held
    GPRs to employ a dead man switch; we are clarifying the coordination
    requirements for imaging devices; and we are clarifying the rules
    regarding emissions produced by digital circuitry used by UWB
    transmitters. We also are proposing additional new rules to address
    issues raised by MSSI and by Siemens regarding the operation of low
    pulse repetition frequency (PRF) UWB systems, including vehicular
    radars, in the 3.1-10.6 GHz band; the operation of frequency hopping
    vehicular radars in the 22‑29 GHz band as UWB devices; the
    establishment of new peak power limits for wideband Part 15 devices
    that do not operate as UWB devices; and the definition of a UWB
    device.

# BACKGROUND

3.  On February 14, 2002, the Commission adopted a *First Report and
    Order* ("R&O") in the above captioned proceeding. This R&O amended
    Part 15 of our rules to permit the marketing and operation of
    products incorporating UWB technology. UWB radio systems can employ
    pulse modulation where extremely narrow (short) bursts of RF energy
    are modulated and emitted to convey information.[^3] Because of the
    very short duration of these pulses, the emission bandwidths from
    these systems are large and often exceed one gigahertz.[^4] In some
    cases, "impulse" transmitters are employed where the pulses do not
    modulate a carrier. Instead, the radio frequency emissions generated
    by the pulses are applied to an antenna, and the resonant frequency
    of the antenna determines the center frequency of the radiated
    emission. The frequency response characteristics of the antenna
    provide band-pass filtering, further affecting the shape of the
    radiated signal. UWB devices can be used for precise measurement of
    distances or locations and for obtaining the images of objects
    buried under ground or behind surfaces. UWB devices can also be used
    for wireless communications, particularly for short-range high-speed
    data transmissions suitable for broadband access to networks.

4.  Several categories of UWB devices are permitted under the
    regulations including imaging systems,[^5] vehicular radars and
    indoor and outdoor communication systems. Because of their wide
    operating bandwidths, UWB devices operate in frequency bands that
    are allocated both to U.S. Government and to non-government
    operations. Operation of Government radio stations is regulated by
    the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    (NTIA), while operation of stations by private industry, by state
    and local governments and by the public is regulated by the FCC. The
    standards and operating requirements that we recently adopted were
    based in large measure on standards that NTIA found to be necessary
    to protect against interference to vital federal government
    operations.

5.  In the *R&O*, the Commission recognized the benefits that UWB
    technology offers for Government, public safety, businesses and
    consumers. However, it also recognized that those substantial
    benefits might not be realized if UWB devices were to cause
    interference to licensed services and other important radio
    operations. Accordingly, the Commission established technical
    standards and operating restrictions for three types of UWB devices
    based on their potential to cause interference. These three types of
    devices are: 1) imaging systems including GPRs, wall imaging
    systems, through-wall imaging systems, surveillance systems and
    medical imaging devices; 2) vehicular radar systems; and
    3) communications and measurement systems consisting of indoor-only
    devices and hand held devices that may be operated anywhere. The
    Commission adopted standards for UWB devices that it believed to be
    very conservative. The UWB emission limits generally are
    significantly more stringent than those imposed on other Part 15
    devices; outdoor use of UWB devices is limited to imaging systems,
    vehicular radar systems, and hand held devices; and the frequency
    bands within which UWB products are permitted to operate are
    limited. The frequency band of UWB operation is based on the -10 dB
    bandwidth of the emission.[^6] This combination of technical
    standards and operational restrictions is designed to ensure that
    UWB devices can coexist with the authorized radio services without
    the risk of harmful interference while we gain experience with this
    technology. The following standards and operational restrictions
    were applied to UWB devices:

-   ***Imaging Systems***: GPRs and other imaging devices may operate
    under Part 15 of the Commission's rules subject to certain frequency
    and power limitations. All imaging systems are subject to
    coordination with NTIA through the FCC. Coordination may not take
    longer than 15 business days from the receipt of the coordination
    request by NTIA, and special temporary authorizations may be
    expedited when circumstances warrant. The operation of imaging
    systems in emergencies involving safety of life or property may take
    place following a notification procedure.[^7] The operators of
    imaging devices, other than medical imaging devices, must be
    eligible for licensing under Part 90 of our rules. Medical imaging
    systems must be used at the direction of, or under the supervision
    of, a licensed health care practitioner. Imaging systems include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Ground Penetrating Radar Systems*:** GPRs must be operated with
    their -10 dB bandwidth below 960 MHz or within the frequency band
    3.1-10.6 GHz. GPRs operate only when in contact with, or within
    close proximity of, the ground for the purpose of detecting or
    obtaining the images of buried objects. The energy from the GPR is
    intentionally directed down into the ground for this purpose.
    Operation is restricted to law enforcement, fire and rescue
    organizations,[^8] to scientific research institutions, to
    commercial mining companies, and to construction companies.[^9]

-   ***Wall Imaging Systems*:** Wall imaging systems must be operated
    with their -10 dB bandwidth below 960 MHz or within the frequency
    band 3.1-10.6 GHz. Wall-imaging systems are designed to detect the
    location of objects contained within a "wall." Typical uses include
    examining a concrete structure, the side of a bridge, or the wall of
    a mine. Operation is restricted to law enforcement, fire and rescue
    organizations, to scientific research institutions, to commercial
    mining companies, and to construction companies.

-   ***Through-wall Imaging Systems*:** These systems must be operated
    with their -10 dB bandwidth below 960 MHz or within the frequency
    band 1.99-10.6 GHz. Through-wall imaging systems detect the location
    or movement of persons or objects that are located on the other side
    of a structure such as a wall. Operation is limited to law
    enforcement, fire and rescue organizations.

-   ***Surveillance Systems*:** These systems must be operated with
    their -10 dB bandwidth within the frequency band 1.99-10.6 GHz.
    Surveillance systems operate as "security fences" by establishing a
    stationary RF perimeter field and detecting the intrusion of persons
    or objects in that field. Operation is limited to law enforcement,
    fire and rescue organizations, to public utilities and to industrial
    entities.[^10]

-   ***Medical Systems*:** These devices must be operated with their -10
    dB bandwidth within the frequency band 3.1-10.6 GHz. A medical
    imaging system may be used for a variety of health applications to
    "see" inside the body of a person or animal. Operation must be at
    the direction of, or under the supervision of, a licensed health
    care practitioner.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Vehicular Radar Systems*:** Vehicular radars are limited to
    operation on terrestrial transportation vehicles. The -10 dB
    bandwidth must be within the 22-29 GHz band and directional antennas
    must be employed. The center frequency of the emission and the
    frequency at which the highest radiated emission occurs must be
    greater than 24.075 GHz. These devices detect the location and
    movement of objects near a vehicle, enabling features such as near
    collision avoidance, improved airbag activation, and suspension
    systems that better respond to road conditions. Attenuation of the
    emissions below 24 GHz is required above the horizontal plane in
    order to protect space borne passive sensors operating in the
    23.6-24.0 GHz band.[^11]

-   ***Communications and Measurement*** ***Systems*:** This category
    encompasses a wide variety of other UWB devices, such as high-speed
    home and business networking devices as well as storage tank
    measurement devices subject to certain frequency and power
    limitations. The devices must operate with their -10 dB bandwidth
    within the frequency band 3.1-10.6 GHz. The equipment must be
    designed to ensure that operation only can occur indoors, or it must
    be hand held in which case it may be operated anywhere. Hand held
    devices may be employed for such activities as peer-to-peer
    operation.

6.  Subsequent to release of the *R&O*, fourteen petitions for
    reconsideration were filed seeking reconsideration of various
    aspects of the Part 15 UWB regulations, as described above. A list
    of the petitioners, along with the abbreviations used to identify
    them and the parties that filed comments in response to the
    petitions, is attached as Appendix C.

# Petitions for Reconsideration

7.  The petitions for reconsideration can be divided into three general
    categories: those from developers of UWB devices that seek to expand
    on the UWB standards to permit or facilitate a particular type of
    operation; those from organizations representing authorized radio
    services that seek additional attenuation of UWB emissions in the
    frequency bands used by their devices; and those seeking changes to
    the Part 15 rules for non-UWB operation. The UWB developers consist
    of Time Domain, AGA and AGPA, GPRIC, GPR Providers, NUCA, MSSI,
    Siemens VDO, and Kohler. The organizations representing authorized
    radio services consist of Cingular, Qualcomm, Sprint, Sirius and XM,
    SIA, and ARINC and ATA. In addition, MSSI requests that we amend our
    peak power limits on non-UWB Part 15 devices. We will discuss the
    petitions under these three groupings in order to facilitate the
    analyses of the raised issues. The petitions from UWB developers are
    grouped according to the individual categories of UWB devices that
    would be affected, *e.g.*, GPRs. The petitions from the
    representatives of the authorized radio services are grouped
    according to the radio services they address.

## Petitions for reconsideration from the UWB equipment developers:

### Public safety imaging systems

8.  The UWB rules require through-wall imaging systems to operate with
    their -10 dB bandwidth located below 960 MHz or between 1.99-10.6
    GHz. Imaging systems may not be used in conjunction with tag
    identifiers used to locate personnel nor may imaging systems be used
    to transmit voice or data information.[^12] Communications systems
    are required to operate with their -10 dB bandwidth located between
    3.1‑10.6 GHz. Through-wall systems are required to attenuate
    emissions in the GPS band by 10 dB below the Part 15 general
    emission limits,[^13] *i.e.*, to -51.3 dBm/MHz, in the 1610‑1990 MHz
    band and by 12 dB below the Part 15 general emission limits, *i.e.*,
    to -53.3 dBm/MHz, in the 960-1610 MHz band. Other UWB devices are
    subject to even greater attenuation of emissions in these bands.

9.  [Petition]{.underline}. Time Domain requests that the regulations be
    amended to permit UWB through-wall imaging systems to operate at a
    lower frequency and at a higher power level than permitted under the
    rules adopted in the *R&O*. The UWB rules require a through-wall
    imaging system to operate with its -10 dB bandwidth above 1.99 GHz
    and below 10.6 GHz.[^14] Operation is limited to law enforcement,
    fire and emergency rescue organizations.[^15] Time Domain states
    that its through-wall imaging system operates at the Part 15 general
    emission limits with a nominal center frequency of 2.0 GHz and that
    the emissions from this system are 5 dB below the Part 15 general
    emission limits at 1610 MHz.[^16] Time Domain also states that it is
    necessary to operate at this frequency and power level in order to
    obtain, as required by SWAT officers, reliable imaging to 20 feet
    behind the wall or door through which the UWB transmission is
    directed.[^17] Time Domain also wishes to implement a system that
    would permit the use of locator tags to track firefighters within
    buildings and to permit communications with those firefighters,
    features currently prohibited under the UWB rules for imaging
    systems.[^18] Time Domain notes that none of the interference
    studies, when examined in light of realistic deployment scenarios,
    reveal a credible threat of harmful interference to licensed
    services from its product due to the limited number of UWB systems
    that would be deployed and operated.[^19] It adds that the *R&O*
    simply relied on NTIA's position for UWB standards. Time Domain
    notes that its UWB systems primarily are used indoors and that an
    additional 10 dB of attenuation would be provided for narrowband
    emissions in the GPS bands.[^20]

10. [Comments]{.underline}. The USGPSIC opposes Time Domain's requests
    for the use of locator tags and the use of higher emission
    levels.[^21] It states that such devices are limited to operation
    above 3.1 GHz due to their propensity, based on the NTIA and RTCA
    GPS interference studies, to disrupt established radio services in
    lower frequency bands. USGPSIC also expresses its belief that it is
    unwise at this early stage to begin carving out exceptions to newly
    adopted rules that have not yet been put into practice. USGPSIC also
    states that through-wall imaging systems are known interferers that
    must be licensed to protect public safety, adding that firefighters
    rely on GPS. AWS states that the existing limits already are too
    lenient, that requests to increase those limits must be rejected,
    and that the emission limits must be tightened to account for
    aggregate emissions.[^22] Time Domain replies that no tests showed
    harmful interference from UWB devices operating at the emission
    levels it proposes, and argues that USGPSIC mischaracterizes the
    findings of these tests in asserting that harmful interference would
    result from UWB operation below 3.1 GHz.[^23] It adds that the NTIA
    tests assumed a flat earth, no buildings, no foliage, prefect
    alignment of antennas, no multipath, GPS satellites with worst-case
    multiple access noise (code alignment), all GPS satellites at their
    end-of-life power output, perfect availability and performance of
    GPS signals regardless of GPS receiver location, and the use of a
    UWB CW signal phase locked to a sensitive GPS spectral line so that
    the signals were continually tracked -- a condition that would never
    arise -- in order to show that a 34 dB reduction below the Part 15
    general emission limits was required. Time Domain believes that
    realistic assumptions would have shown that the general emission
    limits were sufficient to prevent harmful interference. We also note
    that a large number of public safety organizations endorsed the Time
    Domain system in response to the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*
    ("*Notice*")[^24] in this proceeding.

11. [Discussion]{.underline}. We agree with the request from Time Domain
    to permit through-wall imaging systems to operate at a lower
    frequency and a subsequently higher emission level. We believe that
    the potential for using UWB devices to save the lives of
    firefighters, emergency rescue personnel and law enforcement
    officers and to assist those parties in saving the lives of the
    public clearly outweighs the relatively low risk that these devices,
    even operating under the worst possible scenarios, may cause
    interference to GPS receivers located a few meters away. We concur
    that the imaging system envisioned by Time Domain should be allowed
    to be implemented under our regulations. We also believe that any
    potential increase in harmful interference would be minimal,
    occurring only within a few meters of the UWB device. In addition,
    we believe that the petition from Time Domain is unique from the
    other petitions filed in this proceeding. The Time Domain system
    would be employed only in limited quantities, under safety-of-life
    circumstances, and at emission limits that are unlikely to cause
    harmful interference. Further, due to the extremely close range at
    which interference could occur it is highly likely that any radio
    systems receiving interference would be under the direct control of
    the licensed public safety personnel operating the UWB equipment.
    This would permit the UWB operator to determine, based on the
    conditions unique to each emergency situation, the specific radio
    equipment that is most viable to protect the lives of both the
    public and the emergency personnel involved and to manage the
    operation of that equipment. As these same public safety operators
    also employ GPS and other communications systems, they will be aware
    of any possible interactions between these systems and are in the
    best position to determine if the UWB system should be employed.
    While we are continuing to follow a conservative approach in the
    implementation of standards for UWB operations, we believe that the
    safety-of-life applications of this UWB equipment, combined with the
    limitation that operation must be by licensed public safety radio
    operators who can temper any possible adverse equipment
    interactions, justify the adoption of Time Domain's proposal.

12. The emission limits established for UWB operation in the 960-1610
    MHz band were based on conservative models requested by NTIA, the
    Department of Defense, the US GPS Industry Council and others. These
    models were based on a 1 dB increase in the noise floor of the GPS
    receiver with the GPS receiver and the UWB device separated by
    conservative distances. Further, these models were established for
    UWB devices that could be employed in large quantities by the
    general public or could be employed as imaging systems by a smaller
    but unknown number of users. However, the Time Domain through-wall
    imaging devices are envisioned for use in law enforcement and
    emergency service operations following a natural or man-made
    disaster, *e.g.*, an earthquake, fire, or an act of terrorism. Under
    these circumstances, access to the site by the general public will
    be severely restricted. Thus, the short separation distances assumed
    in developing the general UWB emission limits for this band are not
    appropriate for this UWB application. Furthermore, as indicated the
    public safety operators of this equipment will be able to determine
    what equipment should be operated and to control the proximity of
    those devices. Accordingly, we see no need to provide stringent UWB
    emission limits to protect other nearby radio operations such as
    indoor enhanced GPS reception.

13. We are not proposing at this time to reevaluate the UWB emission
    limits in the GPS and other frequency bands for existing UWB
    devices. However, we recognize that the safety-of-life applications
    provided by the Time Domain system should be considered in a
    different light, especially since that equipment would be used only
    by a smaller number of licensed public safety officials under
    limited operational circumstances and that these public safety
    officials will be able to determine what, if any, impact the
    operation of the UWB equipment will have on other nearby radio
    operations. Accordingly, we have taken another look at the analysis
    of the interference potential from the Time Domain UWB system to GPS
    reception. In this new analysis, we note that Time Domain indicated
    that the emissions from its transmission would be attenuated by 5 dB
    below the Part 15 general emission limits at frequencies below 1610
    MHz. Since the fundamental emission of the Time Domain device would
    be permitted at an EIRP of -41.3 dBm/MHz, this results in emissions
    in the GPS band being no greater than ‑46.3 dBm/MHz. Under these
    circumstances, the following link budget applies:

  -------------------------------------------------- --------------------
  Parameters                                         Levels

  GPS receiver susceptibility (dBm/MHz)              -117.5 [^25]

  GPS antenna gain (dBi)                             0

  UWB emission limit in EIRP (dBm/MHz)               -46.3 [^26]

  Required path loss (dB)                            71.2

  Maximum separation distance (m)                    55
  -------------------------------------------------- --------------------

14. While the above link budget specifies a maximum separation distance
    between the UWB through-wall imaging system and a GPS receiver, we
    recognize that actual interference distances will be considerably
    shorter. First, the UWB emission limit is based on a level that
    could result in a 1 dB increase in the noise floor of a GPS receiver
    under very conservative conditions. To our knowledge, no correlation
    has ever been made between this slight rise in the noise floor and
    actual GPS harmful interference. Indeed, tests performed by NTIA,
    DOT and Time Domain all demonstrate that GPS receivers are capable
    of rejecting higher UWB emission levels even when the GPS received
    signals are at minimal levels and the emissions from the UWB devices
    are adjusted to produce a maximum impact on the GPS receiver.
    Second, the calculated maximum separation distance is based on worst
    case conditions, *e.g.*, no intervening objects, the maximum
    emission from the UWB device directed towards the GPS receiver, and
    perfect antenna alignment between the UWB device and the GPS
    receiver. Third, the fundamental emission of the through-wall
    imaging system always would be directed at the wall of a building
    and that building would provide an additional 9 dB of attenuation,
    on the average, at the GPS frequency.[^27] Fourth, we note that Time
    Domain's current equipment design employs the use of a directional
    antenna which will ensure that the maximum emission levels are
    directed at the building and will minimize emissions in other
    directions. Based on the low probability that all worst case
    conditions would apply at the same time, it is likely that
    considerably shorter separation distances would apply in actual
    practice. Accordingly, while the above link budget analysis
    demonstrates that operation of Time Domain's proposed through-wall
    imaging system could result in increased noise to GPS receivers,
    this would occur only to those receivers in the immediate vicinity
    of the UWB transmitter, *i.e.*, to those receivers that are under
    the control and supervision of the same public safety agencies
    operating the UWB through-wall imaging equipment.

15. We agree that any technology that increases the survivability of our
    police, emergency rescue personnel and firefighters should be
    encouraged. As a result of the factors discussed in the preceding
    paragraphs, we are amending our rules to permit the operation of a
    through-wall imaging system with a center frequency above 1990 MHz
    at the Part 15 general emission limits. However, we acknowledge the
    concerns expressed by the commenters and believe that some
    additional operational standards should be implemented to ensure
    that operation of this equipment does not result in harmful
    interference to other radio systems that may also be employed for
    public safety purposes. We do not believe that any of these
    standards will cause operational difficulties. First, we are
    limiting the proliferation of such products by authorizing the use
    of this equipment only by law enforcement officers, emergency rescue
    personnel and firefighters operating under the authority of a local
    or state government. Second, we are requiring that the operators of
    such systems be licensed by the Commission under Part 90 of our
    regulations. Part 90 permits the operation of public safety radio
    communications systems. The grant of a Part 90 license for operation
    of a land mobile station will automatically convey authority to
    operate this through-wall imaging system. The license may be held by
    the organization under which the UWB operator is employed. This is
    similar to the current provisions that permit law enforcement
    agencies to operate vehicle speed radar systems under the provision
    that they hold a valid land mobile radio license.[^28] However,
    unlike the licensing of Part 90 radars, by retaining these
    provisions under Part 15 we are requiring that the UWB devices
    continue to operate on a sufferance basis without interference
    protection. Third, we are requiring that this equipment be operated
    only for law enforcement applications, the providing of emergency
    services, and necessary training operations. Because of the
    possibility that some training areas may be located near public
    access areas where receiving equipment may not be under the
    immediate control of the UWB device public safety operator, at the
    request of NTIA we are requesting that during training exercises
    through-wall imaging systems operating above 1990 MHz be encompassed
    by a 50 meter perimeter within which public access is restricted.
    Finally, we are requiring that the UWB public safety communication
    system transmitter operate with its center frequency, as defined in
    47 C.F.R. § 15.503(b), between 1990 MHz and 10.6 GHz. The frequency
    at which the highest radiated emission occurs must be located in the
    1.99 GHz to 10.6 GHz band and must not exceed an average
    root-mean-square (RMS) EIRP of ‑41.3 dBm/MHz. In addition, broadband
    emissions between 960 MHz and 1610 MHz must not exceed an average
    (RMS) EIRP of -46.3 dBm/MHz, when measured using a resolution
    bandwidth of at least 1 MHz, and narrowband emissions in the GPS
    bands must be attenuated so that they do not exceed an RMS EIRP of
    ‑56.3 dBm, when measured using a resolution bandwidth of no less
    than 1 kHz. We also are requiring that the emissions appearing below
    960 MHz not exceed the Part 15 general emission limits and that any
    emissions above 10.6 GHz not exceed an RMS EIRP of -51.3 dBm/MHz.

16. Due to the nature of the scenarios in which these through-wall
    imaging systems will be employed, *e.g.*, law enforcement and
    emergency services operations, we believe that coordination of these
    devices prior to operation is neither reasonable nor necessary. For
    similar reasons, we are relinquishing the requirement that these
    devices be equipped with a manual transmission switch. Finally, we
    note that the new public safety imaging system incorporates
    provisions that permit the use of through-wall imaging systems at
    emission levels more lenient than those that were adopted under the
    *R&O*. Accordingly, we are eliminating the separate provisions for
    mid-frequency through-wall imaging systems in 47 C.F.R. § 15.511 as
    it is redundant with the new provisions for public safety imaging
    systems. The specific regulations being adopted to permit this
    expanded UWB application are shown in Appendix B.

17. At this time, we are not adopting changes to the rules to implement
    the tracking or communication system suggested by Time Domain. In
    its petition, Time Domain indicated its desire to implement such a
    system but provided only general statements indicating that it
    should operate under the same emission standards as applied to
    through-wall imaging systems. We do not believe that sufficient
    information has been received to determine what standards are
    necessary to implement a tracking and communications system for
    public safety applications. Further, there is no indication at this
    time that such a device could not operate successfully under the UWB
    provisions already adopted. Once a public safety tracking and
    communications system has been sufficiently developed to permit us
    to consider its required operating parameters and subsequent
    interference potential, additional changes to the UWB rules could be
    addressed.

### Ground penetrating radar systems

18. As noted above, the rules adopted in the *R&O* required GPRs and
    wall imaging systems[^29] to be operated by law enforcement, fire
    and emergency rescue organizations, by scientific research
    institutes, by commercial mining companies or by construction
    companies. The operation of these devices is subject to the
    requirement that the operator coordinate the operational location
    with the Commission. A dead man switch is required to ensure that
    the UWB device ceases to operate within 10 seconds of being released
    by the operator. These products must operate with their -10 dB
    bandwidth below 960 MHz or between 3.1-10.6 GHz and may operate
    within those bands at the Part 15 general emission limits. Emissions
    within the 960-3100 MHz band are required to be attenuated below the
    Part 15 general emission limits by 10 to 24 dB, depending on the
    frequency. In an earlier *Order*,[^30] the Commission relaxed the
    operational restrictions for GPRs and wall imaging systems,
    permitting this equipment to be used for the purposes prescribed in
    the rules, and relaxed the coordination requirements, permitting GPR
    and wall imaging system operators to submit a single filing
    encompassing operation over a wide geographical area.

19. [Petitions]{.underline}. AGA and APGA, GPRIC, GPR Providers and NUCA
    filed petitions for reconsideration requesting that the Commission
    relax the restrictions on who may operate GPRs.[^31] In general, the
    petitioners note that existing GPRs are not operated by the parties
    identified in the regulations but are operated by independent small
    businesses for a myriad of public safety applications.[^32] The
    GPRIC does not object to requiring GPR users to be limited to
    parties eligible to operate under Part 90.[^33] Similar thoughts
    were expressed by the GPR Providers who request that we establish a
    new operating category entitled "Subsurface testing eligible,"
    defined as a commercial enterprise that provides professional
    subsurface testing services to others on a contract basis.[^34]
    GPRIC and the GPR Providers also request that the requirements to
    coordinate the operation of GPRs be eliminated.[^35] GPRIC is
    concerned that coordination would be required before every GPR
    operation and that these operations will be unnecessarily delayed
    waiting for the coordination to be completed. It does not object to
    a rule that identifies specific installations and requires
    coordination of GPRs operated within a reasonable radius of those
    installations. GPR Providers also requests that coordination be
    required only for sites where it truly is warranted, permitting the
    GPR user to register with the Commission and operate anywhere
    outside of these specified areas without further coordination. GPRIC
    believes that both of these provisions were adopted unlawfully as
    they were not specifically proposed for public comment, have no
    support in the comments filed in the record for this proceeding, and
    omit a large majority of the current users, with the effect that
    these restrictions would eliminate many of the public interest
    benefits currently derived from GPRs.

20. GPR Providers requests that the regulation requiring a dead man
    switch on the equipment be replaced with a requirement that
    operation occur only under the control of an eligible operator.[^36]
    It notes that no purpose would be served by leaving the equipment
    transmitting without operator direction and control and notes the
    difficulties of attempting to operate a GPR, observing data and
    marking reference locations, all while looking where they are going.
    GPR Providers notes that a requirement to hold down a switch to
    operate a GPR would result in having to use a second operator simply
    to operate this switch or risk having to repeat an entire site
    investigation should the switch accidentally be released during the
    survey.

21. Both GPRIC and GPR Providers request that GPRs be permitted to
    operate at the Part 15 general emission limits and within the
    frequency band between 960 and 2000 MHz.[^37] GPRIC and GPR
    Providers state that there is no evidence in the record suggesting
    that GPRs present any threat of interference and there is no
    technical justification for requiring the low emission levels
    adopted in the *R&O*. GPRIC notes that a product can be shown to
    comply with the requirement to contain the -10 dB bandwidth below
    960 MHz simply by adding noise to the emissions below 960 MHz,
    thereby increasing the potential interference to radio services
    below 960 MHz, even though the transmitter actually would be
    operating above 960 MHz. GPR Providers notes the necessity to
    operate GPRs in the 1-2 GHz region in order to obtain adequate image
    resolution. GPR Providers also notes that more numerous
    unintentional radiators already are permitted to operate at the
    general emission levels.

22. GPRIC believes that the requirement in the rules to measure peak
    emissions from low frequency imaging systems should be deleted.[^38]
    It states that the existing requirement to employ quasi-peak
    emission measurements below 960 MHz is sufficient to regulate
    interference potential and notes the Commission's earlier statement
    in the *R&O* that quasi-peak emissions will closely approximate the
    peak levels produced by imaging systems operating below 1000
    MHz.[^39]

23. GPR Providers requests that we reconsider our certification in the
    *R&O* that there will be no significant economic impact on a
    substantial number of small business and to conduct the regulatory
    flexibility analysis on the new rules as required under 5 U.S.C. 601
    *et seq*.[^40] It argues that the effects of the new rules on the
    GPR industry were not adequately considered.

24. [Comments]{.underline}. The USGPSIC opposes all of the regulatory
    changes sought by the GPR community, requesting that the status quo
    be maintained.[^41] It believes that expanding the list of eligible
    GPR operators would increase the permitted number of GPR systems and
    that this would result in an unacceptable risk of interference to
    GPS and would increase the number of coordination requests and the
    administrative burden.[^42] AWS also objects to expanding the list
    of authorized users and requests that existing broad user
    categories, such as "industrial entities" for surveillance systems,
    be removed.[^43] GPR Providers responds that the list of eligible
    users should be expanded to incorporate the relaxation to the
    category of users the Commission specified in its recent *Order* in
    this proceeding.[^44] It indicates that no dramatic expansion of
    users is expected as the GPR and wall imaging industry has a slow
    growth rate, equipment is expensive, and it appears that we intended
    to authorize this expanded category of users anyway. It adds that
    USGPSIC offers no evidence that such a change would further expand
    the number of users. GPRIC reiterates that the limit on who may
    operate GPRs was adopted without notice or comment and without any
    support in the record, omitting federal, state and local
    transportation departments along with the professional firms that
    provide them with GPRs.[^45] In response to USGPSIC's claims of
    increased interference to GPS due to increased proliferation, GPRIC
    notes that GPRs do not cause interference with GPS and that
    emissions from GPRs cannot aggregate as there never would be a
    demand to simultaneously operate a significant number of GPRs in
    close proximity as this would degrade the performance of the GPRs.
    GPR Providers repeats that GPRs have been operated for over 30 years
    with no reports of interference.[^46]

25. USGPSIC states that the coordination requirement is not a burden and
    is a logical outgrowth of our rulemaking proposal since coordination
    was required for UWB products previously authorized under a waiver
    and because one commenting party requested that UWB systems
    operating above the general limits be coordinated.[^47] USGPSIC
    wishes to retain the existing rules believing that the request from
    GPR Providers to permit GPR operators to register with the
    Commission, specifying an intended area of operation, is unduly
    complex and does not address the "real time" concerns of safety
    services such as GPS. GPRIC again claims that the coordination
    requirements were adopted without notice or comment.[^48] It states
    its belief that the *Notice* did not alert the public that a rule
    requiring coordination was under consideration and therefore did not
    meet the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") requirements.[^49] GPR
    Providers notes that the Commission's recent *Order* addressing GPR
    operation took a significant step towards ameliorating the
    problem.[^50] It adds that there is nothing complex about a GPR
    equipment registration system and again suggests that the Commission
    make available to the public a list of sites about which NTIA has
    concerns and limit pre-coordination to those areas.

26. USGPSIC opposes eliminating the dead man switch stating that this
    switch eliminates the element of human error and that the burdens
    associated with this switch do not outweigh the need to protect
    public safety services from stray GPR transmissions.[^51] In
    response, GPR Providers repeats its earlier claim that the inclusion
    of a dead man switch could compromise the operator's attention to
    details of the survey, many of which are performed in construction
    sites or other potentially hazardous environments. [^52]

27. USGPSIC also opposes allowing the operation of GPRs between 960 MHz
    and 3100 MHz, stating that this would open the door to additional
    small commercial users, since the vast majority of GPR applications
    require operation above 960 MHz.[^53] It indicates that permitting
    operation in this band would contradict the Commission's policy of
    protecting public safety services, adding that co-frequency GPR and
    GPS operation is not feasible.[^54] Finally, USGPSIC argues that the
    emission limits established in the *R&*O must not be relaxed,
    stating that we must not revise the levels previously adopted in the
    absence of testing which supports increased emission limits.[^55] It
    believes that interference caused by an unintentional radiator, such
    as a computer, is not a concern since the emission levels radiated
    by such devices can be reduced without affecting the functioning of
    that device, whereas lowering the emissions produced by a GPR would
    disrupt the functioning of that device. GPR Providers disagrees with
    USGPSIC that higher limits are acceptable only for unintentional
    radiators, noting that there are millions of personal computers
    versus a few hundred GPRs.[^56] It adds that no harmful interference
    was predicted from GPRs under any test approximating real world
    conditions. GPR Providers further notes that many GPRs incorporate a
    GPS receiver as an integral part of the operation without
    experiencing any interference problems. GPRIC believes that lower
    limits for GPRs were adopted contrary to all relevant evidence in
    the record and that long experience shows that GPRs operating at or
    near the Part 15 general emission limits have no effect on GPS
    operation. [^57] It disputes the USGPSIC comment regarding lack of
    testing evidence citing daily operation of GPRs with directly
    attached GPS receivers without interference problems. GPRIC adds
    that the existing rules arbitrarily eliminate the operation of GPRs
    above 960 MHz no matter how low the emission levels are and that
    this adds no protection to GPS but hinders GPR applications.

28. [Discussion]{.underline}. As noted by GPR Providers, an *Order*
    recently was issued addressing the categories of entities permitted
    to operate GPRs and wall imaging systems.[^58] In that *Order*, it
    was noted that the regulations require that GPRs and wall imaging
    systems be used only by law enforcement, fire and emergency rescue
    organizations, by scientific research institutes, by commercial
    mining companies, and by construction companies. Since the adoption
    of the *R&O*, we have received several inquiries from the operators
    of GPRs and wall imaging systems noting that these devices often are
    not operated by the parties listed in the regulations but are
    operated instead under contract by personnel specifically trained in
    the operation of these devices. We continue to believe that the
    recent adoption of the UWB rules should not result in disruption of
    the critical safety services that can be performed effectively only
    through the use of GPRs and wall imaging systems. We also find it
    acceptable that GPRs and wall imaging systems are used for one of
    the purposes described in the regulations without being physically
    controlled by one of the described parties. For example, a
    subcontractor may operate GPRs and wall imaging systems to inspect
    buildings, roadways, and bridges to determine if construction or
    repair is required. As a second example, a GPR may be operated by a
    private company investigating forensic evidence for a local police
    department. We believe that this viewpoint will satisfy the concerns
    of the petitioners, and we are amending the rules to reflect this
    interpretation. Following this interpretation of the eligibility
    requirements, there no longer is any need to require GPRs and wall
    imaging systems to carry a label designating who may operate the
    equipment. We do not agree with USGPSIC that this liberalization of
    the categories of operators will significantly increase the
    proliferation of GPRs and wall imaging systems nor do we believe
    that this will result in increased interference to GPS reception. We
    concur with GPR Providers that no dynamic expansion in the use of
    GPRs and wall imaging systems should result from this modification
    of the usage restrictions. Our interpretation of the eligibility
    requirements should not increase the usage of these devices beyond
    the levels at which experience has already demonstrated a lack of
    interference problems. As pointed out by the GPRIC and the GPR
    Providers, these devices have been used for many years with attached
    GPS receivers without a single incidence of reported harmful
    interference.

29. This modification of the operating restrictions will not extend to
    UWB imaging systems other than GPRs and wall imaging systems. We are
    not aware of any existing UWB surveillance, medical imaging, or
    through-wall imaging systems for which the current rules would have
    an adverse impact. These systems are relatively new products, and we
    therefore believe that their operation should be limited until more
    experience has been obtained.

30. The recent *Order* in this proceeding also simplified the
    coordination procedure applicable to GPRs and to wall imaging
    systems.[^59] In particular, it clarified that the individual
    reporting and coordination of each operation of an imaging system is
    not required. Rather, the coordination report associated with a GPR
    or with a wall imaging system may simply list the geographical
    area(s), *i.e.*, the state(s) or county(ies) in which the equipment
    will be operated. Upon receipt by the Commission, the coordination
    information is forwarded to NTIA. NTIA will identify the
    geographical areas within which the operation of an imaging system
    requires additional coordination or within which the operation of an
    imaging system is prohibited. If additional coordination is required
    for operation within specific geographical areas, a local
    coordination contact will be provided. This coordination may be
    conducted by telephone with the local contact; a separate report to
    the Commission for each operation of the imaging system is not
    required. Except for operation within these designated areas, once
    the information requested on the UWB imaging system is submitted to
    the Commission, no additional coordination with the Commission is
    required, provided the reported areas of operation do not change or
    the equipment is not sold to a different operator. If the area of
    operation changes or the equipment is sold, updated information must
    be submitted to the Commission.

31. The coordination procedures apply to all imaging systems. Mobile
    devices, such as wall imaging systems and through-wall imaging
    systems, by their nature, could be used over a wide range of
    geographical locations. A company using these products likely will
    operate them over several counties, or even over several states or
    country-wide and it is required that these geographical areas be
    reported in the filing of coordination information with the
    Commission. However, fixed devices, such as surveillance systems and
    medical imaging systems, are only operated at one location.
    Accordingly, we will require the operator of a fixed imaging system
    to provide the specific geographical location or address of the
    transmitter.

32. While it may be arguable whether these provisions could have been
    anticipated from the general outlines of the proposals we raised and
    that were debated in the rulemaking, these requirements were
    demanded by NTIA as a condition to permit operation in radio
    spectrum allocated for U.S. Government operations. The alternative
    to these provisions would have been to require that each operation
    of GPRs and wall imaging systems be individually coordinated and
    authorized under the experimental provisions in Part 5 of our rules.
    In any event, interested parties have now had the opportunity to
    consider and comment on these issues and have done so thoroughly. We
    have the full benefit of their arguments in reaching our decision
    here. We believe that the changes adopted in the recent *Order*
    permitting a one-time submission to the Commission of a description
    of the intended areas of operation will satisfy the concerns of the
    petitioners.

33. We concur with the comments from the GPR Providers that the
    inclusion of a dead man switch on some GPRs could result in
    operating difficulties and, depending on where the equipment is
    used, could raise safety concerns for the operator. We believe that
    the concerns expressed by the GPR Providers are directed primarily
    to larger GPRs, such as those that would be towed behind, or
    attached to, a vehicle and used to investigate the integrity of
    highways or bridges. It is likely that these larger GPRs would be
    operated only when they are pointed at the ground, ensuring that the
    emissions from the antenna are absorbed and attenuated. On the other
    hand, NTIA has expressed its concern to us that small imaging
    systems, designed to be operated while hand held, could be placed in
    a position, such as on their side, where the antennas are not
    pointed at the ground or at other attenuating objects. Without the
    incorporation of a dead man switch, these devices could be left in
    the transmitting mode inadvertently and the unattenuated emissions
    from the antennas could cause harmful interference. Accordingly, we
    are amending the regulations to remove the dead man switch
    requirement for GPRs that are not designed to be used as hand held
    devices. At the request of NTIA, we are retaining our requirement
    that GPRs that are designed to be operated as hand held devices and
    all wall imaging systems incorporate a dead man switch. We do not
    believe that the requirement to include a dead man switch on these
    latter devices presents operating difficulties or raise safety
    concerns. As no similar concerns were addressed regarding the
    inclusion of a dead man switch for other imaging systems, we are
    retaining that requirement until more experience has been gained
    with those devices. We also are revising the language in the
    regulations regarding remote operation to clarify that this can be
    used in lieu of the dead man switch.

34. With regard to permitting the operation of GPRs in the 960-3100 MHz
    band at the Part 15 general emission limits, we concur with the
    comments that there have been no cases of reported interference from
    the operation of GPRs.[^60] Further, we disagree with USGPSIC that
    no testing has occurred. There has been extensive testing in this
    proceeding by NTIA, by DOT/Stanford, and by Time Domain/University
    of Texas/Johns Hopkins of potential interference to GPS reception.
    Those studies found that no interference was caused to a GPS
    receiver when the pulse repetition frequency ("PRF") was operated at
    no greater than 100 kHz.[^61] While NTIA performed its tests
    employing a 100 kHz PRF, we also observe that operation of a GPR
    with a bandwidth 10 percent or less of the GPS receiver bandwidth,
    *i.e.*, 200 kHz, should not result in any significant difference in
    the interference effect to GPS receivers.[^62] These are typical
    PRFs employed today in GPRs, many of which have GPS receivers
    mounted inches away from the antenna without any adverse
    interference effects.[^63] Accordingly, we do not agree with USGPSIC
    that the operation of GPRs, particularly those operating with PRFs
    below 200 kHz, would cause harmful interference to GPS reception.

35. It has been our observation that GPRs are specialized devices and
    are few in number. Given the nature of their use, the quantities
    involved, and the low limits applicable to emissions from these
    devices, there is little chance that GPRs will cause harmful
    interference. We concur with the petitioners that there is a need
    for GPRs to operate at frequencies between 960 MHz and 3100 MHz in
    order for them to perform their required functions. For these
    reasons, we are amending our rules to permit GPRs to operate at any
    frequency below 10.6 GHz as long as the emissions comply with the
    applicable limits. We are including wall imaging systems under the
    same provisions as those applied to GPRs as there is essentially no
    technical differences between these products. However, at the
    request of NTIA and based on our desire to proceed with an abundance
    of caution we are not changing the emission limits applicable to
    GPRs at this time.

36. We agree with GPRIC that the requirement to demonstrate compliance
    with a peak emission limit for imaging systems operating below 960
    MHz should be specifically deleted from our rules. As indicated in
    the *R&O*, the requirement to measure emissions using a quasi-peak
    detector is sufficient without the need for a separate peak
    limit.[^64] Removing the peak measurement also is consistent with
    other Part 15 regulations which require separate peak measurements
    only when the standards are based on the use of an average
    detector.[^65] Accordingly, we are amending the rules to specify
    that the measurement of a peak emission level is not required for
    low frequency imaging systems.

37. Finally, in the *R&O* the Commission, in reference to the Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Certification, certified that the adoption of
    the UWB rules would not have a significant economic impact on a
    substantial number of small entities.[^66] We disagree with GPR
    Providers that this certification is incorrect. Prior to adoption of
    the *R&O*, the only legally sold and operated GPRs within the U.S.
    were a few units operating under experimental licenses issued by the
    Commission and the GPRs manufactured by U.S. Radar under a
    waiver.[^67] All other GPRs were sold and operated without
    appropriate legal authority,[^68] and normally would not be
    considered under an economic impact statement. However, we
    recognized the public safety benefits from incumbent GPR operations
    and the lack of harmful interference problems from these devices.
    Rather than instigating enforcement actions against the
    manufacturers and incumbent users and halting all existing GPR
    operations, the Commission accommodated legacy GPRs, *i.e.*, GPRs
    that were purchased prior to July 15, 2002, under a blanket waiver
    granted in the recent *Order*. Accordingly, the adoption of the UWB
    regulations did not have a significant impact on the small entities
    involved in the legal manufacture or marketing of GPRs, nor did it
    have an impact on the small entities operating existing GPRs within
    the U.S.

### Wideband radar and other low PRF systems in the 3.1-10.6 GHz band

38. UWB consumer devices are required to operate with their -10 dB
    bandwidth in the 3.1‑10.6 GHz band and are limited to indoor-only
    and hand held systems. These systems must comply with the UWB
    definition by operating with a minimum fractional bandwidth[^69] of
    0.20 or with a minimum -10 dB bandwidth of 500 MHz. In the *R&O*,
    the Commission agreed with earlier comments from XSI, Bosch, ARRL
    and Delphi that wideband transmission systems should not be
    precluded because they achieve the wide bandwidth due to a high
    speed data rate or because they use a particular type of
    modulation.[^70] Rather, it concluded that the emission limits on
    peak, average and power spectral density are sufficient to control
    interference potential.

39. [Petition]{.underline}. MSSI requests that any type of UWB device,
    *e.g.*, a vehicle radar system, be permitted to operate in the
    3.1-10.6 GHz band provided it employs a low PRF. It states that the
    restriction of UWB vehicular radar systems to operate in the 22-29
    GHz band was arbitrary, capricious and without basis.[^71] It
    further argues that the use of a lower PRF reduces the average power
    levels and the probability that interference would be caused. MSSI
    adds that the submissions from NTIA, Stanford/DOT and others
    demonstrated that low PRF systems, particularly those with PRFs
    below 100 kHz, were benign to GPS receivers.

40. MSSI further requests that we prohibit devices from operating under
    the UWB regulations if they achieve their wide bandwidth due to high
    data rates, *i.e.*, where the bandwidth is modulation
    dependent.[^72] MSSI indicates that no test results were submitted
    in the proceeding for other than pulsed emissions where the
    bandwidth was determined by the narrow pulse width. MSSI
    specifically requests that we prohibit the use of bi-phase
    modulated, high data rate systems that use direct sequence
    techniques.[^73] Finally, MSSI requests that we clarify that the
    emission charts that accompanied the February 14, 2002, News Release
    announcing the adoption of the UWB regulations do not correctly
    reflect the emission limits below 960 MHz.[^74] MSSI indicates that
    the News Release specified an EIRP limit of -41.3 dBm below 960 MHz,
    but that this is inconsistent with the adopted regulations which
    stated that the Part 15 general emission limits applied to emissions
    below 960 MHz. In its comments, MSSI continues that it is the high
    peak to average ratios that make low PRF UWB systems
    non-interfering.[^75]

41. [Comments]{.underline}. SARA, Delphi and XSI object to MSSI's
    request to exclude devices that achieve their wide bandwidths due to
    high data rates.[^76] SARA notes that MSSI provided no explanation,
    theoretical calculations or evidence that non-pulsed modulation
    devices are more likely to cause harmful interference. Delphi adds
    that MSSI is wrong in its claim that there is no support in the
    record for the inclusion of non-pulsed systems, and that MSSI could
    have done its own study. XSI argues that its bi‑phase modulation is
    more power efficient and less interfering than other methods, such
    as on/off keying and pulse position modulation.[^77] It adds that
    the statements from MSSI regarding decreased interference with lower
    PRF are a significant distortion of the NTIA interference analysis,
    where the record clearly shows that systems with a high PRF cause
    less interference. AWS supports clarification that the emission
    limits below 960 MHz were subject to the Part 15 general emission
    limits and not the limits represented in the News Release.[^78]

42. [Discussion]{.underline}. With regard to MSSI's request to permit
    any type of UWB device employing a low PRF, *e.g.*, a vehicle radar
    system, to operate in the 3.1-10.6 GHz, MSSI does not consider that
    the NTIA analysis for systems other than GPS demonstrated that the
    interference potential from a UWB transmitter may increase when
    lower PRFs are employed.[^79] As noted in our discussion of GPRs, it
    appears true that GPS receivers are not sensitive to interference
    from UWB devices operating with PRFs below about 200 kHz. However,
    this immunity to low PRF interference does not necessarily apply to
    other radio systems using different receiver designs and modulation
    types. MSSI has not provided any measurement or other data to
    demonstrate that additional high-proliferation systems could be
    added in the 3.1-10.6 GHz without increased interference risks.
    Accordingly, MSSI's request that we permit any type of UWB device
    employing a low PRF to operate in the 3.1-10.6 GHz band is denied.

43. With regard to MSSI's request that we prohibit devices from
    operating under the UWB regulations if they achieve their wide
    bandwidth due to high data rates, *i.e.*, where the bandwidth is
    modulation dependent, MSSI has provided no data or other information
    to support this request. We find no evidence from the petitioner on
    which to base a change to our earlier decision. Accordingly, this
    request is denied.

44. Finally, MSSI is correct that the spectrum charts that were included
    in the press package along with the News Release of February 14,
    2002, announcing the adoption of the *R&O* unintentionally did not
    reflect the emission limits below 960 MHz. The UWB emission limits
    below 960 MHz are the Part 15 general emission limits contained in
    47 C.F.R. § 15.209, as correctly stated in 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.509(d),
    15.511(d), 15.513(d), 15.515(d), 15.517(c), and 15.519(c).[^80]
    Accordingly, no change to our regulations is required to implement
    this clarification.

### Vehicular radar systems in the 22-29 GHz band

45. The UWB regulations permit the operation of vehicular radar systems
    in the 22-29 GHz band. UWB vehicular radar systems are required to
    operate at all times with a minimum 500 MHz bandwidth and may employ
    any modulation technique that results in this minimum bandwidth. In
    the *R&O*, the Commission specifically precluded the operation of
    swept frequency systems and frequency hopping systems under the UWB
    rules unless the transmissions comply with the minimum bandwidth
    requirement when measured with the sweep or hopping sequence
    stopped.[^81] The Commission indicated that this was necessary as no
    measurement procedure had been established to permit the emission
    levels from such devices to be determined while sweeping or hopping.
    The Commission expressed similar concerns in the *Notice*, and
    declined to include transmitters employing swept frequency and
    similar modulation types from consideration as UWB devices.[^82]

46. [Petition]{.underline}. Siemens VDO requests that we permit pulsed
    frequency hopping vehicle radars to be included under the definition
    of a UWB device by permitting such transmitters to occupy the
    minimum required bandwidth within any 10 millisecond period rather
    than at any point in time.[^83] It argues that it provided the
    Commission with information on its frequency hopping system in its
    filing of November 13, 2001. Siemens VDO notes that this change
    would require a revision of the decision that frequency hopping
    systems must be measured with the frequency hop stopped.[^84]
    Siemens VDO also requests that we revise the rules to permit
    emissions to be averaged over a 10 millisecond period instead of
    over a one millisecond period.[^85] Siemens VDO indicates that the
    one millisecond averaging time required under the regulations is not
    long enough to permit an accurate RMS power measurement of pulsed
    frequency hopping systems that require a longer period to complete a
    hopping cycle and that too short an averaging time would result in
    higher measured values. Siemens VDO adds that the Earth Exploration
    Satellite Service (EESS) systems at 23.6-24.0 GHz were the only
    identified potential interference victims of UWB radar systems
    operating in the 22-29 GHz band and that these systems employ
    integration times which are too long to distinguish between pulsed
    and pulsed frequency hopping modulation types.[^86] Siemens VDO
    provides a technical analysis to support its request to permit
    measurements of emission levels averaged over a 10 millisecond
    period with the system hopping in frequency.

47. [Comments]{.underline}. SARA fully supports the Siemens VDO
    petition.[^87] No other comments regarding the Siemens VDO petition
    were filed.

48. [Discussion]{.underline}. The Commission specifically declined to
    include UWB systems under its rulemaking proposal if those systems
    employed linear sweep or similar modulations to achieve the wide
    bandwidths.[^88] Accordingly, the type of modulation being addressed
    by Siemens VDO was not considered in the notice and comments leading
    to the adoption of the UWB regulations. Siemens VDO correctly
    indicates that SARA presented the Commission with the details of a
    frequency hopping radar system in an *ex parte* presentation
    submitted on November 13, 2001. However, that *ex parte* filing was
    not submitted until over one year after the comment response period
    to the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in this proceeding had
    ended, did not specifically state that Siemens intended to use of
    this type of modulation, and proposed no new procedures for the
    measurement of emissions from this equipment. Furthermore, there has
    been no indication by the Commission that it would consider
    arguments on this issue. Thus, there was no opportunity for the
    public to comment on Siemens VDO's proposal to produce a vehicular
    radar system using frequency hopping techniques. [^89] Accordingly,
    the inclusion of a frequency hopping modulation technique at this
    time is beyond the scope of the issues addressed thus far in this
    proceeding. For this reason, we are denying Siemens VDO's Petition
    for Reconsideration. We are, however, addressing Siemens VDO's
    request in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making so that a
    public comment record may be obtained.[^90] We also recognize that
    Siemens VDO currently has a request for waiver pending before the
    Commission that would permit the operation of the system described
    in its petition. This waiver request is under active consideration.
    While some analytical work remains to be completed, we intend to act
    expeditiously on the Siemens VDO waiver request.

### Indoor UWB operation

49. The rules permit UWB devices to be operated indoors for any purpose
    provided the ‑10 dB bandwidth is within the 3.1-10.6 GHz band. These
    systems are permitted to operate at the Part 15 general emission
    limits, -41.3 dBm in the subject band, and are required to attenuate
    their emissions outside of this band. Within the 960-1610 MHz band,
    the emissions may not exceed -75.3 dBm, a level 34 dB below the Part
    15 general emission limits.

50. [Petition]{.underline}. Kohler[^91] filed a Petition for Partial
    Reconsideration requesting that we increase the emission limit for
    indoor UWB devices from the current limit of -75.3 dBm to a level of
    -53.3 dBm within the 960-1610 MHz band.[^92] Kohler states that
    measurements are impractical at the present low limit since the
    lowest achievable noise floor is -82.3 dBm at 960 MHz and -84 dBm at
    1610 MHz, based on the use of a preamplifier with a 5 dB noise
    figure which Kohler states is the best normally used in a compliance
    test lab. Because of this, Kohler states that it has been unable to
    obtain sufficient sensitivity to provide a measurement 10 dB above
    the noise floor and therefore cannot obtain accurate readings.[^93]
    Kohler further argues that the limit for indoor devices appears
    excessively restrictive since this is the same limit applied to
    vehicle radars and to hand held outdoor UWB devices and building
    attenuation reduces the emissions from the indoor devices by 9 dB,
    reducing interference to U.S. Government radio operations.[^94]

51. [Comments]{.underline}. AWS objects to increasing the emission level
    from Kohler's UWB radar, stating that Kohler's analysis is focused
    solely on potential interference to Government systems outside of
    buildings and fails to take into account potential interference
    inside the building to PCS and to cellular operations.[^95]

52. [Discussion]{.underline}. We do not agree with Kohler's requested
    changes to the indoor UWB emission limits. With regard to the
    measurement at the current limits, our laboratory personnel have
    made several measurements at and below the adopted limits. This
    required the use of two preamplifiers before the spectrum analyzer,
    the first preamplifier being a low noise amplifier.[^96] While the
    measurement is difficult, it is not impractical, and measurements at
    this low emission level are required over only a small portion of
    the radio spectrum.

53. With regard to Kohler's claim that building attenuation will provide
    sufficient attenuation to protect Government radio operations,
    Kohler neglects to consider that systems located within a building
    can operate at increased elevations, increasing the likelihood of
    potential interference to some nearby Government systems even with
    additional attenuation provided by the building.[^97] Further,
    Kohler does not address radio operations which may require reception
    within a building. For example, the 1240‑1300 MHz band is allocated
    to the Amateur Radio Service, the 1395-1400 MHz and 1429‑1432 MHz
    bands are employed in the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, and
    the 1432‑1435 MHz band is allocated to the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Services.

54. In addition to our concerns expressed above, we continue to believe
    that major changes should not be made to the UWB rules until more
    experience is gained with the operation of UWB devices. Accordingly,
    Kohler's Petition for Reconsideration is denied. However, we note
    that Kohler currently is operating under a waiver of our regulations
    and that this waiver has been extended until one year from the
    effective date of the UWB regulations. This time period provides
    Kohler the opportunity to investigate changes to the design of its
    product.

## Petitions for reconsideration from representatives of the authorized radio services:

### UWB emissions in the Cellular and PCS frequency bands

55. The Cellular Radiotelephone Service operates at 824-849 MHz and
    869-894 MHz; the PCS operates at 1850-1910 MHz and 1930-1990 MHz.
    UWB devices do not operate with their -10 dB bandwidths located
    within the PCS bands. However, like many other radio transmission
    systems, they may place unwanted emissions within that spectrum.

56. [Petitions]{.underline}. Cingular, Qualcomm and Sprint each express
    strong objections to the UWB technical standards adopted in the
    *R&O*.[^98] Cingular states that the cellular and PCS spectrum are
    exclusive bands and there was no reasonable basis for the Commission
    to change its policy by allowing UWB operation when such operation
    was not permitted under the previous Part 15 rules.[^99] Cingular
    also states that the entire UWB decision should be reconsidered
    because it was not based on an adequate analysis of the interference
    that would be posed to cellular and to PCS.[^100] Cingular adds that
    the Commission rejected all of the evidence supplied concerning the
    operating levels used by PCS systems. It also states that: 1)
    interference to PCS occurs from any device that causes a 1 dB
    increase in the receiver thermal noise floor, and UWB emissions at
    12 dB below the Part 15 general emission limits would cause
    interference to CDMA PCS systems;[^101] 2) the Commission rejected
    Qualcomm's interference analysis based on systems operating at the
    -105 dBm thermal noise floor, whereas actual test data showed that
    received traffic signal strength could be as low as -118
    dBm;[^102] 3) there was no evidence that the staff considered signal
    levels used by TDMA or GSM PCS systems and the rejection of this
    information constitutes arbitrary and capricious
    rulemaking;[^103] 4) UWB interference to PCS jeopardizes E-911
    operations;[^104] 5) the decision to permit UWB operation indoors
    was flawed because it assumed that building attenuation would
    provide additional protection, whereas PCS and cellular use indoors
    also are subject to building attenuation thereby needing lower UWB
    limits;[^105] and 6) there is no correlation between UWB devices
    requiring AC power and in-building use since AC power can be
    obtained through the use of generators and long extension
    cords.[^106] Cingular, believing that the Commission failed to
    address the interference potential of imaging systems to cellular
    operations, requests that we require through-wall imaging systems to
    operate above 60 GHz and that we require all other imaging systems,
    with the possible exception of GPRs, to operate above 2.7 GHz to
    minimize the impact on cellular, PCS and other terrestrial
    services.[^107] It also requests that we require imaging systems to
    be capable of functioning only when they are in direct contact with
    a wall surface and to use automatic power control to ensure that
    operation is at the minimum possible power level. It argues that the
    Commission failed to provide a reasoned discussion as to why these
    requirements were not implemented. In addition, Cingular argues that
    the coordination process protects Government systems but provides no
    protection to cellular or PCS licensees, since the coordination
    information does not include specific locations, only operational
    areas, and cellular and PCS licensees will not receive notification
    of UWB devices within their areas.[^108] Cingular requests
    site-by-site coordination with cellular and PCS users.

57. Qualcomm requests that the emission limits for UWB systems be
    revised to require that allowable emissions in the PCS band be the
    same as those permitted in the GPS band, *i.e.*, 34 dB below the
    Part 15 general emission limits, in order to protect E-911
    communications.[^109] It states that the Commission set emission
    limits for the PCS band without test data and that the regulations
    are fundamentally flawed as a matter of law since the Commission put
    the burden on Qualcomm to prove non-interference. According to
    Qualcomm, the Commission disputed that PCS handsets work near the
    ‑100 dBm signal level whereas Qualcomm's data verifies that PCS
    handset can operate at levels lower than -105 dB, in some cases as
    low as -106 dBm.[^110] Qualcomm also states that the adopted UWB
    emission mask will result in a 5.58 dB degradation in
    signal-to-noise (S/N) at a 3 meter separation and a 13.9 dB
    degradation at a 1 meter separation, a separation distance Qualcomm
    believes to be realistic.[^111] Qualcomm argues that the UWB signal
    must be 10 dB below the CDMA received power and recalculates the
    minimum separation as 4.52 meters based on the limits adopted by the
    Commission. Finally, Qualcomm requests that the Commission implement
    "transparent, collaborative tests of actual UWB devices with the
    complete participation and input of interested parties from the
    public and private sector to determine the full extent of the
    harmful interference from UWB devices to all existing communications
    services."[^112]

58. Sprint's objections are similar to those of Cingular and Qualcomm.
    Sprint states its belief that the *R&O* is fraught with so many
    errors, legal and factual, that the Commission should voluntarily
    stay the effective date.[^113] It contends that: 1) the conclusion
    in the *R&O* that PCS licenses are not exclusive is unexplained and
    inconsistent with Commission precedent;[^114] 2) there is a legal
    error in that the burden of proof of non-interference was left to
    the licensees, the Commission did not consider the E-911 test data
    submitted by Qualcomm and ignored the Telcordia model as well as the
    Sprint January 30, 2002, ambient noise study comparing narrowband
    and UWB emissions, and the Commission misinterpreted test
    data;[^115] 3) the Commission did not address the additional loss of
    network coverage and capacity that would result from PCS base
    stations having to transmit at higher power levels to overcome the
    noise produced at PCS handsets by UWB emitters;[^116] 4) more
    protection is needed for indoor PCS reception and the Commission was
    arbitrary and capricious in setting a higher UWB indoor emissions
    limit than the limit for outdoor operation;[^117] 5) the *R&O*
    conflicts with the Commission's E-911 rules and policies as
    protection similar to that given to GPS was not provided to
    PCS;[^118] 6) UWB emissions in the PCS bands are spurious emissions
    and could have been reduced further without affecting the UWB
    transmission;[^119] and 7) UWB emissions in the PCS bands should
    have been adjusted for a cumulative effect from multiple UWB
    transmitters.[^120] Sprint takes exception to the various
    interference analyses performed by the Commission. It objects to the
    statement in the *R&O* that it is likely that UWB emissions would be
    somewhat below the maximum permitted limit, stating that there was
    no record evidence supporting this.[^121] It also objects to the
    Commission's statement that interference at close distances could be
    remedied by moving the devices a short distance apart.[^122] The
    Sprint petition also contains two attachments that provide a
    mathematic analysis of UWB interference to PCS systems and discuss
    the earlier analyses and tests. In Attachment 1, Sprint states that
    PCS handsets receive in-cell and other-cell interference from other
    PCS stations that add to the receiver thermal noise to result in a
    noise plus interference level on the order of ‑98 dBm and that this
    noise plus interference level still allows the PCS receiver to
    operate with a desired signal level 6 dB below the thermal noise
    floor, *i.e.*, -111 dBm;[^123] that the forward link channels have
    jamming margins of 16 dB for pilot, 24 dB for sync, and 18 dB for
    paging;[^124] that Rayleigh fading statistics are not appropriate
    for CDMA systems which use multi-branch RAKE receivers to coherently
    combine different multipath clusters as diversity branches to reduce
    fading variations;[^125] and that a 1 dB increase in the effective
    noise floor will cause a non-negligible coverage degradation for
    outdoor handsets.[^126] In Attachment 2, Sprint states that an
    anechoic chamber test was performed to confirm the sensitivity of
    handsets and to establish the free space coupling between a UWB
    emitter and a PCS handset, demonstrating that an S/N of about 5 dB
    was required for PCS operation;[^127] that the outdoor test
    confirmed that the interference from the UWB emitter affected the
    PCS handset as predicted in the Telcordia model, causing the call to
    drop when the UWB emitter was less than one foot from the PCS
    handset;[^128] that the total received signal power in the anechoic
    chamber was about ‑105 dBm with a -10.3 dB traffic power allocation
    resulting in a desired signal power of ‑115.3 dBm whereas in the
    field test the total signal power was at -94 dBm.[^129] Sprint adds
    that the requirement for the UWB emitter to be less than one foot
    from the PCS receiver in order to cause it to drop the call should
    not be used as a measure of the immunity of PCS handsets as the
    total received power from the downlink, ‑94 dBm, was about 10 dB
    above the normal cell boundary signal level.

59. The overall point made by Sprint is that emissions from the UWB
    systems that fall within the PCS band should be attenuated to the
    same limit that is applied in the GPS band.[^130] However, Sprint
    also wants additional protection for the GPS and PCS bands beyond
    what the Commission adopted in the *R&O*. Sprint objects to the
    Commission not providing the additional 8.4 dB of protection to the
    GPS bands sought earlier by USGPSIC. It requests that UWB emission
    limits be further decreased in the GPS bands by 6 dB as a safety
    factor to account for variables such as lower attenuation provided
    by certain buildings, by 6 dB to account for cumulative effects from
    multiple indoor UWB devices, and by 6 dB to account for greater
    sensitivity needed for satellite acquisition as opposed to satellite
    tracking.[^131] It also requests that these limits be adjusted to
    provide protection at a separation distance of 1 meter instead of
    the 2 meters used in the *R&O*, resulting in an additional 6 dB
    attenuation requirement.

60. Sprint states that the Commission must require each UWB equipment
    developer participating in this proceeding to make multiple samples
    of their products available to industry for interference
    testing.[^132] Sprint adds that the decision to exclude other UWB
    devices from the send/acknowledge requirements implemented for hand
    held UWB devices is unexplained, arbitrary and capricious, as is the
    10-second time period during which acknowledgement of reception must
    occur.[^133] It states that the send/acknowledgement requirement
    also should apply to indoor UWB devices and that it should be based
    on a 3 or 5 second time period. In addition, Sprint requests that
    surveillance systems be subject to the same standards as indoor or
    outdoor UWB devices with operation allowed only above 3.1 GHz.[^134]
    Sprint argues that surveillance systems are not imaging systems and
    that the Commission never explained why they should be treated as
    such or why they should be permitted to operate in the 1.99-10.6 GHz
    band. It also requests that we place additional restrictions on who
    is permitted to operate surveillance systems, limiting operation
    solely to law enforcement, fire, and emergency rescue personnel
    until UWB proponents document that their systems will not pose a
    risk of harmful interference.

61. [Comments]{.underline}. *Exclusivity.* Time Domain comments that the
    PCS carriers have licenses to provide PCS service within a given
    band, in a specific area, for a defined term; their licenses are
    exclusive only in the sense that no other carrier would be allowed
    to provide PCS service in the same band, in the same area, at the
    same time.[^135] XSI cites *AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. v. FCC*,
    270 F.3d 959, 964 (D.C. Cir. 2001) stating that this case affirmed
    the Commission's decision that even an exclusive licensee cannot
    object to secondary use of its spectrum as long as no harmful
    interference results.[^136] XSI also notes that UWB does not operate
    in the PCS bands but only places out-of-band emissions there, as do
    transmitters in many services with most at higher levels that
    permitted for UWB.[^137] XSI adds that PCS carriers knew before
    placing their bids on the spectrum that Part 15 devices were
    permitted to transmit in the PCS bands, and at higher levels than
    those adopted for UWB devices.[^138] Finally, XSI notes that the
    only relevant point in *Public Utility Commission of Texas*, 13 FCC
    Rcd 3460, 3503 ¶ 89 (1997), as raised by Sprint,[^139] is that PCS
    licensees have exclusive rights to their spectrum against other
    licensees.[^140]

62. USGPSIC argues that permitting UWB operation within the PCS bands
    violates clear Commission precedence and pronouncements regarding
    PCS exclusive access to the spectrum.[^141] USGPSIC believes that
    the Part 15 rules apply only to narrowband operations for
    unintentional radiators that are not permitted to cause interference
    and therefore do not apply to UWB operations which are wideband and
    cause interference at the Part 15 levels.

63. In its reply comments, Sprint argues for exclusivity of the PCS
    spectrum, stating that the Commission cannot introduce new
    interference into the band.[^142] It states that it does not own the
    spectrum but has a permit to use the spectrum supported by
    Government receipt of valuable consideration giving it contractual
    rights not possessed by those holding licenses acquired by
    comparative hearing or by a lottery. It adds that spurious emissions
    constitute use of the band and that new interference may not be
    introduced after it has built its network under the expectation that
    only traditional Part 15 devices would be permitted. Sprint states
    that there is an undisputed record that UWB devices will cause
    harmful interference to PCS.[^143]

64. *UWB Emission Levels in the PCS Bands.* Time Domain states that the
    signal levels that Sprint opposes for UWB devices already are being
    generated by millions of electronic devices, often at higher levels
    than set for UWB devices, and that the relevant inquiry is whether
    UWB will cause harmful interference.[^144] Time Domain disputes
    Sprint's and Qualcomm's contentions that RAKE receivers eliminate
    Rayleigh fading, noting that the variation in the received signal
    level in Sprint's test data was due to multipath.[^145] Time Domain
    submits that while RAKE receivers can reduce the impact of fading,
    it is unclear what gain is achieved in practice. Time Domain also
    notes that a UWB system operating above 3.1 GHz must be attenuated
    by 34 dB below the Part 15 general emission limits at 1.6 GHz,
    forcing the emission to be attenuated by at least 20 dB in the PCS
    frequency band.[^146]

65. XSI disagrees with the complaints by the petitioners that the
    Commission failed to carry out its obligations, provided an
    inadequate analysis of interference, established an indoor UWB limit
    that was irrationally higher than the limit for outdoor UWB devices,
    and infringed on PCS licenses. [^147] XSI disagrees with the
    petitioners' position that the Commission ignored evidence in the
    record, noting that the Commission provided twelve pages of text
    evaluating the major findings of all of the submitted studies and
    explaining any disagreements it had with those studies.[^148]
    Accordingly, XSI believes that the petitioners do not challenge the
    adequacy of the Commission's analyses so much as the result.

66. XSI notes that the lower limits established for outdoor hand held
    UWB devices were established not to protect PCS but to protect U.S.
    Government radio systems on both sides of the PCS band, indicating
    that the lower emission limit applied over the 1610-3100 MHz band
    whereas PCS operates only within the 1850-1990 MHz portion of the
    band.[^149] XSI believes that the petitioners, while disputing the
    Commission's approach on its calculation of the proper emission
    limit for UWB emissions in the PCS band, offer no evidence as to why
    the Commission's approach evaluated under actual operating
    conditions is wrong.[^150] XSI disagrees with Sprint's statement
    that emissions in the PCS band could have been further attenuated
    because they are spurious emissions, noting that UWB devices have a
    shallow curve of emission attenuation and that implementing
    additional attenuation below 3.1 GHz would impair performance in
    other parts of the spectrum. With regard to the emission limits in
    the GPS band, XSI states that nothing in the Sprint petition
    justifies lower emission limits from UWB devices, noting that the
    adopted limit is what was requested by the USGPSIC[^151] and that
    the specific limit already approaches the lower limit for practical
    measurements.[^152] XSI provides a technical attachment addressing
    several issues, notably that the Commission provided a reasoned
    justification for its use of an emission level of -96 dBm;[^153]
    that the PCS frame error rate would exceed the acceptable level of
    2% because of even minor fluctuations in received signal
    power;[^154] and that Qualcomm noted that a noise floor analysis is
    not relevant, as the Commission earlier recognized.[^155]

67. USGPSIC supports the petitioners, stating that uninterrupted
    operations are necessary to ensure a viable E-911 service.[^156]
    USGPSIC opines that the Commission should adopt the emission levels
    requested by the petitioners, stating that they best understand the
    level of protection needed to achieve continuous service and that
    the Commission should err on the side of too much protection instead
    of too little.[^157] AWS also supports the petitioners, stating that
    the petitions clearly demonstrate that the limits on UWB emissions
    in the PCS band are insufficient to protect existing PCS operations
    and are arbitrary and capricious since the rules are based on
    incorrect factual and legal premises and fail to account for
    significant record interference.[^158] AWS states that PCS calls may
    be made based on a receiver sensitivity of -102 dBm and indicates
    that it is arbitrary and incorrect for the Commission to base its
    analysis on a signal level of -96 dBm/1.25 MHz.[^159] AWS indicates
    that a 1 dB degradation to receiver sensitivity would reduce
    cellular coverage by 8-9 percent.[^160] AWS objects to the
    Commission's statement in the *R&O* that it is unlikely that UWB
    devices will be located close to a PCS receiver, adding that
    equipment mobility makes it likely for these products to come into
    "contact."[^161] AWS also states that interference could not be
    remedied by coordination, as coordination is impracticable for PCS
    users that cannot identify or locate the UWB device.[^162] It also
    believes that the Commission, without explanation, was incorrect in
    providing higher emission levels for indoor UWB devices than for
    outdoor devices, and that the Commission provided no explanation for
    doing so.[^163] It adds that protection similar to that provided to
    GPS is necessary for PCS due to its close proximity to the GPS band.
    AWS further believes that the *R&O* is flawed legally, stating that
    Part 15 only allows operations that pose no significant risk of
    harmful interference to licensed operations and that the Commission
    cannot authorize UWB emissions in licensed spectrum and require
    licensed spectrum users to engage in extensive efforts, *e.g.*,
    increasing separation, system coordination, or constructing new
    systems, to continue functioning.[^164] It indicates that the
    Commission misapplied the burden of proof by requiring licensed
    spectrum holders to demonstrate a likelihood of interference rather
    than requiring the UWB proponents to demonstrate a lack of
    interference. AWS believes that the Commission should require UWB
    manufacturers to bear the cost of any alterations to the PCS system,
    *i.e.*, the construction of new base stations, necessary to mitigate
    interference.[^165] AWS also asks that emissions in the PCS bands
    from indoor and outdoor UWB devices be reduced by an additional 6 dB
    to protect against the effects of cumulative emissions from multiple
    UWB devices, noting that the Commission provided such protection for
    UWB emissions appearing in the GPS bands, but not in the PCS
    bands.[^166]

68. In its reply comments, Time Domain responds to the arguments from
    AWS and Sprint that PCS and cellular operations need additional
    protection indoors due to signal loss caused by building walls and
    windows. [^167] Time Domain states that in the IS-95 system, the
    system controls the transmitted power level so that each handset,
    regardless of location, receives the same average power resulting in
    an indoor handset receiving the same power as an outdoor handset.
    Accordingly, no additional protection is needed for indoor PCS
    operations. With regard to the claims of the PCS proponents that the
    IS-95 system would have to increase transmitted power to compensate
    for the UWB signal, reducing system capacity, Time Domain states
    that real world experimentation showed that when the IS-95 handset
    was in close proximity, *i.e.*, from less than 1 up to 3 meters, the
    PCS system did not increase transmit power relative to when there
    was no UWB transmission. XSI argues that the AWS comments are
    untimely requests for reconsideration and references its earlier
    response to the petitioners.[^168]

69. Qualcomm's reply comments reiterate many of the points raised in the
    petitions. It states that data showed that PCS phones operate near
    -105 dBm whereas the *R&O* only provided protection to a -96 dBm
    signal.[^169] It also argues that XSI's claim that earlier data did
    not show characteristic Rayleigh fades was inaccurate.[^170] In
    response to the comments from Time Domain, Qualcomm states that it
    is the sensitivity of the PCS phone that allows operation below -105
    dBm, depending on the noise figure of the receiver, and not the RAKE
    receiver processing.[^171] Finally, Qualcomm notes that its
    principle concern in this proceeding is not and never has been
    interference from UWB devices to PCS phones in a mobile indoor
    scenario but instead is based on a stationary scenario such as
    someone inside an office with poor coverage trying to call 911 while
    surrounded by UWB devices in close proximity being used for wireless
    local area networks, etc.[^172]

70. Sprint, in its reply comments, summarizes the points raised in its
    petition as to its claim that the Commission made errors in the
    *R&O*.[^173] It states that: 1) because of the spreading gain
    inherent in the CDMA air interface, the PCS handset has a
    sensitivity on the order of 13 dB below the thermal noise floor of
    the handset;[^174] 2) considering the effects of other-cell
    interference, in-cell interference, and thermal noise, as well as
    the signal-to-interference plus noise ratio requirements for the
    overhead channels, a total received power from each base station
    that is near the thermal noise floor at the edge of the cell
    coverage area is a logical design; 3) that even fairly small
    increases in the effective noise floor can significantly degrade PCS
    network coverage; 4) that assertions that the open field tests were
    inconsistent with the Telcordia Model and the anechoic chamber tests
    were factually inaccurate; 5) that the Telcordia model did take into
    account the effects of other-cell interference; 6) that the effect
    of a given UWB interference level on coverage reduction is the same,
    whether or not fading is taken into account; 7) that fading
    statistics normally are much less severe than indicated by the
    Rayleigh model due to use of the RAKE receiver; and 8) that frame
    errors occur at even high signal levels and will occur on a regular
    basis even in a static situation. Sprint states that Time Domain
    acknowledged that the emission limit in the PCS band on indoor UWB
    devices could be tightened by 15 dB without a negative impact on UWB
    devices and that XSI does not identify any of its products that
    would be impaired by this attenuation.[^175] Because of this, Sprint
    requests a limit on emissions in the PCS band from indoor UWB
    devices of -68 dBm. Sprint also states that the Commission presented
    no explanation for its choice of a limit of -53.3 dBm in the PCS
    band for indoor UWB devices and could not have relied on the staff
    analysis since that analysis was not submitted into the public
    record until May 3, 2002, 2 weeks after the release of the *R&O*,
    strongly suggesting that the staff analysis was not completed until
    after the *R&O* was released.[^176] Sprint reiterates its request
    that the Commission provide additional safety margins to the GPS
    band to account for uncertainties, cumulative effect, and satellite
    acquisition and to apply the same protection to PCS.[^177] Sprint
    believes that XSI's claim that UWB devices in close proximity must
    take turns operating is inaccurate and unsupported, believing that
    many channels can be supported simultaneously in the same
    spectrum.[^178]

71. Sprint responds to specific statements from Time Domain and XSI in
    Attachment 3 to its reply comments. It asserts that: 1) the
    supposition that fading somehow masks the effect of external
    interference is incorrect, adding that an increase in the effective
    noise floor translates directly to an increase in the required
    received signal power;[^179] 2) the orthogonality of the received
    signal plays no role in the relationship between the level of UWB
    interference and the required increase in downlink traffic channel
    power, adding that the additional received traffic channel power
    required to compensate for the UWB interference is I~UWB~/M where
    I~UWB~ is the UWB interference power received by the handset and M
    is the jamming margin;[^180] 3) a PCS handset has a sensitivity on
    the order of 12 dB below the thermal noise floor of the handset,
    -105 dBm based on a KTB[^181] calculation plus an 8 dB noise figure,
    and the -96 dBm limit at the cell boundary includes all power from
    the PCS system, not the power of a single cell;[^182] and, 4) the
    Commission ignored the Telcordia study as well as Sprint's ambient
    noise study.[^183]

72. *Need for Additional Test Data.* AWS states that interference tests
    of real UWB devices should be conducted and all interested parties,
    particularly licensees likely to encounter UWB interference, be
    allowed to participate in the design and implementation of the
    testing process.[^184] AWS adds that it is a basic principle of
    administrative law that the Commission cannot rely as a basis of its
    rules on the results of tests carried out without public
    participation. Time Domain notes that it engaged in testing UWB
    interference with multiple opportunities for interested parties to
    comment on the test design.[^185]

73. *Imaging Systems/Coordination.* AWS requests that existing broad
    user categories, such as "industrial entities" for surveillance
    systems, be removed, and that operation be limited to use for public
    safety purposes.[^186] In its reply comments, Sprint reiterates its
    claim that surveillance systems are not imaging systems and should
    be reclassified with different emission limits.[^187]

74. [Discussion]{.underline}. *Cellular and PCS Exclusivity of
    Operation*. There is no basis for Sprint's and Cingular's claim that
    cellular or PCS exclusivity prohibits the Commission from providing
    for the operation of new radio services, including the operation of
    UWB devices that could place emissions within these bands. The
    argument that UWB is a new Part 15 operation is not relevant. As
    noted by XSI, *AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. v. FCC*, 270 F.3d 959,
    964 (D.C. Cir. 2001) affirmed the Commission's decision that even an
    exclusive licensee cannot object to secondary use of its spectrum as
    long as no harmful interference results.[^188] As further pointed
    out by Time Domain and by XSI, the cellular and PCS licenses are
    exclusive in the sense that no other carriers will be allowed to
    provide cellular or PCS service in the same frequency band, in the
    same area, and at the same time. The definition of exclusivity
    Sprint and Cingular are requesting would result in halting the
    further development of new radio services and applications. For
    example, there could be no Advanced Wireless Services (3G)
    operations nor could SDARS, DTV, an expanded MMDS and ITFS, or any
    other new communication system be permitted as all of these systems
    are capable of placing low levels of emissions in the frequency
    bands allocated for PCS. As we demonstrate in the following
    paragraphs, emission levels have been established for UWB devices
    such that the operation of these products will not result in harmful
    interference to cellular or to PCS operations. This is sufficient to
    satisfy our obligation to the cellular and PCS carriers for
    exclusivity of use that will enable them to efficiently and
    effectively provide the services they are licensed to offer.

75. *UWB Emission Levels in the PCS Bands*. We do not concur with the
    petitioners that a decrease in the UWB emission limits is necessary
    to protect PCS radio systems from harmful interference. Sprint
    provides extensive analyses of the effect of RF noise on PCS
    operation. Qualcomm also demonstrates that nearby UWB emitters could
    degrade the signal-to-noise ratio at the PCS receiver. However,
    these studies simply demonstrate that any increase in the noise
    floor of a receiver will result in a decrease in the maximum range
    at which the receiver can receive communications. We do not dispute
    these facts. However, we disagree that the small increase in the
    noise level provided by nearby UWB emitters represents harmful
    interference.[^189] We also disagree with the petitioners that
    interference from the operation of UWB devices would require the
    construction of new PCS base stations.

76. As discussed below, we do not believe that the analyses or claims of
    the petitioners establish that greater attenuation is necessary to
    prevent harmful interference to PCS systems. In cellular CDMA
    systems, it is a well known fact that cell coverage, capacity and
    noise are closely related to one another. The capacity of a cell is
    in inverse proportion to the available coverage area of the cell.
    Further, any increase in the background noise level will have an
    impact on both cell coverage and capacity.[^190] Because no radio
    systems operate in a noise-free environment, cellular providers must
    recognize that background noise from other radio frequency sources
    exists and design their systems to accommodate this noise in order
    for the cellular system to function. Indeed, as Sprint recognized in
    its petition PCS transmitters themselves generate noise into their
    own and into other PCS systems. Sprint's technical analysis of the
    impact to PCS operation from UWB devices assumes that most PCS
    handsets will be operating next to a UWB device, that the emissions
    from the UWB device in the PCS band will be at the maximum limit
    permitted under the UWB standards, that these emissions will be
    directed towards the PCS handset without intervening objects and
    will be perfectly coupled with the handset antenna, etc. However,
    this is not the case. As is the case with the interaction of PCS
    devices with other RF radiators, including Part 15 devices as well
    as other devices in the authorized radio services that also radiate
    within the PCS band, any impact on the PCS services will be rare and
    localized to an individual handset; there will not be an impact to
    the overall PCS system.

77. Determining the separation distance necessary to prevent harmful
    interference is not an exact science. It is dependent on several
    variables, some of which are described in the following paragraphs.
    When the interference analysis was performed for the *R&O*, the
    Commission did not employ the processing gain, or interference
    jamming margin, of the CDMA PCS emission nor did it address the
    in-cell and other-cell background noise level. Rather, an analysis
    was employed following the format provided by Qualcomm in its
    comments to the *Notice*. It is a simple matter to approach the
    interference analysis from another direction. There are different
    methods that could be used to perform these calculations. For
    example, Cingular argues that interference to PCS reception results
    from any device that causes a 1 dB increase in the receiver noise
    floor.[^191] However, this ignores the processing gain incorporated
    within the receiver and the increase to the PCS receiver noise level
    from in-cell and other-cell PCS signals. Further, we do not agree
    that a 1 dB increase in the noise floor of a mobile receiver is
    indicative of harmful interference. Any signal level, no matter how
    small, will result in some increase in the receiver noise floor.
    Mobile systems normally must accommodate a much higher increase in
    the receiver noise floor than 1 dB for the signal to be considered
    harmful interference. Indeed, the Commission previously rejected the
    use of small increases to the noise floor for determining the
    presence of harmful interference, believing this method of analysis
    to be unduly pessimistic.[^192]

78. The petitioners provided several specifications relating to the
    operating characteristics of PCS systems. The thermal noise level of
    any receiver, in dBm/MHz, is equal to 10 log (Boltzman's constant of
    1.38 x 10^-23^ W/Hz/ºK times the temperature in degrees Kelvin) + 90
    dB + the noise figure of the receiver. The temperature employed for
    terrestrial receivers is 290º Kelvin, and the noise figure for a
    cellular receiver is 8 dB.[^193] Thus, the thermal threshold for a
    cellular receiver is -106 dBm/MHz.[^194] As determined by Sprint and
    Qualcomm in comments filed in response to the *Notice*,[^195] the
    antenna gain of a PCS handset is ‑4.6 dB and the PCS receiver line
    loss is 2 dB.[^196] According to Sprint, the PCS handset provides
    19.4 dB of processing gain and requires a S/(N+I) of 6.2 dB.[^197]
    Thus, in the absence of outside noise sources the PCS receiver has
    an operational sensitivity level of ‑112.6 dBm/MHz.[^198] This
    sensitivity level is based only on the presence of thermal noise.
    Sprint also indicated that its link budget is based on a receive
    sensitivity of ‑106 dBm/MHz.[^199] As indicated by Sprint in its
    petition, in-cell and other-cell interference from other PCS
    stations, when added to the receiver thermal noise, results in a
    noise plus interference level on the order of -99 dBm/MHz. However,
    we disagree that operation of a PCS system can occur at these stated
    parameters outside of a laboratory or other controlled environment.
    The following link budget analysis is used to demonstrate this.

  --------------------------- -------------- ----------------------------
  Parameter                   Value          Equation

  Frequency                   1900 MHz       F

  Receiver antenna gain       -4.6 dBi       AG

  PCS receiver line loss      -2 dB          LL

  Desired signal level        -106 dBm/MHz   DSL

  Received desired signal     -112.6 dBm/MHz S = DSL + AG + LL
  level [^200]                               

  Processing gain             19.4 dB        PG

  Minimum required S/(N+I)    6.2 dB         S/(N+I)

  Maximum N+I                 -99.4 dBm/MHz  MaxNI = S + PG -- S/(N+I)
  --------------------------- -------------- ----------------------------

79. As shown above, the maximum noise plus interference level that can
    be tolerated by a PCS handset receiving a PCS signal at a level of
    -106 dBm/MHz is approximately -99 dBm/MHz. If the in-cell and
    other-cell noise levels are high enough to produce a noise plus
    interference level of ‑99 dBm/MHz, there is no margin to accommodate
    noise from any other source, including noise generated by multipath
    of the intended PCS signal or noise produced by another nearby RF
    device. Indeed, under these conditions the introduction of noise
    from another PCS handset operating in an adjacent frequency block,
    *e.g.*, under the control of another PCS carrier, could affect PCS
    system reliability, even if the second PCS handset was 100 meters
    away.[^201] The same interference concern would exist for a PCS
    handset operating under these parameters if it is located within 50
    meters of a consumer microwave oven.[^202]

80. Sprint provided information in its petition on the level of noise
    produced from multipath due to the PCS handset operator walking at a
    slow pace.[^203] In Attachment 1 of the Sprint petition, Figure 11
    contains an example of a Rayleigh-faded PCS signal for a walking
    speed of 2 mph; Figure 12 shows that same signal after the output of
    a 3‑branch maximal ratio combiner contained within the receiver. We
    note that the difference in Figure 12 between the signal peak and
    the null after the combiner is about 17 dB, with the lowest signal
    null about 12 dB below the median received level and two other nulls
    of about 8 dB below the median received signal level. If the median
    received signal is ‑106 dBm/MHz, as indicated by Cingular and Sprint
    as typical towards the PCS cell edges, and the effect of the PCS
    in-cell and other-cell emissions is to produce a noise plus
    interference level in the PCS receiver of ‑99 dBm/MHz, no margin
    exists to permit the reception of a lower level PCS signal and the
    nulls below the median signal level due to multipath could affect
    system reliability. We note that multipath problems would be more
    severe for PCS handsets moving at a greater speed, such as in a
    vehicle. We also note that the RAKE receiver that is used in PCS
    systems to reduce multipath may not be effective on eliminating
    multipath problems for systems operated indoors where the multipath
    delay spreads can be much smaller than the IS-95 chip duration of
    about 800 nanoseconds.[^204] Accordingly, the operation of a PCS
    handset in a moving vehicle or the operation of a PCS handset
    indoors is likely to be even less reliable under the conditions
    specified by Sprint.

81. As demonstrated above, a PCS system may not be reliable at the
    extreme operating conditions specified by Sprint. Either the minimum
    PCS received signal level must be increased above ‑106 dBm/MHz or
    the level of the PCS in-cell and other-cell noise must be reduced in
    order to ensure functionality of the PCS system in an environment
    that produces multipath interference. We expect that adjustments to
    both emission levels are necessary. Unfortunately, no measurement
    data has been incorporated in this proceeding that demonstrates an
    appropriate level for in-cell and other-cell PCS emissions.[^205]
    Further, the petitioners insist that their systems are designed to
    operate at a signal level of ‑106 dBm/MHz. However, it is possible
    to demonstrate that harmful interference would not occur to PCS
    systems from nearby UWB devices even under these extreme conditions.
    To reiterate the parameter specified by Sprint in its petition, "the
    handset receives in-cell and other-cell interference, which add to
    the thermal noise and results in a noise plus interference level on
    the order of -98 dBm. Even so, the handset could still operate with
    a desired signal level of less than ‑111 dBm, which is still 6 dB
    below the thermal noise floor."[^206] Under such extreme conditions
    it may not be reasonable to consider that the PCS system achieves a
    14.4 kbps data rate associated with a Rate Set 2 system. Instead,
    the use of a 9.6 kbps data rate associated with a Rate Set 1 system
    appears more appropriate. The processing gain of a PCS system for
    Rate Set 1 is 21.2 dB.[^207] These parameters result in the
    following link budget analysis:

  -------------------------- -------------- -----------------------------
  Parameter                  Value          Equation

  Frequency                  1900 MHz       F

  Receiver antenna gain      -4.6 dBi       AG

  PCS receiver line loss     -2 dB          LL

  Received desired signal    -112 dBm/MHz   S
  level [^208]                              

  Processing gain            21.1 dB        PG

  Minimum required S/(N+I)   6.2 dB         S/(N+I)

  Maximum N+I [^209]         -97.1 dBm/MHz  MaxNI = S + PG -- S/(N+I)

  Total noise level [^210]   -99 dBm/MHz    N

  Maximum UWB emission level -101.6 dBm/MHz IR = MaxNI -- N [^212]
  [^211]                                    

  Maximum UWB emission level -95 dBm/MHz    I = IR --AG -- LL
  at the PCS handset antenna                
  [^213]                                    

  UWB emission limit         -53.3 dBm/MHz  E

  Required path loss         41.7 dB        PL = E -- I

  Maximum separation         1.5 meters     20 log (D) = PL -- 20log(F) +
  distance                                  27.56 [^214]
  -------------------------- -------------- -----------------------------

The above calculations are based on the emission limits for GPRs, wall
imaging systems, low frequency through-wall imaging systems, medical
imaging systems and indoor UWB devices. Surveillance systems are
permitted to place emissions in the PCS band at a level of ‑51.3
dBm/MHz, resulting in a increase to the maximum separation distance of
26 percent, *i.e.*, to 1.9 meters. However, we note that surveillance
systems are unlikely to be in close proximity to PCS handsets, as
explained under the later discussion on SDARS. Taking into account the 9
dB attenuation provided by the wall through which the signal must first
pass, the new UWB public safety imaging systems being allowed in this
MO&O would place emissions in the PCS band at a level as high as
‑50.3 dBm/MHz, resulting in an increase to the maximum separation
distance of 41 percent, *i.e.*, to 2.2 meters. However, these devices
will be operated under the control of a licensed public safety operator
in emergency circumstances. Any equipment located within 2.2 meters of
the UWB operator also would be under the control of that operator.[^215]
Vehicular radar systems and hand held (outdoor) UWB devices are
permitted to place emissions in the PCS band at a level of ‑63.3 dBm,
resulting in a decrease to the maximum separation distance of 68
percent, *i.e.*, to 0.5 meters.

82. The above example demonstrates that the emissions from nearby UWB
    devices will not cause harmful interference to PCS operation even
    when the background noise level and the received signal level from a
    PCS system are at such extremes that there is insufficient margin to
    accommodate naturally occurring multipath signals. However, we
    recognize that the petitioners may object to our application of a
    Rate Set 1 system. Accordingly, we are providing below a third link
    budget analysis that applies the parameters specified by the
    petitioners, including a Rate Set 2 processing gain of 19.4 dB.
    However, we are reducing the level of the PCS in-cell and other-cell
    noise. We believe than an in-cell and other-cell noise level of -100
    dBm/MHz is still excessive but is more reasonable than the level
    presented by Sprint.[^216]

  --------------------------- -------------- ----------------------------
  Parameter                   Value          Equation

  Frequency                   1900 MHz       F

  Receiver antenna gain       -4.6 dBi       AG

  PCS receiver line loss      -2 dB          LL

  Desired signal level        -106 dBm/MHz   DSL

  Received desired signal     -112.6 dBm/MHz S = DSL + AG + LL
  level                                      

  Processing gain             19.4 dB        PG

  Minimum required S/(N+I)    6.2 dB         S/(N+I)

  Maximum N+I                 -99.4 dBm/MHz  MaxNI = S + PG -- S/(N+I)

  PCS noise level [^217]      -100 dBm/MHz   PCSN

  Received PCS noise level    -106.6 dBm/MHz RPCSN = PCSN + AG + LL

  Receiver thermal noise      -106 dBm/MHz   RTN
  level                                      

  Total noise level [^218]    -103.3 dBm/MHz N = RPCSN + RTN [^219]

  Maximum UWB emission level  -101.7 dBm/MHz IR = MaxNI -- N [^221]
  [^220]                                     

  Maximum UWB emission level  -95.5 dBm/MHz  I = IR --AG - LL
  at the PCS handset antenna                 

  UWB emission limit          -53.3 dBm/MHz  E

  Required path loss          42.2 dB        PL = E -- I

  Maximum separation distance 1.6 meters     20 log (D) = PL --
                                             20log(F) + 27.56
  --------------------------- -------------- ----------------------------

83. While it could be argued that the -100 dBm/MHz in-cell and
    other-cell noise level applied above is arbitrary, we note that this
    noise level continues to result in the PCS system not having
    sufficient margin to overcome its own naturally occurring multipath
    interference. It is obvious that a higher PCS signal level or a
    lower PCS in-cell and other-cell noise level is needed for reliable
    operation. Either of these will result in shorter maximum separation
    distances between the PCS handset and a UWB emitter than that
    calculated in the above link budget analyses.

84. The maximum separation distances shown in the preceding paragraphs
    are similar to those calculated earlier for the *R&O*.[^222] We do
    not consider these separation distances to be excessive. We also
    note that there are several mitigating factors that will further
    reduce these calculated maximum separation distances. The separation
    distances calculated above, as they were in the earlier staff
    analysis, are based on worst case conditions. In particular, this
    analysis includes the interference that PCS stations generate to
    themselves, *i.e.*, the noise produced by the in-cell and other-cell
    PCS emissions. This noise addition considerably increases the
    calculated maximum separation distances between the PCS handset and
    the UWB emitter. Further, the calculations assume that the UWB
    transmitter is pointed directly at the PCS receiver without
    additional losses due to mismatched antenna polarizations, head
    loss,[^223] or attenuation from intervening objects, and that free
    space attenuation applies to the propagation. The calculations also
    assume that the UWB emitter is placing the maximum levels of
    emissions permitted under the rules into the PCS bands even though
    the UWB fundamental emission may be far removed from the PCS bands.
    Accordingly, we believe that the actual separation distances needed
    to avoid interference to PCS handsets from UWB devices will be
    smaller than those calculated under theoretical worst case
    conditions.

85. We also continue to believe that the reception of lower desired PCS
    received signal levels, such as the -115.3 dBm/MHz level cited by
    Sprint,[^224] represents extreme conditions, achievable only in a
    laboratory environment, as such levels do not include sufficient
    margin to overcome multipath interference combined with interference
    from other noise sources, such as the in-cell and other-cell
    interference from other PCS operations. While it may be possible to
    receive a signal level of ‑115.3 dBm in a laboratory environment,
    based on the data provided by the petitioners it may not be possible
    to do so in a "real world" environment. However, we also realize
    that the PCS desired signal levels, the PCS in-cell and other-cell
    noise levels, and the noise levels produced by other RF devices are
    not constant values but are subject to considerable fluctuation. We
    expect that in-band noise levels may be lower in less congested
    areas, allowing the use of lower received PCS signal levels. In
    these less congested areas, UWB transmitters are unlikely to be
    present in significant numbers, reducing the probability that UWB
    transmitters would be near PCS handsets attempting to operate with
    low signal reception levels. The probability of UWB systems being
    nearby PCS handsets is higher in congested areas where the
    probability of higher noise levels from various radio operations
    should result in higher desired PCS nominal receive signals.

86. The above interference calculations apply equally to PCS receivers
    used indoors or outdoors. XSI is correct in its comment that the
    lower emission limit specified in the rules for outdoor, handheld
    UWB transmitters was established not to protect PCS but to protect
    U.S. Government radio systems operating on both sides of the PCS
    spectrum. Indeed, if the emission limits were based solely on the
    level necessary to protect PCS operation, it appears that we could
    increase the limit currently applied to hand held (outdoor) and
    vehicular radar UWB devices. While Cingular objects to our not
    providing similar analyses for TDMA and GSM modulation types, we
    based our analysis on the specifications provided by the proponents.
    We note that Cingular has not provided any additional information on
    other types of modulations that could be employed for cellular or
    for PCS.

87. We disagree with Sprint that the emissions in the PCS bands are
    spurious emissions that may be attenuated without affecting the UWB
    transmission. As stated by XSI, UWB devices have a shallow emission
    attenuation curve such that requiring additional attenuation in the
    PCS band would impair performance at higher frequencies. Contrary to
    Sprint's assertion, we found no agreement from Time Domain to reduce
    the emissions in the PCS band from its equipment by an additional 15
    dB. Time Domain only speculated that the requirements to reduce its
    emissions below the Part 15 general emission limits by 10 dB below
    3100 MHz and by 34 dB below 1610 MHz would result in a natural
    roll-off of emissions in the PCS bands, equivalent to 20 dB below
    the Part 15 general emission limits.[^225] However, we also
    recognize that, depending on the nature of the spurious emissions,
    this may not be a correct statement. We find no technical basis that
    persuades us to impose increased equipment costs on UWB
    manufacturers to provide additional attenuation that does not appear
    to be necessary to prevent harmful interference.

88. We also disagree with Sprint and AWS that UWB emission levels in the
    PCS bands should have been adjusted to account for a cumulative
    effect from multiple UWB emitters. The petitioners and commenters
    offer no new evidence to refute the record in the *R&O*. As
    explained in the *R&O*, there is no cumulative impact to PCS
    handsets from UWB emitters. If the potential for harmful
    interference extends only a few tens of meters or less, as with UWB
    emissions, the single closest UWB emitter will dominate the received
    signal level.[^226] Systems that would be prone to receiving
    cumulative interference are those that employ high gain receiving
    antennas directed over large geographical areas and that are located
    where there would not be nearby UWB emitters that could dominate the
    received signal level. Sprint requests that a 6 dB adjustment be
    provided for PCS operation, as well as for indoor GPS reception,
    since a 6 dB cumulative impact was provided in the *R&O* for outdoor
    GPS reception. However, that provision for an additional 6 dB of
    protection for outdoor GPS protection was provided at the insistence
    of NTIA and DOD. This 6 dB adjustment is not applicable to the
    interference scenarios presented by Sprint.

89. In summary, we find the arguments of Cingular, Qualcomm and Sprint
    unpersuasive that there will be significant interference from UWB
    devices to PCS operations. With the exception of GPRs and the new
    public safety imaging systems, we have not permitted UWB systems to
    deliberately transmit in the PCS spectrum.[^227] With those two
    exceptions, only spurious emissions from UWB devices are permitted
    in the PCS bands. There is no certainty that most UWB devices will
    even emit RF energy in the PCS bands at significant levels. Further,
    we conclude that the petitioners' assessments of potential
    interference are based on worst case scenarios where the PCS signal
    is at its weakest and the PCS receiver is at its minimum threshold
    of operation. In fact, we question whether the petitioners' approach
    to their analyses is representative of the risk of interference.
    Indeed, when the signals become weak PCS systems are designed to
    transfer the handsets to another cell with a stronger signal.
    Notwithstanding these observations, our analysis is based on what we
    believe are more realistic assumptions that demonstrate a potential
    for UWB interference to PCS operation of only a matter of meters,
    even under worst case conditions. We conclude that the instances of
    interference to PCS systems from UWB devices at such close
    separations will be rare and that the standards adopted adequately
    ensure protection against harmful interference. Nevertheless, as we
    have stated relative to other systems, we will closely monitor the
    development of UWB devices and their potential for interference and
    will adjust the standards if that is shown to be necessary. Thus, we
    find no justification to support the claims of the petitioners that
    the operation of UWB devices will result in harmful interference to
    cellular operations, to PCS operations or to E‑911 applications, or
    that there will be increased power requirements or service
    disruptions to cellular or PCS operations. We also find no basis in
    the claims of the petitioners that additional cellular or PCS towers
    would need to be constructed. Accordingly, there is no reason to
    require additional attenuation of UWB emissions in the PCS bands.

90. *UWB Emission Levels in the Cellular Bands*. The previous discussion
    dealt with the potential for UWB operations to affect operation in
    the PCS frequency bands. While the petitioners also request that
    decreased UWB emissions apply to the cellular frequency bands, they
    did not provide any new information to support their request. While
    they mention potential UWB interference to the Cellular
    Radiotelephone Service, they offer no new technical details
    regarding the operation of cellular systems nor do they provide any
    discussion refuting the Commission's discussion in the *R&O*
    regarding the acceptable level of UWB emissions in the cellular
    radio spectrum. As in the PCS band, emissions from cellular stations
    and from other radio services are expected to represent the dominant
    interference sources and should effectively mask the low level UWB
    emissions. Accordingly, we find no justification to amend our limits
    on UWB emissions in the cellular bands.

91. *Evaluation of Earlier Submitted Analyses.* Sprint complains that
    the Commission ignored its Telcordia model as well as its ambient
    noise study. The Commission reviewed and evaluated the Telcordia
    model in the *R&O*.[^228] On the other hand, the ambient noise study
    from Sprint was not addressed in the *R&O*. This study was submitted
    by Sprint in an *ex parte* filing on January 30, 2002, over one year
    past the due date for comments in this proceeding.[^229] Sprint's
    Telcordia model and the majority of its ambient noise study are
    encompassed in its Petition for Reconsideration and are addressed
    above. Sprint's measurement of noise levels in the PCS band, as
    shown in the Appendix to its ambient noise study, are addressed by
    our own recent ambient noise measurements, discussed later in this
    Memorandum Opinion and Order. Sprint's measurement of emission from
    computers, as also described in the Appendix to its ambient noise
    study, is flawed as Sprint did not follow the proper measurement
    procedures specified under 47 C.F.R. § 15.31(a)(6). We have found
    that the majority of RF noise emitted by computer systems is
    radiated from the connecting cables, yet it appears that Sprint
    attempted to measure the noise from a computer without adding
    peripheral devices or external cables and by placing the measurement
    antenna too close to receive emissions from the overall computer.
    Accordingly, upon subsequent examination of these documents we find
    no new evidence that would cause us to amend the UWB regulations.

92. *UWB Emission Levels in the GPS Bands*. Neither Sprint nor the
    commenting parties provide any technical information to support the
    need for additional protection to GPS reception. We note that the
    limits for emissions in the GPS frequency bands already are very
    conservative. They were based on a short separation distance of 2
    meters and a UWB emission level that could result in a slight (1 dB)
    increase in the noise floor of the GPS receiver under very
    conservative assumptions. To our knowledge, no correlation has ever
    been made between this slight rise in the noise floor and actual GPS
    harmful interference. Indeed, the tests performed by NTIA, DOT and
    Time Domain demonstrated that GPS receivers were capable of
    rejecting considerably higher UWB emission levels even when the GPS
    received signal levels continue to be based on the satellites'
    end-of-life output levels and the UWB modulation types were adjusted
    to produce worst-case results.[^230] As we have continued to
    demonstrate, it is extremely unlikely that UWB systems operating in
    compliance with the rules will cause harmful interference to the
    reception of cellular, PCS or GPS signals. Accordingly, we see no
    threat to E‑911 operation from UWB devices.

93. *Send/Acknowledgement Requirements*. We disagree with Sprint that
    the send and acknowledgement requirements in the rules for hand held
    UWB transmitters should be applied to indoor transmitters and that
    the timing interval for acknowledgement should be decreased. The
    rules require a hand held UWB transmitter to cease transmission
    within 10 seconds unless it receives an acknowledgement from the
    associated receiver that its transmission is being received. An
    acknowledgement of reception must continue to be received by the UWB
    transmitter at least every 10 seconds or the UWB transmitter must
    cease transmitting. This provision was implemented to provide
    further protection to U.S. Government radio systems. Sprint
    requested that this requirement be extended to include indoor UWB
    systems and to change the 10 second period to 3 or 5 seconds.
    However, Sprint provides no reasons as to why such changes should be
    required. There already exists a requirement for indoor devices used
    as communications systems to transmit only when sending information
    to an associated receiver.[^231] No information has been provided by
    Sprint as to why the existing rule is not sufficient.

94. *Restrictions Applied to Ensure Indoor-only Operation*. We disagree
    with Cingular that there is a need to change our regulations
    restricting certain UWB devices to indoor operation. The rules
    currently require indoor UWB devices, by the nature of their design,
    to be capable of operation only indoors, adding that the necessity
    to operate with a fixed indoor infrastructure, such as a requirement
    to operate using the AC power lines, may be sufficient to
    demonstrate compliance with this requirement.[^232] Cingular
    expresses its belief that there is no correlation between UWB
    devices requiring AC power and in-building use since AC power can be
    obtained through generators and through long extension cords.
    However, the reason for prohibiting fixed outdoor UWB operation was
    to reduce the ability to establish wide-coverage, cellular-type
    systems. We believe it unlikely that complex outdoor cellular-type
    UWB operations would be established with equipment using long
    extension cords or generators to operate. Even so, the requirement
    to operate from the AC power lines is not by itself evidence that
    the equipment is designed for indoor-only operation. The equipment
    still must, by the nature of its design, be capable only of indoor
    operation.

95. *Imaging Systems/Coordination*. As demonstrated above, the
    petitioners' claims of harmful interference from UWB emissions are
    unfounded. Accordingly, there is no justification for raising the
    frequency range in which UWB transmissions are permitted to operate;
    for requiring imaging systems to be capable of functioning only when
    they are in direct contact with a wall surface; for requiring
    imaging systems to use automatic power control; or for placing
    additional restrictions on who may operate the equipment. Further,
    we find no justification requiring coordination of the location of
    UWB imaging systems with cellular telephone service providers, as
    there is no reason to believe that these products, operating in
    compliance with the rules, will cause harmful interference to such
    services. With regard to Sprint's assertion that surveillance
    systems are not imaging systems and so should be classified as
    indoor or hand held devices, we recognize that surveillance systems
    may not necessarily be designed to resolve an image of a detected
    object. However, surveillance systems are radar devices that
    function similar to other imaging systems. It was for this reason
    that they were classified as imaging systems. Indeed, vehicular
    radars could have been classified in a similar manner; the
    Commission chose not to do so as vehicular radars are consumer
    products and are not subject to coordination requirements.
    Regardless, the classification of surveillance systems as UWB
    imaging devices does not affect their interference potential. The
    interference potential of an RF device is governed by the technical
    standards under which it operates. There is no basis to support any
    claim that surveillance systems operating at the emission levels
    specified in our rules would cause harmful interference to other
    radio operations.[^233] Consequently, we see no reason to change the
    classification for this product or the standards under which it
    operates.

96. *Need for Additional Test Data*. Qualcomm states that the Commission
    should have established standards for UWB emissions in the PCS bands
    based on test data. Sprint requests that the Commission require each
    UWB equipment developer to make multiple samples of their products
    available to industry for interference evaluations. AWS wants all
    interested parties to participate in setting up tests using real UWB
    devices. We find no need to require the submission of additional
    test data in this proceeding before UWB systems can begin operation.
    There have been considerable analyses throughout this proceeding on
    every possible aspect of interference under the worst receive
    conditions imaginable. Tests already have been performed, not using
    real UWB devices since compliant UWB devices were not yet available
    but using generated signals that range from a noise-type emission to
    modulation types that have the highest probability of causing
    interference. We see no need to further delay this proceeding by
    providing additional testing. Once equipment is on the market,
    interested parties may obtain and test whatever UWB samples they
    might desire. However, we expect that such tests will demonstrate
    that UWB devices have a lower interference potential than what has
    been calculated. The calculations are based on the premise that UWB
    devices operate at the maximum permitted emission limits across the
    entire radio spectrum. In reality, this is not feasible as this
    would require the UWB transmitter to consume such tremendous amounts
    of power that battery operation would not be possible. If the UWB
    transmitter was assumed to emit a line spectrum, earlier evaluations
    adjusted the frequency of the spectral line(s) such that it produced
    the maximum interference effect on a victim receiver, even if the
    frequency of the victim receiver was changing with time, such as
    occurs with the signal from a GPS satellite. Other examples of how
    the potential for interference has been maximized are cited
    throughout this Memorandum Opinion and Order. An interference test
    based on actual UWB production units will not encounter all of these
    worst case conditions at the same time.

97. *Conclusion*. We find no new information in the Cingular, Qualcomm,
    and Sprint petitions or in the comments that would persuade us to
    amend or otherwise reverse the decisions made in the *R&O*.
    Specifically, we find no basis or justification in the proponents'
    claims that exclusive licensing in the PCS spectrum prohibits the
    operation of Part 15 devices; that stricter limits are needed for
    emissions from UWB devices that fall within the cellular, PCS or GPS
    bands; that we must require UWB manufacturers to provide samples to
    industry for testing; that we must amend the language regarding the
    requirement for indoor devices, by the nature of their design, to be
    capable of operation only indoors; that we need to modify the
    send/acknowledgement requirements for UWB communication systems; or
    that we should tighten the rules for imaging systems. We further
    find no basis in the petitioners' claims that the Commission did not
    adequately consider the various tests or analyses or that the
    decisions in the *R&O* were arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, we
    are denying the Petitions for Reconsideration from Cingular,
    Qualcomm, and Sprint.

### UWB emissions in the SDARS frequency bands 

98. The Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) operates in the
    frequency bands 2320-2332.5 MHz and 2332.5-2345 MHz. Sirius, which
    operates under the name Satellite CD Radio Inc., uses the lower
    band, and XM uses the upper band. Through-wall imaging systems and
    surveillance systems, the only UWB devices permitted to operate in
    the SDARS bands, must not exceed an emission level of -41.3 dBm/MHz
    in the SDARS spectrum. All other UWB devices are required to
    attenuate any emissions that appear in the SDARS bands, as
    follows: 1) GPRs, wall imaging systems, low frequency through-wall
    imaging systems, medical imaging systems, and indoor UWB devices
    must attenuate emissions in the SDARS bands to at least -51.3
    dBm/MHz; 2) vehicular radar systems and hand held UWB devices must
    attenuate their emissions in the SDARS bands to at least -61.3
    dBm/MHz; and 3) the new public safety imaging systems must attenuate
    their emissions in the SDARS bands to at least ‑41.3 dBm/MHz.

99. [Petition]{.underline}. Sirius and XM filed a Joint Petition for
    Reconsideration stating that the Commission disregarded evidence
    that highly sensitive satellite radio receivers will operate in
    close proximity to UWB communications and surveillance
    devices.[^234] Indicating that SDARS receivers operate near the
    noise floor with a link margin just sufficient to protect against
    outages from blockage, multipath fading and foliage attenuation,
    they request that we reduce the permitted emission limit in the
    SDARS frequency band from UWB devices to no greater than 8.6 uV/m,
    as measured at 3 meters within a 1 MHz bandwidth,[^235] and that
    compliance with this limit be demonstrated based on free space
    attenuation of the emissions from an aggregate of multiple
    co-polarized UWB devices.[^236]

100. Sirius and XM argue that the -51.3 dBm limit adopted for emissions
     in the DARS band from indoor UWB devices is too great and that the
     Commission should have adopted the 8.6 uV/m limit they
     requested.[^237] They state that the Commission did not explain why
     it did not adopt the 5.8 uV/m limit[^238] it applied to Wireless
     Communication Service (WCS) systems and that is applied through
     coordination agreements with Mexico and Canada. Sirius and XM
     believe that the rules adopted for hand held UWB devices will
     permit dense, temporary, semi-permanent or mobile communications
     networks and that aggregate emissions from these networks will
     cause serious interference to SDARS reception. They argue that the
     Commission incorrectly assumed an antenna polarization mismatch of
     3 dB and a receiver noise temperature of 360º K. They state that
     the 3 dB antenna cross-polarization factor should be eliminated
     because the Commission did not apply this in its analysis of the
     emissions for UWB devices in the GPS bands, noting that the GPS
     systems also use a circularly polarized receiving antenna.[^239]
     They also state that a noise temperature of 158º K should be
     employed.[^240] Based on the elimination of the antenna
     cross-polarization and the decrease in the receiver noise floor,
     Sirius and XM recalculate the minimum separation distances to be 55
     meters for surveillance systems, 17 meters for indoor UWB devices,
     and 5 meters for hand held devices.[^241] Sirius and XM state that
     any limit that allows interference at distances greater then 3
     meters is unreasonable, arguing that UWB devices are likely to be
     in close proximity to SDARS receivers.

101. The petitioners also argue that the Commission failed to satisfy
     the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a reasoned
     basis for its actions, consider all of the evidence presented to
     it, and articulate a rational connection between the presented
     facts and its decision.[^242] Sirius and XM further contend that
     the *R&O* contains faulty assumptions such as: exaggerating the
     available link margin and assuming that there always will be a
     terrestrial repeater nearby; assuming that SDARS receivers and UWB
     communications and surveillance devices will operate no closer than
     8.8 meters and that there will never be more than one UWB device at
     a time in the vicinity; failing to account for consumers listening
     to SDARS in their homes; assuming that UWB manufacturers will not
     build transmitters that operate at the maximum limit permitted by
     the rules; assuming that what the Commission referenced as
     "transient" interference is irrelevant when it actually is highly
     disruptive; ignoring previous Commission national and international
     actions limiting emissions in the SDARS bands;[^243] and
     under-estimating the minimum required separation of UWB devices and
     SDARS receivers, concluding that 8.8 meters is sufficient.[^244]
     They object to the user of the SDARS receiver having to keep the
     receiver removed from UWB devices, stating that the SDARS user will
     not realize that interference is being caused as the signal will
     simply cease being received resulting in the user blaming the
     equipment manufacturer or service provider.[^245]

102. Sirius and XM state that UWB vehicular radar systems are unlikely
     to cause interference to DARS yet request that the Commission lower
     the limit for emissions in the DARS bands from UWB vehicular radars
     to 8.6 uV/m.[^246] Sirius and XM believe that devices other than
     vehicle radars would be closer to SDARS receivers, such as a hand
     held device used by a passenger in the car. They add that a hand
     held device in a car, a surveillance device nearby the car, or an
     indoor UWB device a few feet from an SDARS receiver will cause
     harmful interference under the adopted limits. Sirius and XM also
     object to the Commission considering their use of terrestrial
     repeaters to supplement reception in major metropolitan areas,
     stating that this impermissibly shifts the burden of mitigating
     interference to the operator of a licensed system.[^247] They add
     that their systems rely on the reception of the satellite signals,
     not signals form the terrestrial stations, in 99 percent of the
     U.S. land mass. Sirius and XM also object to any short term,
     transient interference, such as when a vehicle containing an SDARS
     passes by a UWB surveillance system, and specifically cite the
     continuous interference that would be caused to a SDARS receiver
     located in a car passing along a perimeter that is secured by a
     long series of surveillance systems.[^248] They also argue that the
     Commission was arbitrary and capricious by failing to provide an
     additional margin of protection from aggregate interference from
     multiple UWB devices and by failing to explain why such an analysis
     was not performed.[^249] Sirius and XM, contending that hand held,
     indoor, and surveillance UWB systems are likely to be within close
     proximity of SDARS receivers, cite NTIA Special Pub. 01-43 at pg. x
     as a demonstration that there is an aggregate interference problem.
     Sirius and XM's petition also includes a technical appendix within
     which they re-analyze the interference separation distance after
     eliminating the 3 dB antenna polarization mismatch and basing the
     thermal noise floor of the receiver on a temperature of 158º
     K.[^250] They indicate that a receiver noise temperature of 290º K
     may be appropriate when the DARS receiver is located in an urban
     environment, but a temperature of 158º K is suitable when the DARS
     receiver is located in an environment suitable for satellite
     reception.

103. [Comments]{.underline}. Time Domain submits that emissions from UWB
     transmitters are required to be attenuated by 34 dB as they go from
     3.1 GHz to 1.6 GHz, and that this will result in lower emission
     levels in the SDARS bands than what is specified in the
     rules.[^251] Time Domain believes that UWB emissions effectively
     would be attenuated by about 30 dB below the Part 15 general
     emission limits within the SDARS frequency bands. [^252] It adds
     that emissions from hand held UWB devices, which are expected to be
     nearest to SDARS receivers, must not exceed -61 dBm in the 1.99-3.1
     GHz band under the rules and that these factors correlate with the
     -63 dBm that the Commission found to be appropriate for portable
     WCS devices operating under 250 mW.[^253] Time Domain states that
     the Commission's intention in determining emission limits for WCS
     was to limit the interference to a reasonable level, not to provide
     a pure, interference-free environment.[^254] Accordingly, it
     believes that SDARS operators also should not expect now to have an
     interference free environment and that it is unrealistic of them to
     expect the Commission to suddenly recognize "transient"
     interference as a form of interference the SDARS service must be
     protected against.

104. Time Domain adds that the SDARS link budget, among other factors,
     provides for blockage, fading and foliage attenuation, and that
     there is a zero probability of all of these occurring at the same
     time, so that it was entirely appropriate for the Commission to
     conclude that the SDARS link budget has an excessive margin.[^255]
     With regard to terrestrial repeaters, Time Domain states that the
     issue is not what percentage of the U.S. has terrestrial coverage
     but what percentage of the population will be served by terrestrial
     augmentation and believes that terrestrial systems would be located
     around cities, the environment where UWB devices will be found and
     where the satellite signal would be subject to blockage, fading and
     foliage attenuation.[^256] With regard to UWB surveillance systems,
     Time Domain states that these systems would be used to detect the
     motion of persons or objects within a protected area and would not
     be placed where there is frequent and allowable motion of objects,
     persons, or animals, such as along streets, as this would destroy
     the utility of the system.[^257] Rather, surveillance systems would
     be used to protect areas that are "off limits," and the probable
     location would be well behind a fence or other obstacle much
     farther from a roadway than 8.8 meters. With regard to the
     petitioners' claim that the Commission failed to consider SDARS
     receivers used in homes, Time Domain notes that in the *R&O* the
     Commission referenced SDARS antennas mounted on building roofs or
     the sides of buildings and added that SDARS receivers may function
     with the antenna mounted in the home, but it would do so only
     because of the additional signal from a terrestrial repeater.[^258]

105. SARA opposes Sirius and XM's request to tighten the limit in the
     SDARS bands on emissions from vehicular radars.[^259] It notes the
     petitioners' statement that vehicle radar was unlikely to interfere
     with SDARS. SARA adds that it is virtually impossible to design a
     functioning antenna at 24 GHz that also radiates with sufficient
     energy at any frequency below about 17 GHz and that all emissions
     below 14.125 GHz would be considered spurious emissions.

106. XSI, in addressing the petitioners' argument that the Commission
     incorrectly applied a 3 dB factor for antenna mismatch, notes that
     circularly polarized antennas that operate correctly over the
     entire UWB spectrum would be difficult or impossible to design and
     would offer no advantages over linear polarization.[^260] It adds
     that while the polarization of the UWB antenna may be "unknown," it
     is almost certainly not circular.[^261] XSI also states that the
     360º K receiver noise temperature employed by the Commission in its
     analysis is identical to the value for this parameter provided
     earlier by XM, adding that the numbers now offered by the SDARS
     proponents make sense only if the SDARS receivers are in orbit or
     use a pencil-beam antenna, unlike the non-directional antennas
     actually installed on such receivers.[^262] XSI believes two
     statements by the SDARS proponents are inconsistent: the SDARS
     signal is so weak as to require extraordinary protection from UWB,
     and the SDARS signal functions well indoors despite about 9 dB of
     building loss.[^263] XSI believes that indoor SDARS reception
     requires either a nearby terrestrial repeater or the use of an
     outdoor antenna, as the SDARS proponents' own numbers make it
     unlikely that an indoor antenna can achieve reliable reception from
     the satellite.

107. XSI also submits that the one percent of the SDARS service areas
     that has repeater coverage accounts for a large fraction of the
     population served. It also agrees with Time Domain that the
     emissions from the UWB emitters will be lower in the SDARS bands
     than the levels required under the rules due to the roll-off of the
     emissions below 3.1 GHz to comply with the limit transitions at
     1.99 GHz and at 1.6 GHz.[^264] XSI argues that the SDARS proponents
     attempt to minimize the potential effect of other, non-UWB sources
     of interference on SDARS service, noting that Part 27 WCS stations
     must reduce their emissions that appear in the SDARS bands to -80
     dBm, but fail to point out that certain fixed, land, and
     radiolocation stations in the WCS service are allowed to have
     emissions in the SDARS bands at -50 dBm, 1.3 dB more than allowed
     for indoor UWB devices.[^265] Further, it says that the number
     cited by Sirius and XM for terrestrial stations at the U.S.-Mexican
     border of -154 dBW/m^2^/4 kHz is the limit that U.S. stations must
     meet, adding that the requirements for Mexican stations, depending
     on frequency, are ‑150 and -145.5 dBW/m^2^/4 kHz for terrestrial
     stations and -130.5 dBW/m^2^/4 kHz for satellite stations.[^266]
     XSI adds that the Amateur Radio Service has bands on both sides of
     SDARS with no specific emission limits and that SDARS is adjacent
     to the 2400 MHz ISM band which has a limit equivalent to 2500 uV/m
     at 3 meters.[^267] It further adds that measurements made by NTIA
     on microwave ovens at an apartment complex found emission levels
     radiated in the SDARS bands of -80 to -55 dBm at distances 3 meters
     from the ovens in the same room, -100 to -86 dBm in adjacent
     apartments, and -90 to -77 dBm at the exterior of the complex,
     compared to the -101.6 dBm expected from a UWB emitter at only 3
     meters away. XSI states that the majority of man-made noise in the
     SDARS bands is assumed to be from ignition sources and that the
     proximity of ignition systems to a SDARS antenna in a mobile
     environment may create even greater problems than UWB emissions.

108. USGPSIC supports the petitioners' contention that aggregate
     emissions from widely deployed UWB devices will pose an
     unacceptable risk of harmful interference.[^268] If also believes
     that the Commission's statement in the *R&O* that a UWB device
     could be moved a short distance away impermissibly shifts the
     burden of resolving the interference to the operator of the
     licensed system.[^269] XSI replies that UWB emissions add in
     principle but the levels fall off so rapidly with distance that
     there is little signal that can contribute to an additive
     effect.[^270]

109. In their reply comments, Sirius and XM state that the rules do not
     require surveillance systems to be used in protected areas and that
     at least 55 meters of separation is necessary to avoid interference
     to SDARS.[^271] Sirius and XM also argue that the Commission's
     statement in establishing the WCS rules that coordination between
     SDARS and WCS involved limiting the potential for interference to a
     reasonable level makes sense only in the context of coordination
     between licensed services where the Commission must strike a
     balance between protecting each service and enabling multiple
     services.[^272] Sirius and XM also object to Time Domain's
     contention that the Commission used specific technical information
     to analyze the risk of SDARS interference, stating that the
     Commission's cursory discussion in the *R&O* of UWB interference
     based the separation distance not on a specific UWB device but on
     some undefined UWB signal and did not apply the appropriate
     technical data for SDARS receivers.[^273] In response to the claim
     from Time Domain that low power portable WCS devices are permitted
     to operate at an emission limit in the SDARS bands of -63 dBm,
     Sirius and XM note that operation at this higher emission limit be
     permitted under Part 27 of the Commission's rules only under very
     limited conditions that were specifically adopted to provide
     protection to SDARS receivers and that no comparable operating
     limitations were adopted or considered for UWB devices.[^274]
     Sirius and XM add that the link margin used for SDARS is reasonable
     and is designed in keeping with standard satellite system
     design;[^275] that DARS systems can operate indoors without outside
     antennas even in areas unserved by terrestrial repeaters;[^276]
     that there is no basis for assuming that UWB antennas will be
     linearly polarized: that SDARS uses both linearly and circularly
     polarized antennas;[^277] that the noise temperature of the SDARS
     receiver could vary from 158º K to 290º K and the Commission erred
     in using 360º K;[^278] and that SDARS systems are designed with the
     expectation that some interference will be inevitable from all
     sources, but not at the level adopted for UWB devices.[^279]

110. [Discussion]{.underline}. We continue to disagree with the claims
     of Sirius and XM that additional attenuation is required for UWB
     emissions falling within the SDARS frequency bands of
     2320‑2345 MHz. We also find no merit in Sirius and XM's argument
     that the Commission failed to satisfy the Administrative Procedure
     Act by failing to provide a reasoned basis for its actions, failing
     to consider all of the evidence before it, and failing to
     articulate a rational connection between the presented facts and
     its decision. The Commission did, in fact, provide a reasoned basis
     for its UWB decisions affecting SDARS issues, with consideration of
     the full record and articulation of its treatment of the facts, as
     evidenced by the analysis provided in paragraphs 168-169 of the
     *R&O*. The Commission simply did not agree with the claims of the
     petitioners. As shown in paragraph 169 of the *R&O*, the maximum
     separation distance for a UWB system emitting at 10 dB below the
     Part 15 general emission limits, *e.g.*, the limit applied to low
     frequency imaging systems, high frequency imaging systems, and
     indoor UWB devices, is 8.8 meters.[^280] Examples also were
     provided as to why this calculated maximum separation distance is
     likely to be lower and why vehicular radar systems, which would
     operate in close proximity to the predominantly mobile SDARS
     receivers, would pose an even lower threat of causing harmful
     interference.

111. Sirius and XM take exception to two of the criteria the Commission
     employed in its analysis to determine the emission limits for UWB
     devices in the SDARS bands.[^281] Specifically, the petitioners
     argue against the Commission's use of a 3 dB antenna cross
     polarization effect and its calculation of the thermal noise floor
     of the receiver. We note that the values used in the Commission's
     calculations are those values that were provided by the petitioners
     in their comments to the *Notice*.

112. As stated by the petitioners, SDARS satellite transmissions use
     circular polarization and the SDARS terrestrial repeaters use
     linear polarization.[^282] As the greatest potential for harmful
     interference is to reception from the satellite, it is correct to
     base our analysis on the SDARS use of circular polarization.
     Further, as indicated by XSI, it is infeasible to design a UWB
     antenna that covers sufficient bandwidth and employs circular
     polarization. We also note that the petitioners stated only that
     the Commission should not have applied the cross polarization
     correction to SDARS since it did not apply this correction factor
     to GPS reception. This is not a sufficient basis on which to
     justify excluding this effect. With regard to calculations in the
     *R&O* for GPS potential interference, the application of a cross
     polarization effect was eliminated at the request of NTIA. However,
     this does not mean that we should not apply an antenna polarization
     correction in the analysis of UWB effects to SDARS reception.
     Consequently, the use of the 3 dB cross polarization loss is
     appropriate.

113. With regard to the thermal noise of SDARS receivers, the
     petitioners base their calculations on the use of narrow-beam
     antennas pointed at the satellites rather than on the
     omnidirectional antennas employed by SDARS receivers. The use of
     omnidirectional antennas, especially in urban environments where
     there is the greatest potential to encounter a nearby UWB emitter,
     justifies basing the thermal background noise level on a
     temperature of 290º K. This results in a thermal noise floor of
     -114 dBm/MHz. The noise figure of the receiver employed by XM,
     based on it earlier comments, is 1.2 dB resulting in a receiver
     noise floor of -112.8 dBm/MHz or -109 dBm over the 2 MHz bandwidth
     of the XM receiver.[^283] Based on the receiver noise temperatures
     submitted by the petitioners and the comments of XSI, it appears
     that the noise figure for the Sirius SDARS receiver is 1.85 dB,
     resulting in a receiver thermal noise floor of -112.8
     dBm/MHz.[^284]

114. Requiring the signal from the UWB device not to exceed the lower
     noise floor of ‑112.8 dBm/MHz and applying the 3 dB antenna cross
     polarization results in the same maximum separation distances that
     were specified in the *R&O*. These maximum separation distances are
     2.7 meters for outdoor hand held UWB devices and vehicular radars,
     6.8 meters for through-wall imaging systems operating below 960
     MHz, 8.6 meters for GPRs, wall imaging systems, medical imaging
     systems, and indoor devices, 9.7 meters for the new public safety
     imaging system,[^285] and 27 meters for surveillance systems.[^286]
     Upon recalculating these values, we believe that two additional
     points should be addressed. First, the gain of the SDARS antenna is
     3 dBi gain in the direction of the satellite while it is only 0 dBi
     in the horizontal direction, *i.e.*, the direction of the UWB
     emitter.[^287] Thus, 3 dB of additional signal rejection should be
     applied to the UWB emissions. Second, the calculations in the *R&O*
     were based on the emission from the UWB device not exceed the
     thermal noise floor of the SDARS receiver. We believe that these
     calculations should be redone employing a UWB signal level 6 dB
     below the SDARS receiver noise floor. Using these additional
     parameters, the following maximum separation distances are
     obtained: 3.8 meters for outdoor hand held UWB devices and
     vehicular radars; 9.7 meters for through-wall imaging systems
     operating below 960 MHz; 12 meters for GPRs, wall imaging systems,
     medical imaging systems, and indoor devices; 13.6 meters for the
     new public safety imaging system; and 38.5 meters for surveillance
     systems.

115. While some of the above calculated maximum separation distances may
     appear to be excessive, we note that they are based on worst case
     conditions. It is likely that there would be additional attenuation
     of the UWB emissions due to the presence of intervening objects,
     including the head, hands or body of the person using the UWB
     transmitter, along with misalignment of the UWB transmitting
     antenna and the SDARS receiving antenna. Further, these separation
     distances are based on the distance necessary for the UWB emission
     not to exceed 6 dB below the thermal noise floor of the SDARS
     receiver. It is likely that the signal from the SDARS satellite
     would be more than 4 dB above this thermal noise floor.[^288] As
     indicated in the comments, the SDARS link budget provides for
     blockage, fading and foliage attenuation, which will not occur at
     all times. Accordingly, it is likely that the needed separation
     distances would be considerably shorter than those calculated.
     There are additional factors that will further shorten these
     separation distances, as detailed below.

116. The largest calculated maximum separate distance of 38.5 meters,
     and the correspondingly greatest perceived threat of harmful
     interference, is that of surveillance systems. However, we do not
     believe that surveillance systems will present an unacceptable risk
     of harmful interference to SDARS reception. Surveillance systems,
     as described by Time Domain, would be used to detect the motion of
     persons or objects within a protected area and would not be placed
     where there is frequent and allowable motion of objects, persons,
     or animals, such as along streets, as this would destroy the
     utility of the system. Thus, surveillance systems would be used to
     protect areas that are "off limits," and the probable location
     would be well behind a fence or other obstacle far from a roadway
     or from general pedestrian areas. Further, it is likely that the
     area in which an outside surveillance system is employed would be
     clear of obstructions, enabling visual observation as well as
     electronic means. In this case, there would be no blockage or
     foliage to reduce the SDARS link budget. Based on this, we believe
     the probability generally is quite low that persons using SDARS
     receivers would come near enough to a UWB surveillance system to
     experience interference problems.

117. After surveillance systems, the new UWB public safety imaging
     systems being allowed in this MO&O result in the next largest
     calculated maximum separation distance, 13.6 meters. We do not
     believe that these devices constitute a threat of harmful
     interference to SDARS reception. UWB public safety imaging systems
     would be controlled by a licensed public safety operator and would
     be used in emergency circumstances where it is highly unlikely that
     the general public would be allowed to be in the immediate
     vicinity. Moreover, operation of such equipment generally will be
     only on a short term basis at the sites of emergency incidents.

118. For GPRs, wall imaging systems, medical imaging systems, and
     indoor-only devices, we calculated a maximum separation of 12
     meters. For through-wall imaging systems operating below 960 MHz we
     calculate a maximum separation distance of 9.7 meters. Most of the
     energy from these UWB devices will be absorbed by the material
     through which they are transmitting or by surrounding walls or
     terrain. Wall imaging systems are employed in areas, such as bridge
     inspections, mine wall inspections and building ceiling
     inspections, where some blockage of the signal occurs before it
     could be received by a SDARS receiver. GPRs operate so low to the
     ground that their signal dissipates rapidly with distance.[^289]
     Medical imaging systems and indoor-only UWB systems both would be
     used indoors. We continue to believe, as stated in the *R&O*, that
     SDARS antennas used for satellite reception will be mounted
     principally outside rather than employed indoors. The additional
     building attenuation of emissions from indoor UWB devices will
     further protect SDARS receivers. With regard to the petitioners'
     claim that SDARS antennas may be employed indoors for the reception
     of satellite signals, we agree with XSI that the claims of the
     petitioners are inconsistent. If SDARS systems are capable of being
     used in areas not served by terrestrial repeaters with the antenna
     placed indoors, as indicated by the petitioners, a higher link
     budget would have to exist to overcome building attenuation and
     this would obviate the need for protection at the low emission
     limits the petitioners claim are necessary to avoid interference.

119. Finally, hand held UWB devices and vehicular radars appear to need
     a maximum separation distance of 3.8 meters from the SDARS
     receiver. We do not consider this separation requirement to be
     excessive. While it is possible that a person would operate a hand
     held UWB device in a vehicle at the same time as receiving SDARS
     signals, it remains unlikely that interference would occur[^290]
     since the emissions from hand held devices are required to be
     attenuated to -51.3 dBm at the point where the emission rolls off
     to 3.1 GHz. Because of the sinusoidal shape of the UWB emission,
     signals will be further attenuated at the frequencies of the SDARS
     band. Time Domain believes that this attenuation will result in the
     emissions in the SDARS bands from hand held devices being about 30
     dB below the Part 15 general emission limits. Even if the amount of
     attenuation is not as great as that claimed by Time Domain, we
     believe that the maximum separation distance needed to protect
     SDARS reception would be considerably less than the calculated 3.8
     meters. Similarly, because vehicular radars operate above 22 GHz
     there will not be any intentional emissions in the SDARS bands from
     vehicular radars. Any emissions appearing in the SDARS bands will
     consist solely of spurious emissions. Because the limits applied to
     UWB devices are lower than those applied to other Part 15 devices,
     there is a lower potential for vehicular radar systems to cause
     interference to SDARS reception than there is from personal
     computers and other Part 15 devices. As noted by the petitioners
     themselves, UWB vehicular radar systems are unlikely to cause
     interference to SDARS. We also believe that the emissions in the
     SDARS bands from UWB devices other than the new public safety
     imaging systems and surveillance systems will appear to be spurious
     emissions as these emissions should be sufficiently removed from
     the fundamental emission which must be located below 960 MHz or
     above 3.1 GHz.

120. We also do not agree with the petitioners that there is a need for
     additional attenuation of UWB emissions to protect SDARS receivers
     from a cumulative or aggregate impact due to emissions from
     multiple UWB devices. As discussed in the *R&O*, we have found that
     no such cumulative impact will occur.[^291] Rather, the emissions
     from the nearest UWB emitter will dominate those from any other UWB
     devices in the area. Further, it is unlikely that multiple UWB
     devices would be operating in the same area at the same time due to
     the interference they would generate to each other's operation. The
     petitioners' argument that the Commission failed to explain why it
     did not perform an analysis of aggregate interference is simply
     incorrect. In this regard, the Commission noted NTIA's earlier
     study of emissions from multiple UWB devices along with XSI's
     demonstration that a single nearby emitter would dominate the
     aggregate impact.[^292]

121. Finally, we believe that radio frequency emissions from other
     sources will dominate the RF background noise level, further
     shortening the needed separation distances between UWB devices and
     SDARS receivers. As demonstrated by XSI, the levels of emissions
     generated in the SDARS bands by microwave ovens, based on NTIA's
     earlier study,[^293] may be higher than those produced by UWB
     devices. We also note that the fifth harmonic of Part 90 land
     mobile and Part 95 personal radio transmitters operating in the
     464-469 MHz band will appear in the SDARS band as will the third
     harmonics of TV transmitters and the new public safety and
     commercial transmitters operating on TV channels 64-65 (770‑782
     MHz) and the second harmonics of aeronautical radionavigation
     systems operating in the 1160‑1172.5 MHz band. In addition, Amateur
     Radio Service transmitters operate in bands adjacent to the SDARS
     frequencies without limits on the amount of spurious emission that
     may be radiated. The spurious emissions from these multiple RF
     sources are many orders of magnitude higher than the emission
     levels permitted from UWB devices and will tend to mask the
     emissions from UWB devices.

122. In response to the petitioners question as to why the Commission
     did not consider their request to employ a limit of 8.6 uV/m, as
     measured at 3 meters, we note that this technical request was
     submitted as an *ex parte* filing on February 7, 2002, over one
     year after the end of the comment period in this proceeding and
     only days prior to the Commission's final deliberations.
     Nevertheless, we have found that the limit requested by the
     petitioners is not needed to prevent harmful interference from UWB
     devices to SDARS reception. We also note that Sirius and XM have
     withdrawn their petition requesting the implementation of this
     emission limit for all Part 15 and 18 consumer products.[^294]

123. Based on the above analyses, we find no basis to require that the
     emissions from UWB devices be reduced to levels lower than what
     were adopted in the *R&O*. Accordingly, the Petition for Partial
     Reconsideration filed jointly by Sirius and XM is denied.

### UWB emissions in the FSS frequency bands 

124. The Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operates in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
     UWB devices are permitted to operate in this band at an emission
     level not to exceed -41.3 dBm/MHz.

125. [Petition]{.underline}. SIA filed a Petition for Reconsideration
     stating that the Commission's analysis in the *R&O* of the
     interference potential to the FSS in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band is
     inconsistent because it develops a protection criteria based on
     indoor UWB operation but also permits those devices to operate
     outdoors.[^295] SIA argues that the Commission relied on a building
     between the UWB emitter and the FSS earth station to serve as a
     buffer, but that this building attenuation cannot be assumed for
     outdoor UWB devices. It requests that the emissions from outdoor
     UWB devices be reduced in the FSS band, but does not specify a
     desired emission level. SIA also states that the Commission did not
     meaningfully address the minimum separation distances specified in
     the NTIA report for protecting FSS.[^296] According to SIA, the
     NTIA separation distances ranged from 630 meters to tens of
     kilometers. SIA states that it is inevitable that UWB devices will
     be operated at closer distances to FSS earth stations than those
     calculated by NTIA.

126. [Comments]{.underline}. XSI disagrees with SIA, stating that the
     Commission's rules requiring earth stations to be angled upwards by
     greater than 5 degrees raises the FSS antenna axis well above the 2
     meter height employed by NTIA for evaluating outdoor UWB devices
     and provides at least 10 dB of isolation from outdoor UWB
     devices.[^297] XSI therefore argues that the Commission was correct
     in its assessment because only an indoor UWB device, assumed to be
     operating at a height of 30 meters, represents a potential source
     of interference to FSS reception. XSI points out that the
     Commission noted that the FSS antenna would not point at a building
     since the building would block signals from the satellite.

127. [Discussion]{.underline}. In the R&O, the Commission relied upon an
     analysis of NTIA's calculations to demonstrate that it is unlikely
     that harmful interference would be caused to FSS systems from UWB
     devices.[^298] For a low-PRF UWB system operating outdoors at a 2
     meter elevation, an emission limit of ‑51 dBm was specified by
     NTIA; for a low-PRF UWB system operating outdoors at a 30 meter
     elevation, an emission limit of -77 dBm was specified by
     NTIA.[^299] The limits were based on NTIA's calculations employing
     an interference-to-noise ratio (I/N) of -10 dB. However, the
     Commission disagreed with the I/N employed by NTIA and instead used
     an I/N of 0 dB.[^300] SIA did not dispute the use of a 0 dB I/N.
     This resulted in the emission limits from UWB devices in the FSS
     bands having to be attenuated to ‑41 dBm for outdoor UWB systems at
     a 2 meter elevation and to -67 dBm for outdoor UWB systems at a 30
     meter elevation. Based on this analysis, the only UWB systems that
     exceed the NTIA calculated protection criteria are those at 30
     meter elevations.[^301] The Commission recognized that no outdoor
     UWB systems would be located 30 meters above a FSS antenna. UWB
     systems operating at this height are limited to systems located
     inside nearby buildings that themselves are at elevations higher
     than the FSS antenna. The attenuation from the building in which
     the UWB device is operating is 12 dB, resulting in a need to reduce
     the emissions from indoor UWB devices to ‑55 dBm, a level that is
     13.7 dB above the UWB emission limit of -41.3 dBm. However, FSS
     antennas are not pointed at a building, as the building would block
     the signals from the satellite. Based on the minimum FSS antenna
     performance standards,[^302] the main beam of the FSS antenna must
     be offset from a UWB device located within the building by
     4 degrees in the plane of the satellite and by 5 degrees in all
     other directions in order to achieve this additional 13.7 dB of
     attenuation. It is likely that the main beam of the FSS antenna is
     offset by at least 5 degrees from the building and by an even
     greater amount from a UWB device located within the building. Thus,
     the -41.3 dBm/MHz emission limit applied to UWB devices is
     sufficient to prevent harmful interference to FSS reception.

128. With respect to the separation distances calculated by NTIA and
     referenced by SIA in its petition, we note that these distances
     were based on output levels from UWB devices that considerably
     exceeded the limits proposed in the *Notice* or adopted in the
     *R&O*. Thus, the actual separation distances needed to prevent
     harmful interference are much smaller. Indeed, we have found that
     there is no threat of harmful interference from UWB systems
     operating under the current standards to FSS reception.
     Accordingly, we are denying SIA's Petition for Reconsideration.

129. On January 10, 2003, SIA submitted a technical analysis
     demonstrating a potential interference to FSS reception from peak
     emission levels radiated by UWB devices.[^303] Having reviewed the
     submission, we are not convinced that SIA's recent filing
     demonstrates that the operation of UWB devices will cause harmful
     interference to FSS receivers. We believe that the interference
     scenario employed by SIA is overly conservative. For example, SIA
     assumes that the FSS receivers will operate with the antennas
     directed low towards the horizon, that the area surrounding the FSS
     antennas will be clear of obstacles for wide separation distances
     enabling the UWB RF energy to propagate towards the FSS antenna
     without any shielding, that the UWB device will emit peak emissions
     on the FSS frequencies directly towards the satellite receiver at
     the maximum level permitted under the rules, and that the FSS
     antenna will be only 6 meters higher than the height of the UWB
     device. The SIA study also is based on an I/N ratio of -10 dB. We
     recognize that FSS antennas generally are mounted in areas that are
     not readily accessible to the general public, *e.g.*, in secured
     areas. We also note that SIA assumes that FSS receivers will
     respond fully to the peak emissions from UWB devices.

130. When the Commission established the UWB standards, it prohibited
     fixed outdoor infrastructures. As a practical matter, only hand
     held UWB devices are permitted to operate outdoors in the FSS
     frequency bands.[^304] These hand held devices would be used for
     peer to peer applications used to exchange data. High speed data
     transfers require the use of high pulse repetition frequencies
     which, in turn, result in the UWB devices having low
     peak-to-average ratios. Consequently, we believe that most outdoor
     UWB devices will be governed by the limit on the average emission
     levels and will not radiate emissions approaching the peak limit.
     Further, during inclement weather when the FSS receivers are
     receiving at the lowest emission levels from the satellite, it is
     unlikely that the hand held UWB devices will be operated outdoors.

131. Based on all of these factors, we are not convinced by SIA's latest
     submission that UWB devices will cause harmful interference to FSS
     reception or that the standards for UWB devices need to be changed.
     However, we intend to monitor closely the development of UWB
     devices and operations and will continue to examine interference
     issues as UWB products develop. We also intend to work with the FSS
     industry in developing an appropriate plan to perform further
     interference tests of UWB devices, including their potential impact
     on the reception of satellite signals. If our tests or other
     sources provide any indication that our standards are not adequate
     to protect any of the authorized radio services from harmful
     interference, we will take the appropriate action to protect those
     services.

### UWB emissions in the aviation frequency bands 

132. Except for vehicular radar systems, all UWB non-imaging devices
     operate in the 3.1‑10.6 GHz band at an emission level not to exceed
     -41.3 dBm/MHz.

133. [Petition]{.underline}. ARINC and ATA filed a joint Petition for
     Reconsideration requesting that all UWB operations, except for
     coordinated terrestrial imaging systems, be located above 5.5 GHz
     and that the average power limits between 3.1-5.5 GHz be reduced to
     -51.3 dBm for indoor UWB devices and to ‑61.3 dBm for handheld UWB
     devices.[^305] They submit that this change is necessary to protect
     aeronautical telemetry systems (2.31-2.39 GHz), airport
     surveillance radars (2.7-2.9 GHz), radio altimeters (4.2-4.4 GHz),
     airborne weather radars (2.9-30., 5.0-5.25, and 5.35-5.47 GHz), and
     microwave landing systems (5.0-5.25 GHz). They also request that
     the coordination information for UWB imaging systems be posted on
     the Internet to permit quick access by licensees and users of
     licensed services, including GPS users, to enable enforcement of
     the non-interference requirements.[^306] Finally, they request that
     all UWB devices, particularly consumer-oriented indoor and handheld
     devices, be labelled "Warning: Not for use on aircraft" with
     similar warnings to be placed in the operating manuals.[^307]

134. [Comments]{.underline}. XSI notes that all of the radio systems of
     concern to ARINC and ATA were thoroughly analyzed in the *R&O* or
     lie below 3.1 GHz and that the petition presents no technical basis
     for reconsideration.[^308] XSI also opposes the labelling
     requirement, indicating that the Commission already prohibits the
     operation of UWB devices on board aircraft. Further, XSI adds that
     hand held devices, the only type of UWB product that passengers
     could conceivably operate on board an aircraft, already are subject
     to stringent emission limits. XSI also notes that a labelling
     requirement would raise design and manufacturing concerns, that a
     label in English would limit distribution of the product, and that
     it is unlikely that labelling would significantly affect
     compliance.

135. [Discussion]{.underline}. We concur with XSI that the radio systems
     addressed by ARINC and by ATA were analyzed in the *R&O* or are
     below the frequency range employed by non-imaging UWB
     devices.[^309] ARINC and ATA provide no technical support for their
     claims that the operation of UWB devices under the adopted
     standards will result in harmful interference. Rather, their
     request to require uncoordinated imaging systems to operate above
     5.5. GHz is based solely on unsupported conjecture. Absent any
     evidence that UWB operation under the rules could result in harmful
     interference to the authorized radio services, we find no
     justification for the petitioners request to disseminate
     coordination information for imaging systems on the Internet. We
     also agree with XSI that there is no basis to require the labelling
     requested by ARINC and ATA. We are not persuaded that requiring UWB
     devices to be labelled that they are not for use on board aircraft
     would affect compliance. At the emission limits adopted in the
     *R&O*, it was determined that UWB systems would not be a source of
     potential harmful interference to aviation radio operations.
     However, the Commission prohibited their operation onboard aircraft
     out of an abundance of caution. Accordingly, we are denying the
     Petition for Reconsideration filed by ARINC and ATA.

### UWB emissions in the MDS and ITFS frequency bands

136. Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Instructional Television
     Fixed Services (ITFS) systems are permitted to operate in the
     2150-2162 MHz and 2500-2690 MHz bands.[^310] UWB through-wall
     imaging systems and surveillance systems are permitted to operate
     in these bands at an emission level not to exceed -41.3 dBm/MHz.
     Emissions from all other UWB devices must be attenuated to -51.3
     dBm/MHz or to -61.3 dBm/MHz, depending on the specific UWB
     equipment.

137. [Comments]{.underline}. In its comments, WCA supports the Petition
     for Reconsideration filed by Sprint, but only to the extent that it
     requests that the same UWB emission limits adopted for PCS also be
     applied in the 2150-2162 MHz and 2500-2690 MHz bands used for
     Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Instructional Television
     Fixed Service (ITFS).[^311] WCA objects to the UWB emission limits
     for the MDS and ITFS bands as well as to the rules permitting UWB
     through-wall imaging systems and surveillance systems to operate
     within these bands.[^312] It also asserts that the Commission's
     analysis of potential interference was based on an outmoded view of
     MDS/ITFS employing high-gain, directional antennas mounted without
     blockage between transmit and receive antennas, whereas now the
     large antennas have been replaced with smaller and lower power
     systems located at the customer's premise for two-way
     communications.[^313] Thus, WCA indicates that these products would
     be more susceptible to interference from UWB emissions. It states
     that MDS/ITFS now is similar to PCS systems and adds that like
     services must be accorded like regulatory treatment.[^314] Sprint
     concurs with WCA's comments.[^315]

138. XSI argues that WCA provides no technical support in its
     disagreement with the Commission's analysis and does not even state
     the UWB emission level it believes to be appropriate for the MMDS
     and ITFS bands.[^316] XSI adds that WCA ties its request to
     Sprint's petition regarding limits in the PCS band based on the
     justification that like services should be accorded like regulatory
     treatment.[^317] However, it notes that MMDS and ITFS are not like
     PCS, citing that PCS services are subject to a presumption of
     mandatory Title II regulation. XSI also notes that WCA did not
     reference the millions of RF products that are permitted to place
     emissions in the MMDS/ITFS frequency bands at levels 10 to 20 dB
     higher than the limits adopted for indoor and handheld UWB
     devices.[^318] Finally, XSI states that indoor, desktop MMDS/ITFS
     equipment will not operate at the same 35 mile range employed with
     outdoor-mounted video antennas, but rather will operate with a
     typical 1-3 mile cell architecture range with its greatest source
     of interference being other MMDS/ITFS systems.[^319] XSI points out
     that emissions from adjacent MMDS/ITFS stations can be as high as 8
     dBW at the edge of a 6 MHz wide channel and as high as 3 dBm in the
     center of a channel, overwhelming UWB signals. According to XSI, a
     MDS/ITFS receiver operating at the boundary of the licensed
     protected service area could be subject to an aggregate power flux
     density from MMDS/ITFS of -73 dBW/m^2^, a signal approximately 12
     dB more than can be expected from an indoor UWB emitter only one
     meter from the MMDS/ITFS receiver.

139. [Discussion]{.underline}. WCA provides no technical information
     regarding the operation of MDS/ITFS two-way communication systems
     nor does it provide technical information to bolster its claim that
     MDS/ITFS short range communication systems require additional
     interference protection.[^320] No information is provided to
     demonstrate that PCS operations, primarily using CDMA modulation,
     have any similarity to MDS/ITFS two-way stations. However, with the
     exception of through-wall imaging systems and surveillance systems,
     the emission levels from UWB devices permitted within the MDS and
     ITFS bands already are the same or are within 2 dB of the limits
     applicable to UWB emissions in the PCS bands. Because of the
     attenuation from the wall through which they are pointed, emissions
     from through-wall imaging systems are not expected to be a source
     of harmful interference. Surveillance systems are expected to be
     removed far enough from MDS/ITFS stations as to not be a concern,
     especially since the MDS/ITFS systems addressed by WCA are indoor
     systems and attenuation from the buildings in which they are
     located will lower the UWB emission levels.

140. We also note that the Commission, at the request of IPWireless,
     recently amended the rules to permit MDS/ITFS stations to emit
     higher level spurious emissions within their bands of
     operation.[^321] Originally, ITFS and MDS transmitters were
     required to attenuate their emissions by at least 40 dB at 250 kHz
     from the channel edge and by 60 dB at 3 MHz and beyond from the
     channel edge. At the request of the users of these devices, the
     Commission relaxed the spurious emission limits for response
     stations from -6 dBW/6 MHz to 40 dB or 33 + 10 log (P) dB,
     whichever is the lesser attenuation, at 250 kHz from the channel
     edge and to 60 dB or 43 + 10 log (P) dB, whichever is the lesser
     attenuation, at 3 MHz and beyond from the channel edge.[^322] An
     attenuation of 33 + 10 log (P) results in a limit of -3 dBm, and an
     attenuation of 43 + 10 log (P) results in a limit of -13 dBm. High
     power MDS/ITFS stations may emit even higher spurious emission
     levels, being subject only to the 40 dB and 60 dB attenuation caps.
     These limits are the levels conducted to the antenna and do not
     include the gain imparted by the antenna. Thus, the spurious
     emission limits applicable to MDS/ITFS stations will be
     considerably higher than the -41.3 dBm/MHz permitted from
     mid-frequency imaging systems and ever higher than the -50.3 to
     -61.3 dBm/MHz limits applied to all other UWB emitters.[^323]
     Accordingly, we concur with XSI that it appears that the unwanted
     emissions from the MDS/ITFS stations will dominate the background
     noise level and should effectively mask the low level emissions
     permitted from UWB devices. Absent any relevant technical
     information from WCA, we can reach no other conclusion.

141. In addition, we note that MDS and ITFS low power[^324] fixed
     stations now are permitted to employ omnidirectional antennas in
     response to a request from IPWireless.[^325] The use of such
     antennas were permitted originally under a waiver sought by
     Qualcomm that required all interference calculations involving the
     protection of low power, omnidirectional response stations to be
     performed as if those stations were using a directional antenna for
     reception. The requirement to employ directional antennas was
     intended to help minimize interference from one MDS/ITFS station to
     another. No consideration was given to the possibility that
     significant numbers of lower power response stations might be used
     as an integral part of an MDS or ITFS two-way system. The rules
     still base interference considerations on a 0.6 meter parabolic
     antenna and require the installation of a more suitable, *i.e.*,
     greater directionality, antenna should interference occur.[^326]
     WCA provides no discussion on the relevance of this requirement and
     its resulting exposure of MDS/ITFS to greater threats of harmful
     interference.

142. Based on the above, we find that WCA has not provided any
     justification to support its argument that MDS/ITFS stations need
     additional interference protection from UWB operations nor has it
     supplied any information regarding the operating parameters of its
     equipment to determine what alternative interference criteria might
     be relevant. Accordingly, we find no basis to support an additional
     attenuation of UWB emissions falling within the MDS/ITFS frequency
     bands and deny WCA's request.

## MSSI Petition for Reconsideration regarding non-UWB standards:

143. Under the rules, emissions from most Part 15 devices are measured
     using a CISPR quasi-peak detector. When an average emission limit
     is specified, the rules also specify a limit on the permitted
     amount of peak power equal to 20 dB more than the average
     limit.[^327] Unless otherwise specified, a quasi-peak limit applies
     to emissions below 1000 MHz and an average limit applies to
     emissions above 1000 MHz. In some cases, a pulse desensitization
     correction factor (PDCF) must be applied to the measurement of a
     peak level obtained from a spectrum analyzer in order to compensate
     for the analyzer's inability to respond fast enough to pulse widths
     narrower than the inverse of the resolution bandwidth. The PDCF can
     considerably increase the measured peak emission level. This
     standard was employed when Part 15 devices used narrowband
     emissions, and unfairly penalizes transmission systems that use a
     wide bandwidth.

144. [Petition]{.underline}. MSSI filed a Petition for Reconsideration
     requesting that peak emission measurements of its pulsed emission
     system operating under the non-UWB Part 15 regulations, *i.e.*,
     Subpart C of Part 15, be performed using a 1 MHz resolution
     bandwidth without the application of a pulse desensitization
     correction factor (PDCF).[^328] Alternatively, MSSI requests that
     the peak power limit applied to UWB systems be reduced to the limit
     permitted under Subpart C of Part 15, *i.e.*, -21.25 dBm EIRP
     instead of the maximum limit of 0 dBm/50 MHz that currently applies
     to such devices. MSSI believes that the application of a PDCF was
     not required for measurements above 1000 MHz prior to May 14,
     2002.[^329] It bases this belief on a statement contained in the
     Public Notice announcing a waiver granted to Time Domain
     Corporation, which stated that our rules require the application of
     a PDCF below 1000 MHz.[^330] MSSI argues that the rules do not
     specifically state that a PDCF is required for peak measurements
     above 1000 MHz.

145. [Comments]{.underline}. The US GPS Industry Council argues that
     granting MSSI's request to eliminate the use of a PDCF would result
     in peak power levels that are 41.25 dB higher than those specified
     in the rules.[^331] MSSI disagrees, pointing out that it is the
     fraction of the total power appearing within the victim receiver
     bandwidth that causes the interference.[^332]

146. [Discussion]{.underline}. Eliminating the requirement to apply a
     PDCF for measuring peak emissions was not addressed in this
     proceeding and, thus, is outside of its scope. In addition, MSSI is
     in error with its claim that a PDCF was not required for the
     measurement of emissions above 1000 MHz from a pulsed modulated
     system prior to May 14, 2002. As discussed throughout this
     proceeding, the previous Part 15 regulations that precluded the
     operation of UWB devices included a requirement to apply a
     PDCF,[^333] a prohibition against operation within the restricted
     bands,[^334] and a prohibition against damped wave emissions.[^335]
     Further, the requirement to apply a PDCF is contained in the
     instructions on how to operate a spectrum analyzer to measure
     pulsed emissions.[^336] The rule cited by MSSI, 47 C.F.R.
     § 15.35(b), requires the use of a 1 MHz resolution bandwidth to
     measure the peak emission level. However, the PDCF must be applied
     to that measured value if the conditions specified in HP
     Application Note 150-2 are met. MSSI is incorrect in its assertion
     that an incomplete statement contained in the Public Notice
     announcing the issuance of a waiver overturns the discussions
     throughout this proceeding and negates the operating instructions
     for a spectrum analyzer, which clearly state that the application
     of a PDCF is required for peak emission measurements. [^337]
     Accordingly, we are denying this portion of MSSI's Petition for
     Reconsideration. However, we agree with MSSI that the existing rule
     should be clarified rather than continue to rely on the spectrum
     analyzer operating instructions to indicate when a PDCF is
     required. We also recognize, as discussed in the *NOI* and in the
     *Notice*, that the existing peak limit for non-UWB operation is
     designed to accommodate narrowband systems and is not well suited
     to measure the operation of, or represent the interference
     potential of, recently-developed transmitters employing extremely
     wide bandwidths. Accordingly, we are proposing to amend the
     existing rule, as set forth below under the discussion on further
     rulemaking proposals, to provide a peak limit that will facilitate
     wide bandwidth transmission systems.

# Other Matters

147. [Ambient noise measurements]{.underline}. Subsequent to the public
     release of the UWB R&O in April, 2002, the Technical Research
     Branch (TRB) of the OET Laboratory Division commenced a measurement
     program to examine the existing levels of ambient RF signal energy
     present in the frequency bands used by GPS and Aeronautical
     Radionavigation systems. The objective of this effort was to
     empirically determine the ambient RF energy levels that would be
     experienced by a GPS receiver if it were operated at the
     measurement location within a time frame coincident with that over
     which the measurements were performed. In addition, spurious
     emissions generated by common electronic/electrical devices were
     also measured within the GPS frequency bands. This measurement
     effort represented a "first step" toward collecting the data
     necessary to perform an objective evaluation of assumptions
     inherent in the link budget analysis used to calculate the UWB
     emissions limit.

148. On October 22, 2002, a report documenting the results of this
     measurement effort was publicly released.[^338] The results
     indicate variability in the existing ambient RF environment within
     the GPS frequency bands, dependent upon the measurement location.
     In general, the ambient RF energy levels present within the indoor
     measurement locations were greater than those levels measured at
     outdoor locations. This was particularly evident within those
     indoor environments where a high density of computers and/or other
     electronic equipment were in operation. In many cases, the measured
     levels were significantly higher than the established UWB emissions
     limit. The results of the measurement of common
     electronic/electrical devices revealed spurious emissions within
     the frequency bands registered to GPS, often at levels in excess of
     the UWB emissions limit, but also typically removed from the pass
     band of most GPS receivers. While the data collected as a part of
     this effort raises questions with regard to assumptions in the link
     budget analysis, it was recognized that the data set is of limited
     scope. Thus, it was determined that the data set accumulated from
     this effort, when considered independently, was not sufficient to
     base a relaxation of the existing UWB emissions limit.

149. Upon release of the report, a thirty-day period was established to
     accept public comments on the TRB measurement program and results.
     Eight parties responded by posting comments to the docket during
     this period. Cingular Wireless LLC, the Ground Penetrating Radar
     Industry Coalition, the Public Safety Wireless Network, QUALCOMM
     Incorporated, RF Metrics Corporation, Time Domain Corporation, the
     United States GPS Industry Council, and XtremeSpectrum, Inc.
     responded during the open public comment period. Appendix D of this
     document contains the TRB staff replies to those comments submitted
     with regard to the TRB measurement program.

150. [Emissions from digital circuitry]{.underline}. We received an
     Application for Review of a grant of certification issued to Time
     Domain for its UWB transmitter along with an associated Request for
     Declaratory Ruling addressing the regulations regarding emissions
     from digital circuitry contained within UWB devices.[^339] While
     these filings are being addressed in separate actions,[^340] they
     demonstrate that we should clarify the regulation regarding limits
     on emissions produced by digital circuitry used within UWB
     devices.[^341] A precise description of the digital emission limits
     was provided in the *R&O*.[^342] However, the wording contained
     within the rules is not as clear. Accordingly, we are amending 47
     C.F.R. § 15.521(c) to more closely comport with the text of the
     *R&O*. As this change to the regulations is interpretative and only
     clarifies a standard that already has been adopted, prior notice
     and public comment are unnecessary.[^343]

151. [Additional filings]{.underline}. Cingular filed a pleading on
     February 12, 2003, styled as a \"Supplement to Petition for
     Reconsideration.\" This pleading raised a statutory argument
     regarding the Commission\'s authority to proceed with the
     authorization of UWB devices on an unlicensed basis. This pleading
     raised new arguments that were not contained in Cingular\'s
     original petition. Therefore, it is not really a supplement and
     constitutes a new petition for reconsideration that was filed
     untimely under Section 1.106(f) of the rules.[^344] Further, even
     if it could be considered a supplement, Cingular did not file a
     motion for leave to accept the late-filed pleading as is required
     by Section 1.106(f). Finally, based upon a review of the
     Commission's files and representations made to Commission staff by
     counsel for several parties participating in this proceeding, it
     appears that copies of this pleading were not served by Cingular on
     other parties to the proceeding. All other materials filed in this
     proceeding on a timely basis and in accordance with the
     Commission\'s rules have been considered.

152. [Rule organization]{.underline}. We have taken the opportunity
     provided by this rule making proceeding to reorganize the UWB
     regulations dealing with imaging systems. The original rules were
     separated into categories of low frequency imaging systems,
     mid-frequency imaging systems, and high frequency imaging systems.
     We have rewritten these rules along the operational categories of
     GPRs and wall imaging systems, through-wall imaging systems,
     surveillance systems and medical imaging systems. We believe that
     this reorganization provides clarity. As this reorganization does
     not encompass any actual changes to the standards contained in the
     regulations, prior notice and comment are not necessary.[^345]

# Further Notice of Proposed rule making

153. At this time, we do not intend to propose major changes to the UWB
     standards. We believe that any changes in these standards would be
     disruptive to the current industry product development efforts.
     However, as noted in the preceding text, the technical changes
     requested by MSSI and by Siemens VDO cannot be implemented without
     being addressed through a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
     We are proposing changes for the specific purposes of accommodating
     the MSSI and Siemens VDO systems because we believe that the types
     of operations desired by these manufacturers merit consideration
     for authorization under our rules. We also are proposing one change
     to the non-UWB Part 15 standards to more appropriately reflect the
     interference criteria that should be applied to wide bandwidth
     transmitters that do not operate under the UWB standards. Finally,
     we are proposing to eliminate the UWB definition, believing that
     this definition actually could result in an increased interference
     potential to the authorized services.

154. [Proposed changes to the UWB standards to accommodate the MSSI
     radar system]{.underline}. MSSI requests that UWB systems employing
     a low pulse repetition frequency (PRF) be permitted to operate in
     the 3.1 GHz to 10.6 GHz band for any type of application. MSSI
     specifically mentions vehicular radar systems as an example of such
     equipment. MSSI argues that low PRF systems have less potential to
     cause interference than UWB devices operating at a high PRF. We
     disagree. As demonstrated by NTIA, low PRF UWB systems can have a
     higher potential for causing interference than that of high PRF UWB
     systems.[^346] However, the interference potential of UWB systems
     is minimized based on the standards contained in the rules.
     Operation with a low PRF results in closer frequency spacing of the
     spectral emission lines. This, in turn, increases the probability
     that emissions will appear within the bandwidth of a victim
     receiver. However, two emission standards limit the interference
     potential of low PRF emitters. First, the average emission limit
     above 960 MHz is based on the use of a 1 MHz resolution bandwidth
     (RBW). While UWB systems operating with PRFs lower than 1 MHz will
     have multiple spectral lines contained within the 1 MHz RBW, the
     level of each spectral line will be reduced so that the total
     energy within the 1 MHz RBW does not exceed the emission limit.
     Second, there is a limit on peak emissions. As the PRF decreases,
     the peak to average ratio increases, as described in Appendix E of
     the *R&O*. As the PRF decreases below a certain level, depending on
     the RBW used to measure the peak emission, the peak limit becomes
     the defining standard and the average emission level generated in a
     1 MHz RBW decreases below the limit specified in the regulations.
     Accordingly, UWB devices employing a low PRF are limited in their
     output levels by the standard on peak emission levels, not by the
     standard on average emission levels.[^347] It does not appear that
     these issues were considered by NTIA in its calculations nor could
     they have been as the UWB standards had not been established when
     NTIA issued its report.

155. It appears that MSSI may have anticipated that its equipment would
     be permitted to operate under the new UWB rules. While we do not
     concur with MSSI that low PRF UWB systems have a lower interference
     potential than high PRF equipment, we believe that further public
     comment should be obtained on MSSI's request. Accordingly, we
     propose to amend the rules to permit the operation of any UWB
     product under the UWB standards currently designated for hand held
     devices[^348] as long as the PRF does not exceed 200 kHz and the
     equipment employs a pulsed or an impulse modulation. Comments are
     requested on whether a different PRF limit should be employed, if
     any other changes to the standards, including changes to the
     emission limits, are necessary to incorporate this addition to the
     type of UWB devices permitted to operate outdoors, or if the
     addition to the operation of outdoor UWB devices should be expanded
     only to include low PRF vehicular radar systems. Specific technical
     analyses supporting the comments are requested.

156. [Proposed changes to the UWB standards to accommodate the Siemens
     VDO radar system]{.underline}. Siemens requests that we amend our
     rules to permit the operation of frequency hopping systems as
     vehicular radar systems in the 22-29 GHz band.[^349] Siemens VDO
     requests that the radar systems be permitted to demonstrate
     compliance with the UWB definition and bandwidth requirements based
     on the bandwidth occupied by the transmitter over a 10 millisecond
     period. Siemens VDO also requests that vehicular radar systems be
     permitted to comply with the RMS average emission limits based on
     averaging over a 10 millisecond time period.

157. As indicated earlier in this MO&O, Siemens VDO provided information
     on its vehicular radar system in an *ex parte* filing submitted
     November 13, 2001. Our initial reaction is that the Siemens VDO
     system would not have any higher potential for causing harmful
     interference that would other UWB vehicular radar systems currently
     under development. We note Siemens VDO's claim that a 10
     millisecond "averaging time" for its frequency hopping vehicular
     radar signals would make them similar to the non-frequency hopped
     UWB devices when the integration time of space borne passive
     sensors is taken into account. However, this claim is not
     justified. There is a wide range of integration times possible for
     space borne passive sensors. For example, in the 23.6-24.0 GHz band
     the AMSR sensor has a 2.6 millisecond integration time while the
     AMSU-A sensor has integration times of 158-165 milliseconds.
     Furthermore, these integration times could change for future
     satellites.

158. We believe that the requested rule changes from Siemens VDO for its
     radar application should be proposed so that we might obtain public
     comment. However, we also are concerned that radar systems using
     slightly different modulation techniques or radar systems operating
     in different bands where the victim receiver characteristics are
     different may have different interference potentials. Because of
     these interference concerns, we are not proposing to permit the use
     of frequency hopping systems under the UWB rules for any
     application other than vehicular radar systems operating in the
     22-29 GHz band.

159. Our primary concern is not that the Siemens VDO equipment does not
     comply with the definition of a UWB system. Rather, we are
     concerned that the Siemens VDO radar system does not comply with
     the UWB standards using the measurement procedures currently
     employed for frequency hopping systems.[^350] Thus, we are
     concerned about the possible interference aspects of this type of
     operation. For example, a UWB vehicular radar system that complies
     with the existing regulations will place a low level emission on a
     frequency at any given time. However, the Siemens VDO system
     momentarily will place a much higher level emission on that
     frequency. The Siemens VDO system depends on a time averaging of
     the emission, based on the level of the emission, the number of
     hops, the occupancy time at any given frequency, and the time
     period over which the emissions are averaged to demonstrate
     compliance with the average emission limits. The emission level
     being measured may not be a true RMS average emission but could be
     more similar to a time averaged emission. Thus, a victim receiver
     with a fast transient response may be more susceptible to
     interference from the Siemens VDO system than from other UWB
     systems. Siemens indicates that EESS systems operating in the
     23.6‑24.0 GHz band will not be able to tell the difference between
     a distributed number of frequency hopping systems operating under
     the standards requested by Siemens VDO and a similarly distributed
     number of wideband radars complying with existing vehicular radar
     standards. However, we are concerned about the potential impact on
     terrestrial users which may be exposed to relatively few, but
     nearby, vehicular radars as well as the impact to EESS operations.
     We request comments on whether the higher instantaneous power
     delivered by a frequency hopping system would cause harmful
     interference to these systems.[^351]

160. We are not proposing to change the emission limits currently
     applied to UWB vehicular radar systems. Rather, we are proposing
     new measurement techniques that may accommodate frequency hopping
     systems as UWB vehicular radars. We propose to permit frequency
     hopping systems to operate under the provisions for UWB vehicular
     radar systems provided the minimum UWB bandwidth is achieved in no
     greater than 10 milliseconds and the transmitter complies with all
     other technical standards for UWB operation in the 22-29 GHz band.
     Compliance with the average emission limit would be based on
     measurement using a one megahertz resolution bandwidth (RBW), a
     video bandwidth equal to or greater than the RBW, an RMS detector
     function, and a maximum 10 millisecond averaging time. The peak
     measurement would be required to be performed as currently
     specified in the rules using a peak hold detector and shall be
     performed over a sufficiently long period that the peak levels
     being measured cease increasing. Comments are requested on these
     proposed measurement procedures. For example, should the peak
     measurement be performed with the hopping sequence stopped; should
     a different averaging time be employed; should the averaging time
     be based on the number of hops and the dwell time of the hops; and
     should a maximum time be specified within which all hopping
     channels must be used?

161. Comments also are sought on the measurement procedure that would be
     used to demonstrate compliance with the UWB bandwidth limit.[^352]
     Siemens requests that the bandwidth be measured based on two
     different possible procedures described in the appendix to its
     petition.[^353] Both of the procedures suggested by Siemens are
     performed with the frequency hopping system active. However, we are
     concerned that those procedures may not indicate the actual
     bandwidth employed by the system and the corresponding distribution
     of RF energy, depending on various technical parameters of the
     actual hopping system, *e.g.*, the distribution of the hopping
     channels, the dwell times for the hops, the number of hopping
     channels, the separation of the channels, the bandwidth of a single
     hopping channel, the number of hops in a specified time period,
     etc. Thus, we propose that the bandwidth be measured by first
     measuring the -10 dB bandwidth of a single hopping channel based on
     use of a peak hold detector and a 1 MHz resolution bandwidth,
     determining how many non-overlapping hops occur within a
     10 millisecond period and multiplying the two values. Comments are
     requested on this proposed measurement procedure as well as the
     procedures described by the petitioner. Comments also are requested
     on any interference concerns that arise from this new modulation
     type or its method of measurement. The comments should address
     specific interference concerns such as possible interference to
     Amateur Radio Service operations, including amateur satellite
     systems, to EESS operation, and to police radar operations and
     should include a technical justification. We request comments on
     whether the compliance measurement procedure proposed by the
     petitioner is applicable only to systems that are similar to its
     vehicular radar system or if they are applicable to vehicular radar
     systems in general. Do the various system parameters need to be
     limited to a specific range of values for the measurements to be
     meaningful? If so, what is the range of parameters over which the
     limits are to be applied? Can a general measurement procedure be
     developed that is applicable for a full range of system parameters?
     If so, what is this measurement procedure? The measurement
     procedure proposed by the petitioner involves a power measurement
     over a 10 millisecond averaging time period. Comments are requested
     as to whether these time averaged measurements should be made using
     a spectrum analyzer in a swept frequency mode or should the
     spectrum analyzer be stepped across the frequency band of interest
     in discrete steps with a defined dwell time at each step. Comments
     also are requested on the adequacy of the measurement results for
     the purpose of quantifying the impact to systems that could receive
     interference from the frequency hopping vehicular radar systems.
     Comments also are requested on any limits that should be applied to
     the number of hopping channels, the maximum occupancy time
     permitted for a hopping channel during any full hopping sequence,
     the maximum time it takes to complete a full hopping sequence, and
     any other pertinent technical characteristics.

162. [Proposed changes to the non-UWB standards to accommodate wideband
     Part 15 transmitters]{.underline}. Throughout this proceeding, the
     Commission recognized that the peak emission limit specified in 47
     C.F.R. § 15.35(b) was established based on the operation of
     narrowband transmission systems and may unfairly penalize some
     wideband operations. MSSI has provided an example of a wideband
     system that could operate under the Part 15 average general
     emission limits but cannot comply with the peak emission limit due
     to the wide bandwidth of the transmission. For Part 15 devices
     other than UWB devices, the total peak output power of the
     transmission must be measured. The UWB standards permit the peak
     power to be measured over a specified bandwidth, rather than over
     the entire bandwidth of the transmission. As stated in the *R&O*,
     the total peak power produced by the UWB device is not relevant to
     interference potential as there are no receivers employed in the
     authorized radio services that operate at the bandwidths used by
     UWB systems.[^354] The widest bandwidth that would be employed by
     victim radio receivers is about 50 MHz. We believe that the current
     limit on peak emissions from Part 15 intentional radiators could be
     amended to reflect a limit similar to that adopted in the *R&O* for
     UWB systems. This would eliminate the bias under the Part 15
     regulations towards narrowband operation.

163. Under the UWB regulations, the EIRP limit on peak emissions is 0
     dBm based on the use of a 50 MHz resolution bandwidth (RBW). [^355]
     A lower RBW may be employed, down to as low as 1 MHz, provided the
     peak limit is similarly reduced to the level 20 log (RBW/50) dBm
     EIRP, where RBW is the resolution bandwidth in megahertz. UWB
     systems also must operate with a -10 dB fractional bandwidth of at
     least 0.2 or have a -10 dB bandwidth of at least 500 MHz, whichever
     is less .[^356] Below 2.5 GHz, the fractional bandwidth is dominant
     and above 2.5 GHz the 500 MHz bandwidth limit dominates. Because we
     appear to be dealing primarily with systems operating above 2.5
     GHz, we will employ the 500 MHz minimum UWB bandwidth as a
     guideline for simplicity. Thus, the maximum resolution bandwidth
     that is used to measure peak limit for UWB emitters is one-tenth of
     the minimum UWB bandwidth. Accordingly, it appears that a peak
     limit, equivalent to the UWB standards, can be established for
     conventional Part 15 devices based on a limit of 20 log (RBW/50)
     dBm EIRP where RBW is the resolution bandwidth of the measurement
     instrument in megahertz and where RBW must not be greater than
     one-tenth of the -10 dB bandwidth of the emission being measured.

164. We propose to amend 47 C.F.R. § 15.35(b) to clarify the existing
     requirements as requested by MSSI, and to provide an alternative
     standard for wideband Part 15 transmission systems. Specifically,
     we propose to amend 47 C.F.R. § 15.35(b) to read as follows:

     \(b\) Unless otherwise specified, on any frequency or frequencies
     above 1000 MHz, the radiated emission limits are based on the use
     of measurement instrumentation employing an average detector
     function. Unless otherwise specified, average measurements above
     1000 MHz shall be performed using a minimum resolution bandwidth of
     1 MHz. When average radiated emission measurements are specified in
     this part, including emission measurements below 1000 MHz, there
     also is a limit on the peak radio frequency emissions. UWB devices
     operating under Subpart F of this part shall comply with the peak
     limits specified in that subpart. For all other Part 15 devices
     subject to limits based on average radiated emissions, the peak
     level shall comply with one of the following two levels, at the
     option of the responsible party:

     \(1\) Unless a different peak limit is specified in the rules,
     *e.g.*, see § 15.255 of this chapter, the total peak power shall
     not exceed by more than 20 dB the average limit permitted at the
     frequency being investigated. Note that a pulse desensitization
     correction factor may be required to measure the total peak
     emission level.

     \(2\) The peak power shall not exceed an EIRP of 20 log (RBW/50)
     dBm where RBW is the resolution bandwidth in MHz employed by the
     measurement instrument. The RBW may not be lower than 1 MHz or
     greater than 50 MHz. Further, the RBW used in the measurement
     instrument shall not be greater than one-tenth of the -10 dB
     bandwidth of the device under test.

165. Comments are requested on this proposal. Comments also are
     requested on the alternative proposal presented by MSSI, namely
     should the rules be amended to permit devices operating above 1000
     MHz under the Part 15 general emission standards in 47 C.F.R. §
     15.209 to comply with a peak emission limit of 5000 uV/m at 3
     meters based on a measurement using a peak detector, a 1 MHz
     resolution bandwidth and a video bandwidth no less than 1 MHz? We
     request comments on any changes to the interference potential of
     wideband Part 15 devices that may occur as a result of these
     proposals. Technical support is requested for comments arguing
     interference concerns.

166. [UWB definition]{.underline}. We are sympathetic to the concerns
     expressed by MSSI, Siemens and others throughout this proceeding
     regarding the changes in operational standards for unlicensed
     devices that may apply simply due to the bandwidth of the
     transmission system. The Commission's standards in Part 15 need to
     reflect limits that reduce the potential for causing harmful
     interference to authorized radio services. While the emission
     limits applied to UWB operations ensure a low probability of
     causing harmful interference, they also require that the
     transmissions occupy a minimum bandwidth of 500 MHz or a minimum
     fractional bandwidth of 0.20. This minimum bandwidth requirement
     could cause a manufacturer to design transmitters that occupy more
     bandwidth than is operationally necessary or transmitters that
     inject noise to increase the occupied bandwidth simply to permit
     operation under the UWB regulations. Such systems would place
     greater energy in frequency bands where operation is not necessary
     for the system to function. Thus, a minimum bandwidth standard can
     be counterproductive to reducing the potential for harmful
     interference.[^357] For this reason, we are proposing to eliminate
     the definition of an ultra-wideband transmitter in 47 C.F.R. §
     15.503(d). In its place, we would permit the operation of any
     transmission system, regardless of its bandwidth, as long as it
     complies with the standards for UWB operation set forth in Subpart
     F of 47 C.F.R. Part 15. We also propose to change the limit on peak
     power to the same limit we proposed above for non-UWB operation.
     This will ensure that excessive peak power levels are not permitted
     from narrowband systems.[^358] Comments are requested on this
     proposal. We request comments on any potential increase or decrease
     in interference potential to authorized radio services that could
     be caused by the adoption of this proposal. The comments should
     address the interference potential from narrowband systems
     operating under the UWB regulations. The comments also should
     address whether additional standards, such as a spectral power
     density limit based on a bandwidth narrower than 1 MHz, are needed.
     All comments should be based on a technical analysis of the
     interference potential.

# Administrative Provisions

## Memorandum Opinion and Order

167. [Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis]{.underline}. This
     Memorandum Opinion and Order contains a modified information
     collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
     Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management
     and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB,
     the general public and other Federal agencies are invited to
     comment on the modified information collection contained in this
     proceeding.

168. [Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification]{.underline}. The
     Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)[^359] requires
     that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking
     proceedings, unless the agency certifies that \"the rule will not
     have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
     entities.\"[^360] The RFA generally defines \"small entity\" as
     having the same meaning as the terms \"small business,\" \"small
     organization,\" and \"small governmental jurisdiction.\"[^361] In
     addition, the term \"small business\" has the same meaning as the
     term \"small business concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^362]
     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).[^363]

169. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we are responding to fourteen
     petitions for reconsideration regarding new rules adopted to permit
     the marketing and operation of new products incorporating
     ultra-wideband (\"UWB\") technology. UWB devices operate by
     employing very narrow or short duration pulses that result in very
     large or wideband transmission bandwidths. With appropriate
     technical standards, UWB devices can operate on spectrum occupied
     by existing radio services without causing interference, thereby
     permitting scarce spectrum resources to be used more efficiently.
     Further, as noted in the text we have continued to apply
     conservative limits to the standards applicable for UWB operation,
     until such time as we gain additional experience, to ensure that
     harmful interference would not be caused to other radio spectrum
     users. Further, the changes adopted in this proceeding will not
     affect any party legally manufacturing or marketing UWB devices.
     Thus, we expect that our actions do not amount to a significant
     economic impact. Accordingly, we certify that the rules being
     adopted in this Memorandum Opinion and Order will not have a
     significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
     entities.

170. We will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, including
     a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a
     report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review
     Act.[^364] In addition, the Memorandum Opinion and Order and this
     certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
     Small Business Administration, and will be published in the Federal
     Register.[^365]

171. [Ordering Clauses]{.underline}. IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions
     for Reconsideration from MSSI, Siemens VDO, Time Domain, AGA and
     APGA, GPRIC, GPR Providers, and NUCA ARE GRANTED to the extent
     described above. IT ALSO IS ORDERED that the Petitions for
     Reconsideration from Kohler, MSSI, Siemens, GPRIC, GPR Providers,
     Cingular, Qualcomm, Sprint, Sirius and XM, ARINC and ATA, and SIA
     ARE DENIED to the extent described above. IT ALSO IS ORDERED that
     Part 15 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations IS AMENDED as
     specified in Appendix B, effective 30 days after publication in the
     Federal Register. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i),
     302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act
     of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 302, 303(e),
     303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307.

172. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
     Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
     SEND a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the
     Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel
     for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

## Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making

173. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
     U.S.C. § 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
     Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small
     entities of the proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is
     set forth in Appendix A. Written public comments are requested on
     the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same
     filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Further Notice of
     Proposed Rule Making *("*Further Notice*")*, but they must have a
     separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the
     IRFA. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference
     Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Further Notice,
     including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
     Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the
     Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

174. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking
     proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are permitted, except during
     the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided
     in the Commission\'s rules. *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202,
     1.1203, and 1.2306(a).

175. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47
     C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on
     or before **90 days after date of publication in the Federal
     Register** and reply comments on or before **120 days after date of
     publication in the Federal Register**. Comments may be filed using
     the Commission\'s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
     <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>, or by filing paper copies.
     *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63
     Fed. Reg. 23,121 (1998).

176. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
     via the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>.
     Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
     If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of
     this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic
     copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced
     in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters
     should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and
     the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
     an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing
     instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e‑mail
     to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should including the following words in the
     body of the message, \"get form \<your e-mail address.\" A sample
     form and directions will be sent in reply.

177. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
     copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
     appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit
     two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
     number. All filings must be sent to the Commission\'s Secretary,
     Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
     Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., TW‑A325, Washington, D.C. 20554.
     Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
     during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center of the
     Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-A306, 445 12th Street,
     S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

178. 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 USC Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f),
     303(r), 304, and 307.

179. For further information regarding this Memorandum Opinion and Order
     and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, contact John A. Reed,
     Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2455,
     <jreed@fcc.gov>.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

     Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**Appendix A**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,[^366] the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the expected significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making *("*Further Notice*")*. Written public comments are requested on
the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must
be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice provided in
paragraph 175 of the item. The Commission shall send a copy of this
Further Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition, the Further Notice and the
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.[^367]

**A. Reason for Action.**

This rulemaking 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 if
its standards should be amended to permit the operation of vehicular
radar and other low-pulse repetition frequency outdoor UWB devices in
the 3.1-10.6 GHz band and to permit the operation of frequency hopping
vehicular radar systems in the 22-29 GHz band under the UWB regulations.
It also seeks to amend the peak power limit on non-UWB unlicensed
devices.

**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 10 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 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.[^368] The RFA generally
defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms
"small business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction."[^369] In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business
Act.[^370] 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).[^371]

A small organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field."[^372] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.[^373] "Small governmental jurisdiction"[^374]
generally means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than 50,000."[^375] As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006
governmental entities, total, in the United States.[^376] This number
includes 38,978 cities, counties, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96%,
have populations of fewer than 50,000.[^377] 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 (96%)
are small entities. Nationwide, as of 1992, there were 4.44 million
small business firms, according to SBA data.[^378]

The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms
within the two broad economic census categories of Paging[^379] and
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. [^380] Under both SBA
categories, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for
1997 show that there were 1320 firms in this category, total, that
operated for the entire year.[^381] Of this total, 1303 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 17 firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^382] Thus, under this category
and associated small business size standard, the great majority of firms
can be considered small. For the census category Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications firms, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that
there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the
entire year.[^383] Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more.[^384] Thus, under this second category and size
standard, the great majority of firms can, again, be considered small.

The SBA has established a small business size standard for *Radio and
Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing*. Under this standard, firms are considered small if they
750 or fewer employees.[^385] Census Bureau data for 1997 indicate that,
for that year, there were a total of 1,215 establishments in this
category.[^386] Of those, there were 1,150 that had employment under
500, and an additional 37 that had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under
this size standard, the majority of establishments can be considered
small.

*SatelliteTelecommunications* The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Satellite Telecommunications Carriers, which consists
of all such companies having \$12.5 million or less in annual
receipts.[^387] In addition, a second SBA size standard for Other
Telecommunications includes "facilities operationally connected with one
or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting
telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite
systems," [^388] and also has a size standard of annual receipts of
\$12.5 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there
were 324 firms in the category Satellite Telecommunications, total, that
operated for the entire year.[^389] Of this total, 273 firms had annual
receipts of \$5 million to \$9,999,999 and an additional 24 firms had
annual receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,990.[^390] Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. In
addition, according to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 439 firms
in the category Satellite Telecommunications, total, that operated for
the entire year.[^391] Of this total, 424 firms had annual receipts of
\$5 million to \$9,999,999 and an additional 6 firms had annual receipts
of \$10 million to \$24,999,990.[^392] Thus, under this second size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

As no party currently is permitted to market or operate the proposed UWB
standards, there will not be any impact on any small entities. On the
other hand, the proposed change in the limit on peak power levels may
relax the current emission limit for wideband transmission systems. The
Commission does not have an estimated number for the small entities that
may produce such products but believes that there are only a few in
existence.

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities.**

Part 15 transmitters are already required to be authorized under the
Commission\'s certification procedure as 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. The change in the method of measuring peak power for
wideband transmitters will result in a slight relaxation of the peak
power limit standard on these devices.

**E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered.**

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives
(among others): "(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 and reporting
requirements under the rule for such 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 such small
entities."[^393]

The standards proposed in this proceeding are based on equipment
performance and not on equipment design. As no party currently is
permitted to market or operate the proposed UWB standards, there will
not be any impact on any small entities. On the other hand, the proposed
change in the limit on peak power levels may relax the current emission
limit for wideband transmission systems.

**F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rule.**

None.

**Appendix B**

**Changes to the Regulations**

Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 15, is amended as
follows:

1\. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.

2\. Section 15.509 is replaced, to read as follows:

Section 15.509 [Technical requirements for ground penetrating radars and
wall imaging systems]{.underline}.

\(a\) The UWB bandwidth of an imaging system operating under the
provisions of this section must be below 10.6 GHz.

\(b\) Operation under the provisions of this section is limited to GPRs
and wall imaging systems operated for purposes associated with law
enforcement, fire fighting, emergency rescue, scientific research,
commercial mining, or construction.

\(1\) Parties operating this equipment must be eligible for licensing
under the provisions of Part 90 of this chapter.

\(2\) The operation of imaging systems under this section requires
coordination, as detailed in Section 15.525 of this part.

\(c\) A GPR that is designed to be operated while being hand held and a
wall imaging system shall contain a manually operated switch that causes
the transmitter to cease operation within 10 seconds of being released
by the operator. In lieu of a switch located on the imaging system, it
is permissible to operate an imaging system by remote control provided
the imaging system ceases transmission within 10 seconds of the remote
switch being released by the operator.

\(d\) The radiated emissions at or below 960 MHz from a device operating
under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the emission
levels in Section 15.209. The radiated emissions above 960 MHz from a
device operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed
the following average limits when measured using a resolution bandwidth
of 1 MHz:

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Frequency in MHz                     | EIRP in dBm                   |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 960-1610                             | -65.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 1610-1990                            | -53.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 1990-3100                            | -51.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 3100-10600                           | -41.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| Above 10600                          | -51.3                         |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

\(e\) In addition to the radiated emission limits specified in the table
in paragraph (d) of this section, UWB transmitters operating under the
provisions of this section shall not exceed the following average limits
when measured using a resolution bandwidth of no less than 1 kHz:

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Frequency in MHz                     | EIRP in dBm                   |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 1164-1240                            | -75.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 1559-1610                            | -75.3                         |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

\(f\) For UWB devices where the frequency at which the highest radiated
emission occurs, f~M~, is above 960 MHz, there is a limit on the peak
level of the emissions contained within a 50 MHz bandwidth centered on
f~M~. That limit is 0 dBm EIRP. It is acceptable to employ a different
resolution bandwidth, and a correspondingly different peak emission
limit, following the procedures described in Section 15.521.

3\. A new Section 15.510 is added to read as follows:

Section 15.510 [Technical requirements for through-wall imaging
systems]{.underline}.

\(a\) The UWB bandwidth of an imaging system operating under the
provisions of this section must be below 960 MHz or the center
frequency, f~C~, and the frequency at which the highest radiated
emission occurs, f~M~, must be contained between 1990 MHz and 10600 MHz.

\(b\) Operation under the provisions of this section is limited to
through-wall imaging systems operated by law enforcement, emergency
rescue or firefighting organizations that are under the authority of a
local or state government.

\(c\) For through-wall imaging systems operating with the UWB bandwidth
below 960 MHz:

\(1\) Parties operating this equipment must be eligible for licensing
under the provisions of Part 90 of this chapter.

\(2\) The operation of these imaging systems requires coordination, as
detailed in Section 15.525.

\(3\) The imaging system shall contain a manually operated switch that
causes the transmitter to cease operation within 10 seconds of being
released by the operator. In lieu of a switch located on the imaging
system, it is permissible to operate an imaging system by remote control
provided the imaging system ceases transmission within 10 seconds of the
remote switch being released by the operator.

\(4\) The radiated emissions at or below 960 MHz shall not exceed the
emission levels in Section 15.209. The radiated emissions above 960 MHz
shall not exceed the following average limits when measured using a
resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz:

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Frequency in MHz                     | EIRP in dBm                   |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 960-1610                             | -65.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 1610-1990                            | -53.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| Above 1990                           | -51.3                         |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

\(5\) In addition to the radiated emission limits specified in the table
in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, emissions from these imaging
systems shall not exceed the following average limits when measured
using a resolution bandwidth of no less than 1 kHz:

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Frequency in MHz                     | EIRP in dBm                   |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 1164-1240                            | -75.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 1559-1610                            | -75.3                         |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

\(d\) For equipment operating with f~C~ and f~M~ between 1990 MHz and
10600 MHz:

\(1\) Parties operating this equipment must hold a license issued by the
Federal Communications Commission to operate a transmitter in the Public
Safety Radio Pool under Part 90 of this chapter. The license may be held
by the organization for which the UWB operator works on a paid or
volunteer basis.

\(2\) This equipment may be operated only for law enforcement
applications, the providing of emergency services, and necessary
training operations.

\(3\) The radiated emissions at or below 960 MHz shall not exceed the
emission levels in Section 15.209 of this chapter. The radiated
emissions above 960 MHz shall not exceed the following average limits
when measured using a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz:

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Frequency in MHz                      | EIRP in dBm                  |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| 960-1610                              | -46.3                        |
|                                       |                              |
| 1610-10600                            | -41.3                        |
|                                       |                              |
| Above 10600                           | -51.3                        |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+

\(4\) In addition to the radiated emission limits specified in the
paragraph (d)(3) of this section, emissions from these imaging systems
shall not exceed the following average limits when measured using a
resolution bandwidth of no less than 1 kHz:

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Frequency in MHz                      | EIRP in dBm                  |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| 1164-1240                             | -56.3                        |
|                                       |                              |
| 1559-1610                             | -56.3                        |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+

\(5\) There is a limit on the peak level of the emissions contained
within a 50 MHz bandwidth centered on the frequency at which the highest
radiated emission occurs, f~M~. That limit is 0 dBm EIRP. It is
acceptable to employ a different resolution bandwidth, and a
correspondingly different peak emission limit, following the procedures
described in Section 15.521.

\(e\) Through-wall imaging systems operating under the provisions of
this section shall bear the following or similar statement in a
conspicuous location on the device:

> "Operation of this device is restricted to law enforcement, emergency
> rescue and firefighter personnel. Operation by any other party is a
> violation of 47 U.S.C. 301 and could subject the operator to serious
> legal penalties."

4\. Section 15.511 is replaced, to read as follows:

Section 15.511 [Technical requirements for surveillance
systems]{.underline}.

\(a\) The UWB bandwidth of an imaging system operating under the
provisions of this section must be contained between 1990 MHz and 10,600
MHz.

\(b\) Operation under the provisions of this section is limited to fixed
surveillance systems operated by law enforcement, fire or emergency
rescue organizations or by manufacturers licensees, petroleum licensees
or power licensees as defined in Section 90.7 of this chapter.

\(1\) Parties operating under the provisions of this section must be
eligible for licensing under the provisions of Part 90 of this chapter.

\(2\) The operation of imaging systems under this section requires
coordination, as detailed in Section 15.525.

\(c\) The radiated emissions at or below 960 MHz from a device operating
under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the emission
levels in Section 15.209. The radiated emissions above 960 MHz from a
device operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed
the following average limits when measured using a resolution bandwidth
of 1 MHz:

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Frequency in MHz                     | EIRP in dBm                   |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 960-1610                             | -53.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 1610-1990                            | -51.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 1990-10600                           | -41.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| Above 10600                          | -51.3                         |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

\(d\) In addition to the radiated emission limits specified in the table
in paragraph (c) of this section, UWB transmitters operating under the
provisions of this section shall not exceed the following average limits
when measured using a resolution bandwidth of no less than 1 kHz:

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Frequency in MHz                     | EIRP in dBm                   |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 1164-1240                            | -63.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 1559-1610                            | -63.3                         |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

\(e\) There is a limit on the peak level of the emissions contained
within a 50 MHz bandwidth centered on the frequency at which the highest
radiated emission occurs, f~M~. That limit is 0 dBm EIRP. It is
acceptable to employ a different resolution bandwidth, and a
correspondingly different peak emission limit, following the procedures
described in Section 15.521.

\(f\) Imaging systems operating under the provisions of this section
shall bear the following or similar statement in a conspicuous location
on the device:

> "Operation of this device is restricted to law enforcement, fire and
> rescue officials, public utilities, and industrial entities. Operation
> by any other party is a violation of 47 U.S.C. 301 and could subject
> the operator to serious legal penalties."

5\. Section 15.513 is replaced, to read as follows:

Section 15.513 [Technical requirements for medical imaging
systems]{.underline}.

\(a\) The UWB bandwidth of an imaging system operating under the
provisions of this section must be contained between 3100 MHz and 10,600
MHz.

\(b\) Operation under the provisions of this section is limited to
medical imaging systems used at the direction of, or under the
supervision of, a licensed health care practitioner. The operation of
imaging systems under this section requires coordination, as detailed in
Section 15.525.

\(c\) A medical imaging system shall contain a manually operated switch
that causes the transmitter to cease operation within 10 seconds of
being released by the operator. In lieu of a switch located on the
imaging system, it is permissible to operate an imaging system by remote
control provided the imaging system ceases transmission within 10
seconds of the remote switch being released by the operator.

\(d\) The radiated emissions at or below 960 MHz from a device operating
under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the emission
levels in Section 15.209. The radiated emissions above 960 MHz from a
device operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed
the following average limits when measured using a resolution bandwidth
of 1 MHz:

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Frequency in MHz                     | EIRP in dBm                   |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 960-1610                             | -65.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 1610-1990                            | -53.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 1990-3100                            | -51.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 3100-10600                           | -41.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| Above 10600                          | -51.3                         |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

\(e\) In addition to the radiated emission limits specified in the table
in paragraph (d) of this section, UWB transmitters operating under the
provisions of this section shall not exceed the following average limits
when measured using a resolution bandwidth of no less than 1 kHz:

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Frequency in MHz                     | EIRP in dBm                   |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 1164-1240                            | -75.3                         |
|                                      |                               |
| 1559-1610                            | -75.3                         |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

\(f\) There is a limit on the peak level of the emissions contained
within a 50 MHz bandwidth centered on the frequency at which the highest
radiated emission occurs, f~M~. That limit is 0 dBm EIRP. It is
acceptable to employ a different resolution bandwidth, and a
correspondingly different peak emission limit, following the procedures
described in Section 15.521.

6\. Section 15.521 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Section 15.521 [Technical requirements applicable to all UWB
devices]{.underline}.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) Emissions from digital circuitry used to enable the operation of
the UWB transmitter shall comply with the limits in Section 15.209 of
this chapter, rather than the limits specified in this subpart, provided
it can be clearly demonstrated that those emissions from the UWB device
are due solely to emissions from digital circuitry contained within the
transmitter and that the emissions are not intended to be radiated from
the transmitter's antenna. Emissions from associated digital devices, as
defined in Section 15.3(k) of this chapter, *e.g.*, emissions from
digital circuitry used to control additional functions or capabilities
other than the UWB transmission, are subject to the limits contained in
Subpart B of Part 15 of this chapter.

\* \* \* \* \*

7\. Section 15.525 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (e), to
read as follows:

Section 15.525 [Coordination requirements]{.underline}.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) The users of UWB imaging devices shall supply operational areas to
the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, which shall coordinate
this information with the Federal Government through the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration. The information
provided by the UWB operator shall include the name, address and other
pertinent contact information of the user, the desired geographical
area(s) of operation, and the FCC ID number and other nomenclature of
the UWB device. If the imaging device is intended to be used for mobile
applications, the geographical area(s) of operation may be the state(s)
or county(ies) in which the equipment will be operated. The operator of
an imaging system used for fixed operation shall supply a specific
geographical location or the address at which the equipment will be
operated. This material shall be submitted to the following address:

> Frequency Coordination Branch, OET
>
> Federal Communications Commission
>
> 445 12^th^ Street, SW
>
> Washington, D.C. 20554
>
> Attn: UWB Coordination

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) The FCC/NTIA coordination report shall identify those geographical
areas within which the operation of an imaging system requires
additional coordination or within which the operation of an imaging
system is prohibited. If additional coordination is required for
operation within specific geographical areas, a local coordination
contact will be provided. Except for operation within these designated
areas, once the information requested on the UWB imaging system is
submitted to the FCC no additional coordination with the FCC is required
provided the reported areas of operation do not change. If the area of
operation changes, updated information shall be submitted to the FCC
following the procedure in paragraph (b) of this section.

\(f\) \* \* \*

**Appendix C**

**Parties Filing Petitions for Reconsideration**

**of the First Report and Order**

1\. Aeronautical Radio, Inc. and Air Transport Association of America,
Inc. ("ARINC and ATA")

2\. American Gas Association and American Public Gas Association ("AGA
and APGA")

3\. Cingular Wireless LLC ("Cingular")

4\. GPR Service Providers Coalition ("GPR Providers")

5\. Ground Penetrating Radar Industry Coalition ("GPRIC")

6\. Kohler Co. ("Kohler")

7\. Multispectral Solutions, Inc. ("MSSI")

8\. National Utilities Contractors Association ("NUCA")

9\. QUALCOMM Inc. ("Qualcomm")

10\. Satellite Industry Association ("SIA")

11\. Siemens VDO Automotive AG ("Siemens VDO")

12\. Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. and XM Radio Inc. ("Sirius and XM")

13\. Sprint Corp. ("Sprint")

14\. Time Domain Corporation ("Time Domain")

**Comments and Reply Comments Filed in Response to the**

**Petitions for Reconsideration**

1\. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. ("AWS")

2\. Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation ("Delphi")

3\. Ground Penetrating Radar Industry Coalition ("GPRIC")

4\. Ground Penetrating Radar Service Providers Coalition ("GPR
Providers")

5\. Multispectral Solutions, Inc. ("MSSI")

6\. QUALCOMM Incorporated ("Qualcomm")

7\. Short Range Automotive Radar Frequency Allocation Group ("SARA")

8\. Siemens VDO Automotive AG ("Siemens VDO")

9\. Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. and XM Radio Inc. ("Sirius and XM")

10\. Sprint Corp. ("Sprint")

11\. Time Domain Corporation ("Time Domain")

12\. U.S. GPS Industry Council ("USGPSIC")

13\. Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. ("WCA")

14\. XtremeSpectrum, Inc. ("XSI")

Appendix D

Staff Response to Comments Received in Regards to the FCC Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET) Technical Research Branch (TRB)
Emissions Measurement Report

On October 22, 2002, the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
released a report documenting the results of a measurement program
performed by their Technical Research Branch (TRB).[^394] This report
("TRB Report") details a six-month effort to measure existing ambient
signal levels at a variety of locations as a first step toward
evaluating the underlying assumptions inherent in the derivation of the
UWB emission limits in the GPS frequency bands. Upon completion, the TRB
report was placed on the open docket (ET Docket No. 98-153) for public
review. A 30-day period was established for accepting comments to the
report. Eight parties responded by posting comments to the docket during
this period. The following list identifies the responding parties:
QUALCOMM Incorporated, the United States GPS Industry Council, RF
Metrics Corporation, Cingular Wireless LLC, XtremeSpectrum, Inc., Time
Domain Corporation, the Ground Penetrating Radar Industry Coalition, and
the Public Safety Wireless Network. This Appendix presents TRB staff
responses to these comments.

Many of the comments to the TRB measurement report pertain to possible
implications to the existing UWB policy associated with the measured
data. Since the TRB Report does not contain Policy recommendations, the
direct relevance of these comments with respect to the report is not
immediately clear. As stated in the TRB Report, the results of these
measurements are intended as a first step in collecting data required to
make an informed and objective assessment of existing UWB policy. Those
comments that pertain to policy issues are not addressed in the
responses that follow. Instead, the responses provided herein attempt to
address each of the received comments deemed pertinent to the TRB
report.

[Comments received from QUALCOMM Incorporated
("QUALCOMM")]{.underline}[^395]

"*Path Gain Calibration Inconsistent with Block Diagram*"[^396]

QUALCOMM used information from the block diagram in Figure 4-1 to
calculate the theoretical gain of the TRB measurement system. The result
of their calculation indicates a 5.8 dB discrepancy from the system gain
as shown in the calibration plot presented in Appendix A (Figure A-1) of
the TRB report. QUALCOMM also inquires as to the type of coaxial cable
used in the measurement system.

> The information presented in the block diagram provides the
> manufacturers' specification for each of the individual components
> used in the measurement system. The companion specifications table
> (Table 4-1) states the gain of the preamplifiers used in the
> measurement system as minimum values. Since the gain of an active
> amplifier is dependent on the operating frequency it cannot be
> precisely defined by a single value over a broad frequency range.
> Thus, the gain of an amplifier is typically specified in terms of the
> minimum value over the specified frequency range.

The fact that many of the components used in the measurement system
exhibit frequency dependence is precisely why measured calibration
curves were provided in the TRB report for each frequency band in which
field measurements were performed. It is not surprising that a
calculation of the overall system gain based on minimum specifications
differs from an actual measurement of the system gain at a discrete
frequency. Actual measurements are the only way to accurately determine
the overall measurement system characteristics over various discrete
frequency ranges.

The measurement system made use of one 25-ft section and three 3-ft
sections of Times Microwave Systems LMR-400 flexible shielded coaxial
cable with factory installed SMA connectors. The calibration
measurements were performed on the measurement system as a whole rather
than on each individual component; therefore, data was not collected
regarding the frequency-dependent signal attenuation associated with
each individual cable.

"*Bandpass Filter Out of Measurement Range*"[^397]

QUALCOMM states that the band-pass filter used in the measurement system
"*is shown to operate only up to 1500 MHz, whereas, the measurements
were performed in the GPS L1 band (1565-1585 MHz).*"[^398]

In order to accommodate these measurements, a band-pass filter was
necessary to pre-select the frequency band of interest. This was done
primarily to protect the first-stage preamplifier from a potential for
overload from strong ambient signals originating outside of the
frequency band under examination. The ambient signals of particular
concern were PCS emissions in the 1900 MHz range, cellular telephone
signals in the 800 MHz range, and Aeronautical Radio Navigation Service
(ARNS) signals in the 960-1215 MHz range. With respect to the GPS L1
frequency band (1563.42-1587.42 MHz), all of these known ambient signals
are at least 300 MHz removed in frequency. Thus the filter requirements
necessary to provide the pre-selection for those measurements performed
in the GPS L1 frequency band were somewhat relaxed.

The band-pass filter utilized in the TRB measurement system was tunable,
thus facilitating measurements over each of the frequency bands examined
as a part of the study. In order to examine the GPS L1 frequency band,
the filter was used slightly beyond the manufacturer's specification.
However, this does not indicate that the filter will not operate.
Rather, the effect of operating slightly outside of the specified
frequency range is that the specified filter characteristics cannot be
assured. In fact, it can be observed from the calibration curve (Figure
A-1) that the 3-dB bandwidth is slightly greater than the 50 MHz
specification when operated at 1575 MHz. However, since the ambient
signals of concern are all well removed from the frequency band under
examination, this was not considered a significant limitation.

A slight ripple can be observed at the upper end of the filter pass
band, also likely resulting from operating the filter outside of the
specified tuning range. However, since the GPS L1 registered frequency
band is 24 MHz wide, and the filter has a pass-band greater than 50 MHz,
it was possible to tune the filter to accommodate the measurement of the
GPS L1 frequency band with the ripple positioned outside of the
measurement band. Therefore, this was also determined not to be
significant.

The measured calibration curves presented in the TRB report provide the
most accurate characterization of the band-pass filter over each of the
frequency bands examined in the study. Figure A-1 clearly depicts the
characteristics of the filter over the GPS L1 frequency band.

"*Measurement System Noise Floor Not Shown*"[^399]

> QUALCOMM states that they "*tried to calculate the noise floor using 2
> methods (1) theoretically using typical values on the block diagram
> and (2) inferring the noise floor in the GPS L1 band using the
> calibration plot shown in Figure A-1 of Appendix A in the OET Staff
> Report...*" [^400]
>
> The noise figures associated with the measurement system are expressed
> in the block diagram and the associated specifications table in terms
> of the maximum value over the specified frequency range. Maximum
> values are specified because, like the gain, the noise figure of a
> component is also dependent on frequency, although the variation is
> typically less than the gain variation over the specified frequency
> range. Thus, the result of the QUALCOMM calculation of the
> "*theoretical noise floor*" (actually the operational sensitivity) of
> the measurement system, using the noise figure specifications, is
> fairly representative. This calculation yields a theoretical system
> sensitivity of --121 dBm.[^401]

QUALCOMM then attempts to "*infer the noise floor in the GPS L1 band
using the calibration plot shown in Figure A-1 of Appendix A in the OET
Staff Report*."[^402] We have several reservations with regard to this
approach to infer the noise floor from a system calibration curve. The
use of a calibration curve to perform this comparison is the likely
explanation for the stated disparity. The calibration curves were
produced by injecting a signal of known amplitude into the measurement
system (less the antenna) while sweeping the injected signal over a
frequency range adequate to demonstrate the frequency and amplitude
characteristics of the total measurement system. It is not possible to
deduce the noise floor of the system from these plots since the
influence of the injected signal in the skirts of the band-pass filter
cannot be determined. Another likely factor in the stated discrepancy is
that QUALCOMM determines the measured power at the band edge of the
calibration plot (*i.e.*,-45 dBm/MHz at 1475 MHz) and then applies the
system gain (including the antenna) as determined at 1575 MHz. But the
overall system gain was not calibrated at 1475 MHz and is likely not the
same as at 1575 MHz, since many of the components of the measurement
system are frequency-dependent.

A better approach for determining the measurement system operational
sensitivity at GPS L1 is to examine one or more of the plots produced
from those measurements of the L1 frequency band where no discernable
signals were detected (*e.g.*, C-15, C-22, C-29, etc.). Although it is
not specifically acknowledged, the QUALCOMM comments indicate that they
did in fact examine some of these plots leading to the statement:
"...*several of the FCC measurements show values as low as -122
dBm/MHz,...*"[^403]

> The result of the QUALCOMM calculation of the theoretical operational
> sensitivity of the measurement system yields a level of -121
> dBm/MHz.[^404] The measurement system sensitivity as determined from
> the actual measurement plots, rather than the calibration curves,
> indicates a noise floor of -122 dBm/MHz. This represents a 1 dB
> inconsistency and is certainly within the range of uncertainty
> associated with the TRB measurement system, or for that matter, with
> almost any system designed for performing field measurements of RF
> signal levels.

"*Questionable Spurious Emissions Plots of Part 15 Devices*"[^405]

> QUALCOMM states that they have "...*some concerns about the plots of
> the radiated spurious emissions obtained from some of the Part 15
> devices, specifically, the Electric Drill #1 and Electric Hair Dryer
> #1 measurements*."[^406] QUALCOMM maintains that the spectral
> characteristics are not what they would have expected when averaged
> over 100 sweeps and questions whether the spectrum analyzer traces may
> have been produced using the 'Maximum Hold' function of the analyzer.
>
> Irrespective of QUALCOMM engineers' expectations with regard to this
> data, the plots were indeed generated using the RMS average detector,
> and integrated over one hundred one-millisecond sweeps, as stated in
> the report. It was observed that the radiated amplitude peaked and
> then diminished in the measurement band over the integration period.
> The plots included in the report depict a "snapshot" of these
> time-variable peaks over the total integration period. The maximum
> hold function of the spectrum analyzer was not utilized. If it had
> been, these plots would likely have resembled the output of a comb
> generator.

"*Spectrum Analyzer Error Indicator on Screen Capture*"[^407]

QUALCOMM questions the presence of the asterisk located in the top right
corner of each of the measurement plots provided in the TRB report. They
state, "*according to the Agilent 4440 manuals, and upon consultation
with Agilent engineers, QUALCOMM understands that this is indicative of
an error condition and that the trace may not be valid, in light of the
error indicator on all of the spectrum analyzer plots*."[^408]

The Agilent user's manual describes the asterisk in the upper right hand
corner of the screen as indicative that "*Data on the screen may not
match the screen annotation. For example, while analyzer settings are
changing or [when any trace is in view mode]{.underline}*" [^409]
(underlining added). In these measurements, at least one trace was
always stored in the view mode to accommodate the placing of multiple
traces on the plots. Therefore, the asterisk quite simply indicates that
one or more traces are stored in the view mode. It does not indicate an
error condition. If the analyzer had actually detected an error
condition an accompanying text message would have been prominently
displayed on the screen. These messages would also appear on the screen
capture plots provided in the report.

"*Indoor Ambient Noise Plots*"[^410]

In this comment, QUALCOMM discloses that they have conducted their own
measurements, similar to the indoor measurements performed by TRB, and
"*found all sites to have emissions less than or equal to --117.5
dBm.*"[^411]

> The data provided in the TRB report shows a variation in the observed
> emission levels among different indoor locations. Based on the data
> provided from the QUALCOMM measurements, their results seem to fall
> within this range of values. TRB cannot offer significant comment with
> respect to the measurements performed by QUALCOMM as there is
> insufficient information presented to accommodate any substantive
> assessment.

[Comments received from the United States GPS Industry Council
("USGPSIC")]{.underline}[^412]

The following paragraphs respond to those comments provided in the
USGPSIC submission that are deemed relative to the subject document.
While we appreciate those comments that were apparently provided for
informational purposes, we have not responded to each herein.

"*The report exhibits bias in the use of the descriptor "extremely
conservative emissions limits" when referring to the UWB emission limits
defined to protect the GPS service using frequency bands allocated to
safety-of-life use. Furthermore, the protection is for the European
system Galileo as well as for GPS.*"[^413]

> The descriptor "extremely conservative emissions limits" used in the
> subject report directly reflects the language contained in the UWB
> Report and Order (R&O). No bias was intended in repeating this
> language, and certainly none was exhibited in the measurement effort.
>
> The USGPSIC assertion that *"the protection is for the European system
> Galileo as well as for GPS"* is mistaken. No consideration was given
> in this proceeding to the potential impact of UWB emissions to the
> developing European Union (EU) Radio Navigation Satellite Service
> (RNSS) system known as Galileo.

"*Many GPS receivers process bandwidths greater than 16 MHz -- up to 20
MHz, especially those used in aviation and precision applications
(ground and air).*"[^414]

> We acknowledge that there are GPS receivers that process greater than
> 16 MHz of the GPS L1 signal; however, we are skeptical that there are
> "many" of these in operation. Nonetheless, the GPS receivers assumed
> in the operational scenario described in the report (*i.e.*, the E-911
> scenario) do not use these types of receivers. Based on discussions
> with Qualcomm, its assisted GPS receivers used in E-911 applications
> process only 1 to 2 MHz of the GPS L1 signal. We note that the
> measurements performed by TRB and documented in the subject report
> examine the entire registered bandwidth (24 MHz) associated with each
> of the GPS center frequencies (L1, L2, and L5).

"*It is also important to note that UWB emissions impact the GPS P-code,
and thus military users, as much as they impact civil C/A-code users.
The additional spreading of the higher chipping-rate P code does not
increase the processing gain against wideband noise.*"[^415]

> Neither empirical nor analytical data were provided to the record
> established in the UWB proceeding to support the claim that GPS P-code
> (military) receivers are as susceptible to UWB emissions as are
> C/A-code receivers. We acknowledge that the impact to the noise floor
> will be comparable; however, we are skeptical that the actual
> operational impact to a P/Y-code GPS receiver will be the same as to a
> civil C/A-code receiver. For example, the spectral line interference
> potential demonstrated in the NTIA testing of GPS receivers revealed
> that as a result of the relatively short (1 millisecond) length of the
> codes associated with the C/A signal (*i.e.*, the Gold codes), a
> spectral line produced by an unmodulated UWB signal has a potential
> for alignment with a dominant C/A-code line, resulting in an
> observable degradation to receiver performance.[^416] However, the
> P-code signal is a significantly longer code producing an essentially
> continuous signal. Thus the dominance of any single spectral line in
> the P-code is considerably reduced. Although not specifically examined
> as a part of this proceeding, the potential for spectral line
> interference to the P-code signal is expected to be significantly less
> than it is to the C/A-code signal. This was demonstrated in the NTIA
> measurements for the semi-codeless GPS receiver architecture.

"*The fact that the actual GPS signal levels are known to be 7-10 dB
greater than the minimum level is overstated -- more like 3 to 5 dB. The
Aerospace Corporation has written ION papers documenting this fact.
[However, the DoD will not guarantee those higher levels, so the GPS
safety-of-life community can only rely on the -130 dBm
level]{.underline}*."[^417]

> No data was provided to the record established in the UWB proceeding
> to validate the actual GPS signal levels experienced by a user.
> Rather, the analyses presented to the record by GPS interests utilized
> the minimum specified power of -130 dBm. Other interests claimed that
> the levels are actually much higher. However, this discrepancy has
> little relevance to the results presented in the TRB report since the
> report contains no analyses utilizing the GPS signal levels.
>
> It is recognized that the -130 dBm level is the minimum GPS signal
> level guaranteed to the civil user community (irrespective of whether
> or not the application involves safety-of-life). The operational
> scenario considered in the subject report involved the use of enhanced
> GPS to facilitate E-911 applications. It is noted that this is
> [not]{.underline} a recognized "safety-of-life" application as usually
> applied to interference analyses. The safety-of-life designation, and
> the additional protection afforded, is reserved for those applications
> where a degradation or loss of signal could result in a catastrophic
> public safety disaster. For example, the use of GPS in aviation
> applications, such as the precision approach and landing of aircraft,
> are designated as safety-of-life applications since the loss of the
> navigation information necessary to perform this operation, even for a
> brief period, could result in a significant loss of life and property.
> In contrast, when using GPS to augment an emergency telephone call, a
> brief degradation or loss of signal is not likely to result in a
> public safety disaster.

"*With respect to the modernized L2 signal, it may be the C/A-code in
the beginning, but will be the new L2C codes eventually, maybe earlier.
This new signal is intended to be used by the E911 application once it
is available on most of the satellites. Thus, this band must be
protected, even though it is not used for aviation (except at protected
ATC sites for WAAS using the P/Y code in a semi-codeless manner, but
eventually using the L2C code)*."[^418]

> Only limited data was presented to the UWB record regarding the
> potential impact to GPS operations on L2. This data was constrained to
> the results of the NTIA testing of a semi-codeless GPS receiver using
> the P-code signal on L2, which is not comparable to a civil L2 (or
> L2C) receiver. Also, no information was presented to indicate any
> future plans for E-911 on GPS L2C, although the E-911 providers were
> active participants in the process. The possible use of the L2C signal
> for E-911 has been mentioned in the literature.[^419] This E-911
> application would be facilitated by the inclusion in the L2 signal of
> a signal containing the navigation data in conjunction with a signal
> without the navigation data.
>
> The existing UWB rules provide equivalent protection for GPS
> operations on L2 and L1. However, once the civil signal becomes
> completely defined for L2, the protection criteria should be
> re-examined considering not only the signal structure (C/A or L2C) but
> also other factors such as possible signal redundancy among three
> available GPS civil signals.[^420]

"*Galileo also plans two signals at and near the L5 signal frequency.
These signals must also be protected. It is not appropriate for UWB to
overlay signals allocated to entities outside its jurisdiction*."[^421]

> No information was submitted to the UWB proceeding regarding Galileo
> operations or interference protection requirements. While the emission
> masks developed by this rulemaking will also provide a level of
> interference protection to future Galileo receivers, this was a
> coincidental outcome. No consideration was given in this proceeding to
> the interference potential from UWB emissions to developing non-U.S.
> systems, including Galileo.

"*It is not exactly true that the L5 signal is less susceptible to both
noise-like and spectral line interference than the existing L1 signal
for two reasons. First of all, as it is for the P-code, the longer code
signal is just as susceptible to broadband noise-like interference (like
UWB) as the C/A code is. Second, the propagation loss at L5 is 2.54 dB
less than it is at L1, so more of the UWB emission power will be
observed at L5. This is also true for other interference at L5*."[^422]

> No empirical or analytical data was submitted in the UWB proceeding to
> validate this statement. This data was not made available during the
> proceeding primarily due to the fact that the GPS L5 signal structure
> was in its conceptual stage and L5 receivers were not yet available
> for testing. However, we believe that the longer code that has been
> adopted for use on L5 will reduce the potential for interference from
> spectral line interactions for similar reasons as those discussed
> previously with respect to the P-code. In addition, other factors that
> were not specifically considered in this proceeding, but should be
> considered in future efforts to determine the actual interference
> potential to GPS L5 receivers, include the increased GPS signal power
> planned for L5, the pulse-blanking circuitry to be implemented in the
> receivers, the signal redundancy associated with three available civil
> GPS signals, and the forward error correction being implemented. When
> these factors are considered in an interference analysis, we believe
> it will show GPS L5 receivers to be less susceptible to both spectral
> line and noise-like interference, irrespective of the emission source.
> We note that there is considerable evidence to support this position
> within the Public Domain. For example, a report by the Volpe National
> Transportation Systems Center, prepared under contract to the U.S.
> Department of Transportation in response to Presidential Decision
> Directive 63, concluded the following in this regard: "*The GPS
> Modernization Program is expected to provide a substantial reduction
> in the threat from unintentional interference*" and "*Higher GPS
> signal power, a C/A (or replacement civil, R/C) code on L2 and a more
> robust civil code on L5, all combine to reduce greatly the
> susceptibility of civil applications of GPS to unintentional
> interference*."[^423]

"*The equation for N~0~ in the FCC TRB report is not correct for the
noise floor. The equation only describes "receiver" noise -- doesn't
include ambient source noise*."[^424] This comment continues over seven
paragraphs, wherein the intent appears to be to offer a theory to
explain the elevated noise levels observed at the indoor measurement
locations as compared with those levels observed at the outdoor
measurement sites. The basis for this theory is a difference in source
temperature between indoor and outdoor measurement locations. The
comment is not expressed in its entirety herein, but a response is
provided with respect to the assumptions offered in the development of
this theory.

> The equation presented in the TRB report is clearly defined as
> representing the thermal noise density of a typical GPS
> receiver.[^425] It was never intended to include ambient source noise.
> Rather, the objective of the measurement effort was to determine the
> ambient source noise empirically rather than analytically.
>
> A variation in the absolute temperature between the outdoor and indoor
> measurement sites is acknowledged to exist; however, this differential
> is not as extreme as suggested in these comments. The measurement
> antenna used in collecting the data was never pointed at the sky as
> assumed in the development of the USGPSIC theory. Instead, the antenna
> was pointed in a horizontal direction relative to the measurement site
> with a height of approximately 2 meters above local terrain elevation.
> With this orientation ground clutter was indeed a factor, and thus was
> not eliminated as assumed in the development of this theory.

[Comments received by RF Metrics Corporation ("RFM")]{.underline}[^426]

"*Many of the measurement results do not agree with the stated
measurement system performance parameters*."[^427]

> RFM used the data presented in the block diagram (Figure 4-1) and the
> companion table of specifications (Table 4-1) presented in the TRB
> Report to perform "*a cascaded gain and noise figure analysis
> neglecting cable losses*." The results indicate *"...a system noise
> figure of 4.3 dB for system A, 6.1 dB for system B, and system gains
> (excluding the antenna) of 59 dB and 56 dB respectively*." RFM states
> that these results "*differ significantly from the measured system
> gains*." [^428]
>
> The results of the computer-aided analysis of these parameters are
> presented in Appendix A of the RFM submission. Since the source code
> for the model is not provided, a substantive assessment of its
> accuracy cannot be performed. However, we do note several potential
> factors that may have led to the stated discrepancy.
>
> In the calculation of the overall system noise figure we have some
> concerns regarding the input to the computer model. In particular, the
> measurement system is modeled as a seven-stage cascaded network;
> however, the TRB measurement system utilized only three active stages.
> Additionally, noise figure values of 1 dB and 10 dB are shown as
> inputs to represent the band-pass filter and the in-line attenuator,
> respectively. These are passive components in the TRB measurement
> system and thus have no associated noise figure. Finally, a noise
> figure of 60 dB is input for the spectrum analyzer. No explanation is
> provided to support this value and in fact, the spectrum analyzer
> would be a significantly limited piece of test equipment with a noise
> figure of this magnitude. We suspect these factors to be the primary
> cause for the stated discrepancies with respect to the system noise
> figure.
>
> RFM used the specification values for the individual components in the
> measurement system to calculate the overall system gain. These
> specifications represent the minimum gain values of the preamplifiers
> used in the measurement system. Since the gain of an active amplifier
> is dependent on the operating frequency it cannot be precisely defined
> by a single value over a broad frequency range. Thus, the gain of an
> amplifier is typically specified in terms of the minimum value over a
> defined frequency range.
>
> The fact that many of the components used in the measurement system
> exhibit frequency dependence is precisely why measured calibration
> curves were provided in the TRB report for each frequency band for
> which field measurements were performed. It is not surprising that a
> calculation of the overall system gain based on minimum specifications
> differs from an actual measurement of the system gain at a discrete
> frequency. Actual measurements are the only way to accurately
> determine the overall measurement system characteristics over various
> discrete frequency ranges.

"*The system as described in the report suffers from significant
vulnerability that could produce spurious emissions within the system
itself. Some measurements show potential evidence of such spurious
emissions*."[^429]

> The TRB Staff was cognizant of the vulnerabilities associated with the
> measurement system design. This is an unfortunate consequence of the
> extraordinary requirement to detect radiated emissions to the
> extremely low amplitudes dictated by the UWB emission limits in the
> frequency bands examined. However, every precaution was taken to
> ensure the integrity of the measurement system in the performance of
> this project. This included the method suggested by RFM,[^430] which
> is also described in Appendix B of the TRB Report.[^431]
>
> RFM states that their calculations indicate the second-stage
> preamplifier in the TRB measurement system is "*particularly
> vulnerable to intermodulation and gain compression in the reported
> design. For system A, a calculation shows that the system will incur 1
> dB of gain compression at input signal levels from -51 dBm to -47 dBm.
> For system B the compression point is between -50 dBm to -46 dBm,
> depending on frequency*."[^432] We note that there were no measurement
> locations identified where the ambient emission levels in the GPS L1
> or L2 frequency bands even remotely approached the maximum input
> levels calculated by RFM. High amplitude emissions (relatively
> speaking) were only encountered in those measurements performed within
> the 960-1188 MHz band, and then only at a few limited locations, in
> particular the airport sites. Even at these sites, most of the
> emissions were well below the amplitude levels indicated above. In
> those few cases where emissions were observed at levels great enough
> to pose a potential for system overload, tests were performed to
> verify the measurement system linearity as noted previously. Where
> necessary, the measurement system was desensitized through the
> addition of in-line attenuation. It is recognized that an alternative
> approach would have been to remove the second stage pre-amplifier from
> the measurement system in these cases, but retaining consistency with
> regard to the measurement system was deemed more significant. This
> explanation provides the justification for the inclusion of "*both 65
> dB of gain and 50 dB of attenuation in the signal path*" as noted in
> the RFM comments.[^433] However, we note that this configuration was
> utilized only for a very limited number of the measurements performed.

[Comments received by Cingular Wireless LLC
("Cingular")]{.underline}[^434]

"*There was apparently no attempt to make the studies systematic or
representative. All of the locations selected for ambient noise studies
were in a single geographic area, around Washington and Baltimore, and
do not include many types of environments where assisted GPS is likely
to be used in connection with wireless E-911 calls, such as homes or
highways.*"[^435]

> As noted in the TRB Report, this project was intended as a "first
> step" toward collecting the data necessary to perform an objective
> re-evaluation of the UWB emission limits. The measurements were indeed
> all performed at locations in the Baltimore-Washington area, primarily
> to facilitate a maximum use of the available measurement time by
> limiting the logistical complications associated with travel and
> long-distance coordination. The premise was that many of the locations
> (*e.g.*, office buildings, factory locations, airports, etc.) are
> fairly representative regardless of their particular geographic
> location. However, we do concede that the set of measurement locations
> is somewhat limited in scope. The compilation of a similar data set
> that would be universally accepted as statistically representative
> would likely require a considerably more extensive effort to collect.
> Rather, this project was designed to perform a "spot check" of
> pre-existing (*i.e.*, non-UWB) emissions that would be encountered by
> a GPS receiver when attempting to operate at the reported location
> within a time frame coincident with that over which the measurements
> were performed. The intent was to assess some of the underlying
> assumptions inherent in the link-budget derivation of the UWB emission
> limits applicable to the GPS frequency bands.

"*The report does not indicate whether the cause of these noise levels
was traced or whether the sources of the noise were in compliance with
applicable licensing or Part 15 requirements*."[^436]

> In fact, the TRB report clearly states that no attempt was made to
> determine each and every emission source contributing to the measured
> noise levels.[^437] To attempt to do so would represent a monumental
> undertaking. Instead, the report provides the likely emission sources
> where possible, but no effort was made to verify or specifically
> locate and measure each emission source for compliance to the
> applicable regulations. As described above, the intent was to observe
> the existing emission levels that would be experienced by a GPS
> receiver at the measurement location during the time the measurements
> were performed. The amplitude and signal characteristics of the total
> noise present at its input will determine the impact to a GPS
> receiver. The total noise was the parameter of interest recorded at
> each of the measurement locations.
>
> "*The study is no more than a snapshot of what is occurring in RF
> spectrum at a limited number of locations on a certain date and
> time*."[^438]
>
> This fact is recognized; however, as stated previously, this was the
> intent of the TRB measurement program.

[Comments received by XtremeSpectrum, Inc., Time Domain Corporation, the
Ground Penetrating Radar Industry Coalition, and the Public Safety
Wireless Network]{.underline}[^439]^[,]{.underline}^
[^440]^[,]{.underline}^ [^441]^[,]{.underline}^ [^442]

The comments received from these parties have each been reviewed in
their entirety; however, since the issues raised within pertain solely
to interpretations and/or recommendations related to existing UWB
policy, rather than to the content of the TRB Report, they are not
specifically addressed herein.

[^1]: *See First Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 98-153, 17 FCC Rcd
    7435 (2002). An *Erratum* to the *First Report and* Order was
    adopted on May 30, 2002. *See* *Erratum* in ET Docket No. 98-153, 17
    FCC Rcd 10505 (2002).

[^2]: The exception is the establishment of a new limited UWB operation
    requested by Time Domain.

[^3]: The rules adopted in the *R&O* also permit UWB devices to comply
    with the minimum bandwidth requirement due to the use of a high
    speed data rate or the use of other modulation techniques instead of
    the width of the pulse or impulse signal.

[^4]: Typical pulse widths used by UWB devices currently are on the
    order of 0.1-2 nanoseconds, or less, in width. The emission spectrum
    appears as a fundamental lobe with adjacent side lobes that can
    decrease slowly in amplitude. The rise time of the leading edge of
    the pulse and the passband of the radiating antenna are major
    factors in determining the bandwidth of the UWB emission.

[^5]: Imaging systems consist of GPRs, wall imaging systems,
    through-wall imaging systems, surveillance systems, and medical
    imaging systems.

[^6]: The -10 dB bandwidth is the frequency band bounded by the points
    that are 10 dB below the highest level radiated emission, as based
    on the complete transmission system including the antenna. This
    bandwidth is defined in the rules as the UWB bandwidth. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 15.503(a).

[^7]: The notification procedure is described in 47 C.F.R. §
    2.405(a)-(e).

[^8]: As used in this MO&O, law enforcement, fire and emergency rescue
    organizations refers to parties eligible to obtain a license from
    the FCC under the eligibility requirements specified in 47 C.F. R. §
    90.20(a)(1).

[^9]: As detailed later in this MO&O, the provisions regarding who may
    operate a GPR and for what purpose were further interpreted in an
    *Order* adopted on July 12, 2002. *See Order* in ET Docket No.
    98-153, 17 FCC Rcd 13522 (2002).

[^10]: As used in this MO&O, the reference to public utilities and
    industrial entities refers to the manufacturers licensees, petroleum
    licensees and power licensees defined in 47 C.F.R. § 90.7.

[^11]: The specific attenuation requirements are described in 47 C.F.R.
    § 15.515(c).

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.503(e) and 15.521(f).

[^13]: As used in this MO&O, the term "Part 15 general emission limits"
    refers to the emission limits specified in 47 C.F.R. § 15.209. For
    emissions above 1000 MHz, this limit is equivalent to an equivalent
    isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of -41.3 dBm/MHz.

[^14]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.511(a).

[^15]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.511(b)(1).

[^16]: Time Domain Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 2-3.

[^17]: *Id.* at pg. 6.

[^18]: *Id.* at pg. 1 and 8. 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.503(e) and 15.521(f).

[^19]: Time Domain Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 9.

[^20]: GPS systems are located in the bands 1164-1240 MHz and 1559-1610
    MHz. GPS receivers are approximately 10 dB more sensitive to
    interference from narrowband (continuous wave-like) emissions than
    from wideband (noise-like) emissions.

[^21]: USGPSIC comments at pg. 5-8.

[^22]: AWS comments at pg. 2.

[^23]: Time Domain reply comments at pg. 2-4.

[^24]: *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in ET Docket No. 98-153, 15 FCC
    Rcd 12086 (2000).

[^25]: This is the value that was recommended by NTIA and USGPSIC and
    was used in the *R&O*. It represents a level that is 6 dB below the
    thermal noise floor of the GPS receiver and that would result in a 1
    dB increase to the noise floor of the GPS receiver.

[^26]: This is the Part 15 general emission limit, -41.3 dBm/MHz,
    combined with the 5 dB of attenuation that Time Domain indicated
    could be applied below 1610 MHz.

[^27]: NTIA Special Publication 01-47, *Assessment of Compatibility
    between Ultrawideband (UWB) Systems and Global Positioning System
    (GPS) Receivers*, at pg. 3-7.

[^28]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(f)(4).

[^29]: A wall imaging system is essentially identical to a GPR except
    that it is used to detect the location of objects within a wall or
    determine the properties of a wall rather than of the ground.

[^30]: *See Order* ("*Order*") in ET Docket No. 98-153, 17 FCC Rcd 13522
    (2002). This *Order* was issued under the delegated authority of the
    Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology.

[^31]: Petition for Reconsideration of AGA and APGA at pg. 5; Petition
    for Partial Reconsideration of GPRIC at pg. 8-16, Petition for
    Partial Reconsideration of GPR Providers at pg. 8-10, and letter
    from NUCA at pg. 3.

[^32]: *See*, for example, the Petition for Partial Reconsideration of
    GPR Providers at pg. 2-7.

[^33]: Petition for Partial Reconsideration of GPRIC at pg. 15.

[^34]: Petition for Partial Reconsideration of GPR Providers at pg.
    8-10.

[^35]: Petitions for Partial Reconsideration of GPRIC at pg. 8-16 and
    GPR Providers at pg. 10-14.

[^36]: GPR Providers Petition for Partial Reconsideration at pg. 14-16.
    A dead man switch is a switch that causes the unit to cease
    operation if it is released.

[^37]: Petitions for Partial Reconsideration of GPRIC at pg. 16-19 and
    GPR Providers at pg. 16-19.

[^38]: GPRIC Petition for Partial Reconsideration at pg. 19-20. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 15.509(f).

[^39]: *R&O*, *supra*, at footnote 325.

[^40]: GPR Providers Petition for Partial Reconsideration at pg. 19-20.

[^41]: USGPSIC comments at pg. 9-17.

[^42]: USGPSIC comments at pg. 14.

[^43]: AWS comments at pg. 15.

[^44]: GPR Providers reply comments at pg. 5. The provisions of this
    *Order* are examined in our discussion of the GPR petitions.

[^45]: GPRIC reply comments at pg. 4-5.

[^46]: GPR Providers reply comments at pg. 3.

[^47]: USGPSIC comments at pg. 12. The previous UWB waivers, issued to
    Time Domain Corporation and to U.S. Radar Inc. on June 25, 1999,
    required coordination. The comment referenced by USGPSIC was a
    comment filed by Zircon in response to the *Notice of Inquiry*
    ("*NOI*") in ET Docket No. 98-153, 13 FCC Rcd 16376 (1998) at para.
    17, stating that GPRs should be permitted to operate at the limits
    applicable to Class A digital devices provided these devices are
    coordinated with NTIA and registered in a data base.

[^48]: GPRIC reply comments at pg. 3-4.

[^49]: *See* 5 U.S.C. 553.

[^50]: GPR Providers reply comments at pg. 6.

[^51]: USGPSIC comments at pg. 15-16.

[^52]: GPR Providers reply comments at pg. 6-7.

[^53]: USGPSIC comments at pg. 15.

[^54]: *Id.* at pg. 17.

[^55]: *Id.* at pg. 9-10.

[^56]: GPR Providers reply comments at pg. 7-8.

[^57]: GPRIC reply comments at pg. 5-6.

[^58]: *See Order*, *supra*, at para. 9-10.

[^59]: *See Order*, *supra*, at para. 6.

[^60]: While the Commission has been informed unofficially, *i.e.*, no
    report was ever placed in the record for this proceeding, of one
    possible case where the operation of GPR with an emission centered
    around 500 MHz caused the noise level in a VHF aviation receiver at
    an airport to increase, it is our understanding that this noise was
    seen when the GPR found a broken antenna cable under the tarmac of
    the airport. This is not an indication of harmful interference but
    is an example of how a GPR can successfully be employed to find
    problem areas in an airport runway tarmac.

[^61]: *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 78. NTIA informs us that the
    measurements performed by DOT considered a single UWB signal and
    that the NTIA measurements indicated that the aggregate signal tends
    to "fill in" the off periods as the number of 100 kHz PRF signals
    increase, resulting in an interference effect that is noise-like.
    However, we observe that it is extremely unlikely that multiple GPRs
    would be operated simultaneously in close proximity to each other.
    Accordingly, this effect would not occur from the operation of GPRs.

[^62]: This observation on PRF is applicable only for UWB signals that
    are generated by an impulse or pulsed modulation.

[^63]: NTIA believes that in all instances where compatibility is cited
    between GPS receivers attached to the GPR that the PRF of the GPR
    has been less than 100 kHz.

[^64]: *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 323.

[^65]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.35(b).

[^66]: *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 277.

[^67]: NTIA also issued authorizations permitting a GPRs to be operated
    by a few Federal Government agencies, *e.g.*, by the U.S. Department
    of Justice.

[^68]: 47 U.S.C. § 302; 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803, 15.1.

[^69]: The factional bandwidth is the UWB bandwidth, *i.e.*, the -10 dB
    bandwidth, divided by the center frequency. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    15.503(c).

[^70]: *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 32.

[^71]: MSSI Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 10-11.

[^72]: *Id.* at pg. 12-13.

[^73]: This is the type of modulation employed by the XSI equipment.

[^74]: *Id.* at pg. 15-16.

[^75]: MSSI comments at pg. 4.

[^76]: SARA comments at pg. 2-4; Delphi comments at pg. 1-5; XSI
    comments at pg. 29-30.

[^77]: XSI reply comments at pg. ix-xi, Technical Statement.

[^78]: AWS comments at pg. 3.

[^79]: *See*, for example, *Order*, *supra*, at para. 124 and 131.

[^80]: We also note that a direct comparison of the emission limits
    below 960 MHz with those above 960 MHz is not feasible due to the
    change in the detector functions. Emissions below 960 MHz are
    measured using a CISPR quasi-peak detector whereas emissions above
    960 MHz are measured using an RMS detector.

[^81]: In the *R&O*, the Commission concluded that it was necessary to
    establish a minimum UWB bandwidth to prevent narrowband Part 15
    devices from operating under the UWB standards, as such operation
    would allow them to transmit in the restricted frequency bands. 47
    C.F.R. § 15.205. *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 30-32. The restricted
    bands are bands allocated for the operation of radio services used
    for safety-of-life applications or radio services that, by the
    nature of their operation, require the reception of very low signal
    levels. There are sufficient spaces between the restricted bands to
    permit the operation of narrowband Part 15 systems. Accordingly,
    unlike UWB devices, there is no necessity to permit narrowband
    systems to operate in the restricted bands.

[^82]: *Notice*, *supra*, at para. 21.

[^83]: Siemens VDO Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 5-6.

[^84]: *Id.* at pg. 6-8. Also, *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 32.

[^85]: Siemens VDO Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 4 and 8-10.

[^86]: *Id.* at pg. 13-14. It should be noted that there is a wide range
    of integration times possible for space borne passive sensors. For
    example, the AMSR sensor has a 2.6 millisecond integration time in
    the 23.6-24.0 GHz band. However, the AMSU-A sensor has an
    integration time of 158-165 milliseconds.

[^87]: SARA comments at pg. 7-10.

[^88]: *Notice*, *supra*, at para. 21.

[^89]: The Commission also was not aware that this was Siemens VDO's
    intent. As noted in para. 270 of the *R&O*, *supra*, the Commission
    indicated that Delphi intended to manufacture a vehicular radar
    employing a pseudo-noise direct sequence binary phase shift keyed
    waveform and that SARA had expressed interest in a similar
    technology. The Commission indicated that this type of modulation
    would be acceptable under the UWB standards and rejected the swept
    frequency radar system also contemplated by Delphi. A frequency
    hopping system similarly would have been rejected.

[^90]: While we have some concerns regarding the test procedure proposed
    by Siemens VDO, we will address this issue under the Further Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making.

[^91]: Kohler manufactures a toilet ventilating device that installs in
    the water chamber of a toilet and is activated by UWB radar upon
    detecting a person sitting down. Currently, this equipment is
    certified under a waiver of our regulations that was issued by the
    Chief Engineer on August 6, 2001. It operates with an emission
    centered at 5800 MHz. Kohler's waiver is scheduled to expire on July
    15, 2003.

[^92]: Kohler Petition for Partial Reconsideration at pg. 2.

[^93]: *Id.* at pg. 3.

[^94]: *Id.* at pg. 2 and 4.

[^95]: AWS comments at pg. 11.

[^96]: Two initial preamplifiers have been employed, one with a 0.5 dB
    noise figure and a second with a 1.0 dB noise figure. The use of two
    preamplifiers requires that a tunable bandpass filter be employed to
    avoid overloading the instrumentation.

[^97]: *See*, for example, Tables 6 and 7 of the *Order*, *supra*.

[^98]: On December 20, 2002, Ericsson Inc. submitted a technical
    analysis regarding UWB interaction with PCS and other authorized
    stations. Ericsson referred to this filing as an *ex parte*
    submission. However, we do not find any new information within the
    Ericsson analysis and find no reason to justify a new comment and
    evaluation process.

[^99]: *Id.* at pg. 16-19.

[^100]: Cingular Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 5.

[^101]: *Id.* at pg. 5. Cingular indicates that UWB levels in the PCS
    bands should be 16-24 or even 27-35 dB below the Part 15 general
    emission limits

[^102]: *Id.* at pg. 9.

[^103]: *Id.* at pg. 12.

[^104]: *Id.* at pg. 20-21.

[^105]: *Id.* at pg. 14-15.

[^106]: *Id.* at pg. 15.

[^107]: *Id.* at pg. 21-22.

[^108]: *Id.* at pg. 22-24.

[^109]: Qualcomm Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 3-6, 13.

[^110]: *Id.* at pg. 4, 7-9.

[^111]: *Id.* at pg. 9-12.

[^112]: *Id.* at pg. 5-6, 13.

[^113]: Sprint Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 3-4.

[^114]: *Id.* at pg. 4-8.

[^115]: *Id.* at pg. 8-10. The Telcordia model was presented by Sprint
    as Attachment 1 to its September 12, 2000, comments to the *Notice*.
    *See A Model for Calculating the Effect of UWB Interference on a
    CDMA PCS* System, September 12, 2000, by Dr. Jay Padgett, Senior
    Research Scientist with Telcordia Technologies. The Sprint study on
    narrowband versus UWB emissions was presented by Sprint as an *ex
    parte* filing submitted immediately prior to adoption of the *R&O*.
    *See Ambient Office Noise/Personal Computers and the Relative Impact
    of UWB Devices*, January 18, 2002, by Sprint PCS.

[^116]: *Id.* at pg. 10-14. As total downlink power is fixed, less power
    would be available to serve other PCS handsets.

[^117]: *Id.* at pg. 14-19.

[^118]: *Id.* at pg. 20-26.

[^119]: *Id.* at pg. 26-27.

[^120]: *Id.* at pg. 27-29.

[^121]: *Id.* at pg. 10-11.

[^122]: *Id.* at pg. 11. The reference by Sprint was to a statement by
    the Commission finding that harmful interference between a UWB
    device and a PCS station did not occur until the separation distance
    between the two units was less than one meter and that it would be
    unlikely that UWB devices would be located this close to a PCS
    receiver.

[^123]: *Id.* at pg. 4, Attachment 1.

[^124]: *Id.* at pg. 10, Attachment 1.

[^125]: *Id.* at pg. 19, Attachment 1.

[^126]: *Id.* at pg. 23, Attachment 1.

[^127]: *Id.* at pg. 1, Attachment 2.

[^128]: *Id.* at pg. 2, Attachment 2.

[^129]: *Id.* at pg. 6-7, Attachment 2.

[^130]: *Id.* at pg. 21.

[^131]: *Id.* at pg. 22-25.

[^132]: *Id.* at pg. 36-39.

[^133]: *Id.* at pg. 35-36. *See*, also, 47 C.F.R. § 15.519(a)(1).

[^134]: Sprint Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 30-35.

[^135]: Time Domain comments at pg. ii.

[^136]: XSI comments at pg. 3, 7, 15-16.

[^137]: *Id.* at pg. 3, 14, 16-17.

[^138]: *Id.* at pg. 3, 15, 17-19.

[^139]: Sprint Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 4.

[^140]: XSI comments at pg. 14, 15-16.

[^141]: USGPSIC comments at pg. 18-19.

[^142]: Sprint reply comments at pg. 18-20.

[^143]: *Id.* at pg. 21-23.

[^144]: Time Domain comments at pg. 5.

[^145]: *Id.* at pg. 7-9.

[^146]: *Id*. at pg. 9.

[^147]: XSI comments at pg. 2.

[^148]: *Id.* at pg. 10-13.

[^149]: *Id.* at pg. 3, 13-14.

[^150]: XSI indicated that these conditions included the effects from
    multipath fading, interference from other PCS base stations,
    sub-optimal antenna alignment, and signal attenuation due to the
    user's head and hands. XSI comments at pg. 20-22.

[^151]: XSI references the July 16, 2001, letter from Raul R. Rodriguez,
    Counsel to the U.S. GPS Industry Council, to Magalie R. Salas,
    Secretary, FCC.

[^152]: XSI comments at pg. 23-24.

[^153]: *Id.* at pg. ii, Technical Statement.

[^154]: *Id.* at pg. ii-iii, Technical Statement.

[^155]: *Id.* at pg. iii, Technical Statement.

[^156]: USGPSIC comments at pg. 2.

[^157]: *Id.* at pg. 17-18.

[^158]: AWS comments at pg. 1-3.

[^159]: *Id.* at pg. 4.

[^160]: *Id.* at pg. 8.

[^161]: *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 159. AWS comments at pg. 5. What the
    Commission actually stated in the *R&O* at para. 159 was that
    interference between a UWB transmitter and a PCS handset at the
    adopted limit appeared to require the two devices to be separated by
    less than one meter and that it is unlikely that UWB transmitters
    would be located this close to a PCS receiver, particularly in light
    of the operating restrictions being applied to UWB devices. The
    Commission also stated that it did not believe that it was
    appropriate to use such a close separation distance as the basis for
    controlling harmful interference.

[^162]: *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 55. AWS comments at pg. 8-9. The
    coordination process was insisted upon by NTIA so that imaging
    systems would not be operated near to-be-determined Government radio
    installations without prior notice. They were not implemented, nor
    were they needed, to provide additional interference protection to
    PCS operations.

[^163]: AWS comments at pg. 10-12.

[^164]: *Id.* at pg. 12-14.

[^165]: *Id.* at pg. 16-17.

[^166]: *Id.* at pg. 18.

[^167]: Time Domain reply comments at pg. 5.

[^168]: XSI reply comments at pg. 1.

[^169]: Qualcomm reply comments at pg. 2.

[^170]: *Id.* at pg. 2-3.

[^171]: *Id.* at pg. 6.

[^172]: *Id.* at pg. 7.

[^173]: Sprint reply comments at pg. 4-6.

[^174]: The 18 dB processing gain combined with the need for a S/N of 5
    dB results in the sensitivity of the receiver being 13 dB below the
    thermal noise floor.

[^175]: *Id.* at pg. 7-9.

[^176]: *Id.* at pg. 10-11. Also, Sprint reply comments, Attachment 3 at
    pg. 12.

[^177]: *Id.* at pg. 12-13. Sprint does not explain the inconsistencies
    between its request for a -68 dBm limit on emissions appearing in
    the PCS bands from indoor UWB devices and its request to apply the
    same limits in the PCS band as the lower limits applied to UWB
    emissions in the GPS bands.

[^178]: *Id.* at pg. 13-16.

[^179]: *Id.*, Attachment 3 at pg. 3.

[^180]: *Id.* at pg. 4.

[^181]: "KTB" is the reference to the standard calculation for
    determining the noise floor of a receiver. K is Boltzmann's constant
    equal to 1.38 x 10^-23^ W/Hz/ºK, T is temperature in degrees Kelvin,
    and B is the receiver bandwidth in Hertz. For a standard temperature
    of 290º K, the receiver noise floor is -174 dBm/Hz, or -114 dBm/MHz,
    plus the noise figure of the receiver. The 1.25 MHz PCS receiver
    bandwidth and 8 dB noise figure results in a noise floor of -105
    dBm.

[^182]: *Id.* at pg. 5.

[^183]: *Id.* at pg. 7.

[^184]: AWS comments at pg. 19.

[^185]: Time Domain reply comments at pg. 6.

[^186]: AWS comments at pg. 15.

[^187]: Sprint reply comments at pg. 16.

[^188]: The D.C. Circuit in *AT&T Wireless v. FCC*, 270 F. 3d 959, 964
    (D.C. Cir. 2001), order on remand, *Aircell Inc.*, FCC 02-324 (rel.
    Feb. 10, 2003), rejected a similar claim of exclusivity alleged by
    wireless carriers. The Court held that an alleged exclusive licensee
    cannot object to secondary use of its spectrum so long as no harmful
    interference exists. In particular, 47 C.F.R. § 22.911(d) provides
    that the "exclusive\[\]" assignment of channels provided for in 47
    C.F.R. § 22.905 entitles each cellular licensee, within its CGSA, to
    protection of its system from co-channel and first adjacent channel
    interference and from the capture of its subscriber traffic by
    adjacent cellular systems using the same channel block. Pursuant to
    47 C.F.R. § 22.911, cellular licensees with adjacent systems must
    cooperate by changing channels used at specific cell cites or by
    other technical means, to resolve any co-channel interference. In
    other words, under the Commission's applicable rules,
    any \"exclusivity" the wireless carriers may have applies only with
    regard to other wireless carriers, but that does not preclude the
    Commission from approving new services that do not otherwise affect
    operationally the wireless carriers' operations (on remand, the
    Commission found no interference to the wireless carrier's
    operations), which is the case here.

[^189]: As stated in para. 161 of the *R&O*, *supra*, the Commission
    earlier disagreed with Qualcomm that a 1 dB increase in the system
    noise floor, equivalent to a I/N of -6 dB, is indicative of harmful
    interference to a communication system.

[^190]: For example, if S/N is increased from 6 dB to 7 dB the cell
    capacity will decrease from 31 to 25. *See* *IS-95 CDMA and
    cdma2000*, Vijay K. Garg, Prentice Hall PTR, 2000, at pg. 288.

[^191]: Sprint stated that a 1 dB increase in the effective noise floor
    will cause a non-negligible coverage degradation for an outdoor PCS
    receiver.

[^192]: *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order* in WT Docket No. 99-168,
    16 FCC Rcd 1239 (2001) at para. 6-8.

[^193]: This receiver noise figure was provided by Qualcomm in its
    report submitted in this proceeding on March 5, 2001. *See*, also,
    Sprint Petition for Reconsideration, Attachment 1, at pg. 4.

[^194]: The -105 dBm value cited by the petitioners is based on a
    bandwidth of 1.25 MHz. As the UWB emission limits are based on the
    average signal level in a 1 MHz bandwidth, it is convenient to
    reference all emissions to the same 1 MHz bandwidth.

[^195]: *See* FCC staff analysis entitled "ET Docket No. 98-153, First
    Report and Order, Potential Interference to PCS from UWB
    Transmitters Based on Analysis from Qualcomm Incorporated," February
    14, 2002, that was placed in this comment file for this proceeding.

[^196]: For example, a -100 dBm PCS signal level would be received at
    the receiver antenna terminals as a level of -106.6 dBm.

[^197]: Sprint Petition for Reconsideration, Attachment 1, at pg. 4. We
    note that the processing gain specified by Sprint is based on the
    use of a Rate Set 2, *i.e.*, a 1/2 rate convolution encoder on the
    reverse link, whereas a Rate Set 1, *i.e.*, a 1/3 rate convolution
    encoder provides a processing gain of 21.1 dB. Both processing gains
    are supported by IS-95. *See* Literti, Joseph C. Jr. and Rappaport,
    Theodore S., *Smart Antennas for Wireless Communications: IS-95 and
    Third Generation CDMA Applications*, 1999, at pg. 52-53 and 136.
    While Qualcomm, in its petition, stated that the UWB signal must be
    10 dB below the CDMA received power, it gave no reason for providing
    this new value nor why the earlier test data submitted by Qualcomm
    demonstrating the need for a 6 dB S/I is no longer applicable. A 10
    dB S/I was used in the staff analysis to reflect the conditions
    specified in the *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order* in WT Docket
    No. 99-168, 16 FCC Rcd 1239 (2001); this analysis was rejected by
    the petitioners.

[^198]: Sprint cited a handset sensitivity of -118.2 dBm/1.25 MHz,
    equivalent to -119.2 dBm/MHz, but did not consider the 6.6 dB of
    loss due to the handset antenna gain and line loss. We recognize
    that the accuracy implied from calculating emission levels based on
    tenths of a dB may be misleading. Propagation calculations are
    approximations. We are not attempting to insinuate that the
    calculations have this level of accuracy.

[^199]: Sprint Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 12. Sprint did not
    indicate whether this sensitivity level, stated as -105 dBm, was
    based on the signal level at the receiver input terminals or on the
    emission level at the antenna of the receiver. However, its text
    leads us to believe that this level is based on the emission level
    at the antenna of the receiver.

[^200]: This is the signal level at the antenna terminals, not at the
    antenna.

[^201]: PCS handsets are permitted to operate with spurious emissions
    into adjacent frequency blocks as high as ‑13 dBm/MHz. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 24.238(a). With an antenna gain of -4.6 dBi, as described
    above, the radiated signal level from that handset, based on free
    space propagation, at a distance of 100 meters will be
    ‑95.6 dBm/MHz. If the noise plus interference level in a PCS
    receiver already is at -99 dBm/MHz, the introduction 100 meters away
    of another PCS handset operating in an adjacent PCS frequency block
    could increase the noise plus interference level in the first PCS
    receiver from -99 dBm/MHz to -97.3 dBm/MHz, 2.1 dB above the maximum
    noise plus interference level that can be accommodated. The emission
    level permitted by a PCS transmitter into adjacent PCS bands at 100
    meters is the same as that permitted from an indoor UWB device,
    operating in the PCS band at its maximum permitted emission limit,
    at a distance of only 1.6 meters. Accordingly, PCS transmitters
    operating in adjacent frequency blocks represent a considerably
    greater threat of harmful interference to PCS operation than do UWB
    devices. We recognize that PCS transmitters may not emit signals at
    the maximum limit permitted under our rules, but there is the same
    probability that UWB devices also will not emit at the maximum limit
    within the PCS band.

[^202]: A 1500 W microwave oven is permitted to radiate a signal level
    of 43.3 uV/m at 300 meters. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 18.305. Using free
    space propagation, the emissions from the microwave oven are
    permitted to produce the same signal level at 57 meters as that
    permitted from a PCS transmitter at a distance of 100 meters,
    *i.e.*, a signal level of ‑95.6 dBm/MHz EIRP. As before, this would
    result in a noise plus interference level that is 2.1 dB above the
    maximum noise plus interference level that can be accommodated under
    the parameters specified by Sprint.

[^203]: Sprint Petition for Reconsideration at Attachment 1, pg. 19-20.

[^204]: *See* Rappaport, Theodore S., *Wireless Communications,
    Principles and Practice, Second Edition*, 2002, at pg. 391-393. 800
    nanoseconds represent an additional path length of 240 meters.

[^205]: Sprint presented measurements showing a background noise level
    in the C band portion of the PCS bands of around -112 dBm and in the
    D band portion of the PCS bands of around -111 to -114 dBm. *See*
    Sprint *ex parte* filing of January 30, 2002, at pg. 4-7 of the
    Appendix. However, these measurements were taken indoors in a single
    location and cannot be considered to be representative of typical
    operating conditions.

[^206]: Sprint Petition for Reconsideration, Attachment 1, at pg. 4.

[^207]: Even with the processing gain from a Rate Set 1 system, the
    signal variations due to multipath will continue to cause the
    operation of the PCS system to be unreliable at the signal level and
    noise plus interference level specified by Sprint. However, at this
    processing gain level and associated data rate the PCS handset will
    be able to accommodate the noise from another PCS handset 100 meters
    away or the noise from a consumer microwave oven 57 meters away.

[^208]: This is the signal level at the antenna terminals, not at the
    antenna.

[^209]: This is the maximum noise plus interference level that the PCS
    receiver can tolerate under the described parameters.

[^210]: This is the noise level due to the in-cell and other-cell PCS
    emissions combined with the PCS handset thermal noise, as specified
    by Sprint.

[^211]: This is the level of additional noise that can be accommodated
    at the PCS antenna terminals while still providing a S/(N+I) of 6.2
    dB for the -112 dBm/MHz received desired signal with a -99 dBm/MHz
    noise plus interference level already imposed on the receiver.

[^212]: These values are not added directly in their dBm/MHz format but
    are added as actual power levels.

[^213]: This is the maximum emission level that can be accommodated by
    the PCS handset from the UWB emitter without exceeding the maximum
    permitted noise plus interference level, *i.e.*, MaxNI in the above
    chart.

[^214]: This is the formula for free space path loss with F in
    megahertz.

[^215]: Without taking into account the attenuation from the building
    walls through which the UWB public safety imaging signals must pass,
    the level permitted from the imaging system is -41.3 dBm/MHz and the
    separation distance increases to 6 meters, a distance that still is
    well within the control of the public safety operator.

[^216]: We believe that the actual level is closer to the -106 dBm/MHz
    to -112 dBm/MHz shown by Sprint on pg. 11 of the Appendix to its *ex
    parte* submission of January 30, 2002. A lower in-cell and
    other-cell noise level would reduce the calculated maximum
    separation distance.

[^217]: This is the noise from PCS in-cell and other-cell emissions.

[^218]: This is the noise level due to the in-cell and other-cell PCS
    emissions and other noise sources combined with the PCS handset
    thermal noise.

[^219]: These values are not added directly in their dBm/MHz format but
    are added as actual power levels.

[^220]: This is the level of additional noise that can be accommodated
    at the PCS antenna terminals while still providing a S/(N+I) of 6.2
    dB for the -106 dBm/MHz desired signal.

[^221]: These values are not added directly in their dBm/MHz format but
    are added as actual power levels.

[^222]: As noted above, Sprint alleges that our staff analysis
    determining what limits should apply to UWB emissions in the PCS
    bands was not performed until May 3, 2002, approximately 2 and ½
    months after adoption of the *R&O*. In actuality, these calculations
    were performed prior to June of 2001 and the text was drafted prior
    to August of 2001. The paper describing the analyses simply was not
    placed into the record for this proceeding until after the
    Commission adopted and released the *R&O*., *i.e.*, April 22, 2002.

[^223]: Head loss is signal blockage from the head and body of the
    person holding the PCS handset. As revealed in the joint Sprint
    PCS/TDC tests, head loss can range between 12 to 15 dB. Loss from
    antenna polarization can vary between 1.5 and 2.5 dB. *See* XSI
    comments of 5/10/01 at pg. 11.

[^224]: Sprint Petition for Reconsideration, Attachment 2, at pg. 6.

[^225]: Time Domain comments at pg. 9-10.

[^226]: We also note the likelihood that only one UWB device would be
    operating in a closed system at any one time so as to reduce mutual
    interference. As indicated by XSI, it is unlikely that more than one
    UWB transmitter would be operating in close proximity to a victim
    receiver. Sprint earlier acknowledged that many types of UWB devices
    will not transmit continuously, but rather will transmit burst or
    packets as necessary. *See* Sprint PCS comments to the *Notice*,
    *supra*, at Attachment 1, pg. 1-2.

[^227]: While GPRs are being permitted to transmit in the PCS frequency
    bands, they must operate at a level not to exceed -53.3 dBm/MHz, a
    level 12 dB below the Part 15 general emission limits. While the
    public safety imaging systems also are permitted to operate in the
    PCS bands, these systems will be under the operational control of
    licensed public safety officials and there is a low probability that
    the operation of this equipment would be near PCS equipment, as
    discussed earlier in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

[^228]: *See R&O*, *supra*, at para. 71, 155 and 157.

[^229]: Parties should not submit detailed technical comments disguised
    as *ex parte* submissions far beyond the end of the comment period,
    indeed almost up to the sunshine cut-off for discussions, and expect
    those submissions to receive a full evaluation in the text of the
    item.

[^230]: The minimum GPS receiver susceptibility level measured by NTIA
    in its tests of noise-like UWB emissions was -108 dBm whereas the
    GPS susceptibility level used in the *R&O* was -117.5 dBm. In an *ex
    parte* filing submitted on January 11, 2002, Qualcomm provided test
    data demonstrating that there was no loss in the number of acquired
    GPS satellites and no degradation to position accuracy as long as
    the UWB emissions at the antenna port of an assisted GPS receiver
    incorporated in a PCS handset did not exceed a level of about
    ‑108 dBm/2 MHz. This level is comparable to the test data obtained
    by NTIA and by DOT.

[^231]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.517(a)(5).

[^232]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.517(a)(1).

[^233]: In particular, we believe, as cited by Time Domain in response
    to the petition from Sirius and XM, that surveillance systems would
    be used to detect the motion of persons or objects within a
    protected area and would not be placed where there is frequent and
    allowable motion of objects, persons, or animals, such as along
    streets, as this would obviate the utility of the system. Time
    Domain comments at pg. 13-14. Thus, surveillance systems would be
    used to protect areas that are "off limits," and the probable
    location would be well behind a fence or other obstacle far from a
    roadway or from general pedestrian areas.

[^234]: Sirius and XM Joint Petition for Partial Reconsideration at pg.
    ii.

[^235]: This is equivalent to an EIRP of -76.5 dBm/MHz.

[^236]: *Id.* at pg. 2.

[^237]: *Id.* at pg. 6. Sirius and XM requested this limit in an *ex
    parte* filing on February 7, 2002.

[^238]: This is equivalent to an EIRP of -80 dBm/MHz, *i.e.*,
    0.000,000,000,010 watts/MHz.

[^239]: As stated in paragraph 2 of the *R&O*, *supra*, parties should
    not consider the analyses and technical standards discussed in the
    *R&O* as a technical basis for determining or revising standards

[^240]: Sirius and XM Joint Petition for Partial Reconsideration,
    Technical Appendix at pg. 2.

[^241]: Sirius and XM Joint Petition for Partial Reconsideration at pg.
    11.

[^242]: *Id.* at pg. 4-5.

[^243]: *Id.* at pg. ii.

[^244]: *Id.* at pg. 10.

[^245]: *Id.* at pg. 12-13.

[^246]: *Id.* at pg. 16-18 and at footnote 44.

[^247]: *Id.* at pg. 19-20.

[^248]: *Id.* at pg. 20-22.

[^249]: *Id.* at pg. 22-23.

[^250]: *Id.* at technical appendix, pg. 1-3.

[^251]: Time Domain comments at pg. iii.

[^252]: *Id.* at pg. 14-17.

[^253]: *Id.* at pg. iii and 15-16. 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(9).

[^254]: *Id.* at pg. 16. *See*, also, *Memorandum Opinion and Order* in
    WT Docket No. 96-228, 12 FCC Rcd 3977 (1997) at para. 25.

[^255]: Time Domain comments at pg. 12.

[^256]: *Id.* at pg. 12-13.

[^257]: *Id.* at pg. 13-14.

[^258]: *Id*. at pg. 14; *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 169.

[^259]: SARA comments at pg. 4-7.

[^260]: XSI comments at pg. 22.

[^261]: *Id.* at pg. iv, technical appendix.

[^262]: *Id.* at pg. 22 and v, technical appendix. XM notes that the
    Commission's analysis was based on -110 dBm receiver noise floor
    supplied by XM Radio based on the KTB for a 2 MHz bandwidth and a
    noise figure of 1.2 dB. XSI adds that this is equivalent to a noise
    temperature of 70º K and that the 158º K mentioned in the petition
    is a better match to the Sirius receiver as it is equivalent to a
    noise figure of 1.85 dB. Thus, XSI indicates that the "correction"
    to the Commission's calculations, assuming the SDARS receiver is
    located on a barren mountaintop on a -40º day, is not 3.6 dB but
    should be minus 0.5 dB for the noise temperature provided.

[^263]: XSI comments at pg. 23 and at pg. vi-vii, technical appendix.

[^264]: *Id.* at pg. v, technical appendix.

[^265]: *Id*.

[^266]: A level of -130.5 dBW/m^2^/4 kHz is equivalent to -106.5
    dBW/m^2^/MHz or 92 uV/m.

[^267]: XSI comments at pg. vi, technical appendix.

[^268]: USGPSIC comments at pg. 2 and 20.

[^269]: *Id.* at pg. 19.

[^270]: XSI reply comments at pg. 6.

[^271]: Sirius and XM reply comments at pg. 3-4.

[^272]: *Id.* at pg. 5.

[^273]: *Id.* at pg. 5-6.

[^274]: *Id.* at pg. 6-7.

[^275]: *Id.* at pg. 7.

[^276]: *Id.* at pg. 7-8.

[^277]: *Id.* at pg. 8-9.

[^278]: *Id.* at pg. 9.

[^279]: *Id.* at pg. 9.

[^280]: Vehicular radar systems and outdoor (handheld) UWB devices are
    required to operate at a lower emission level in the SDARS band and
    would have a lower maximum separation distance.

[^281]: *See R&O*, *supra*, at para. 168-169.

[^282]: Sirius and XM Joint Petition for Reconsideration, Technical
    Appendix, at pg. 1.

[^283]: While the Commission did not reference a noise temperature of
    360º K, as claimed by the petitioners, the application of a 1.2 dB
    noise figure to a noise temperature of 290º K results in an apparent
    noise temperature of 380.3º K. We believe that the petitioners
    derived their value of 360º K based on our rounded-off noise floor
    of ‑113 dBm/MHz.

[^284]: Sirius has not supplied information on the parameters of its
    receivers, but it did indicate that 2 dB was a typical SDARS
    receiver noise figure in its comments of April 25, 2001, at pg. 3.

[^285]: This distance is based on 9 dB of attenuation being provided by
    the wall through which the imaging signal is directed. If the wall
    attenuation is not considered, the separation distance of 27 meters
    is the same as that applied to surveillance systems.

[^286]: The calculations in the *R&O* rounded off the receiver noise
    floor to -113 dBm/MHz, resulting in slightly larger separation
    distances.

[^287]: While it is possible that a UWB device could be at a higher
    elevation, it is unlikely that this would occur unless the UWB
    device was inside of a building while the SDARS receiver was
    outside. This would result in 9 dB of average building attenuation
    and would also make it likely that the SDARS receiver and the UWB
    device were separated by a distance on the order of 10's of meters.

[^288]: XM in its earlier comments indicated that a 3 dB S/N is required
    for SDARS reception.

[^289]: The primary emissions from GPRs are radiated into, and absorbed
    by, the ground. As emission measurements are made with GPRs placed
    over an absorptive material, the full levels of these emissions are
    not measured.

[^290]: In this specific instance, the operator of the hand held UWB
    device would be causing interference to his own SDARS reception,
    similar to the interference a consumer would receive when attempting
    to operate a 2450 MHz cordless telephone and a microwave oven in
    close proximity. The Commission generally does not attempt to
    protect individuals from causing interference to their own
    unlicensed operations due to the severe shielding and other
    equipment design constraints that this would entail and the high
    cost of consumer electronics that would result.

[^291]: *See R&O*, *supra*, at para. 233-234.

[^292]: *See R&O*, *supra*, at para. 230. *See*, also, NTIA Special
    Publication 01-43, *Assessment of Compatibility Between
    Ultrawideband Devices and Selected Federal Systems*, at pg. 5-1
    through 5-34, and XSI response of July 5, 2001, *Response to U.S.
    GPS Industry Council ex parte Filing of 21 June 2001*, at pg. 3-4
    and 5-7.

[^293]: NTIA Technical Memorandum 92-154 and NTIA 94-303-1, as cited by
    XSI in its comments, technical appendix, pg. vi.

[^294]: See letter of May 2, 2002, from David Leive of Latham & Watkins,
    Counsel for Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., and from Robert Briskman,
    Technical Executive for Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., to the
    Commission secretary. The petition was filed with the Commission on
    January 23, 2002.

[^295]: SIA comments at pg. 3-4.

[^296]: *Id.* at pg. 4.

[^297]: XSI comments at pg. 24-25 and attached technical analysis at pg.
    vii-viii.

[^298]: NTIA Special Publication 01-43, *supra*.

[^299]: Higher emission limits could be permitted with higher PRF UWB
    systems.

[^300]: *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 140. The *R&O* referenced Section 2.3.1
    of Appendix 7 of the (1998) ITU Radio Regulations in stating that
    digital FSS systems should be considered with an I/N ratio of 0 dB.
    Table II of the same Section indicates that analog FSS systems
    should be coordinated with an I/N ratio of -8 dB.

[^301]: NTIA performed its analysis based on the UWB systems operating
    at heights of 2 meters and 30 meters. Any analysis of UWB systems
    operating at different heights, *e.g.*, 50 meters, should produce
    similar results.

[^302]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.209(a).

[^303]: This analysis was submitted as an *ex parte* filing.

[^304]: While imaging systems are permitted to operate outdoors in this
    frequency band, the FSS frequency bands are too high to be used by
    most imaging systems. Medical imaging systems may be able to operate
    in the FSS bands, but they are permitted only for indoor
    applications. It also may be feasible to operate surveillance
    systems in the FSS bands. Because of this, we recommend that parties
    operating FSS receivers be cautious in employing surveillance
    systems to protect their receiver sites.

[^305]: ARINC and ATA Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 4-5. This
    change would affect only indoor and hand held UWB devices.

[^306]: *Id.* at pg. 5.

[^307]: *Id.* at pg. 6.

[^308]: XSI comments at pg. 26-27 and attached technical statement at
    pg. viii-ix.

[^309]: *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 122-146.

[^310]: In its recent *Second Report and Order* *in the Advanced
    Wireless Services*, ET Docket No. 00-258, FCC 02-304, released
    November 5, 2002, the Commission reallocated the 2150-2155 MHz
    portion of the MDS/ITFS spectrum for new Advanced Wireless Services.
    It also indicated that it would identify any relocation spectrum for
    MDS licensees and craft appropriate relocation procedures in a
    separate rulemaking in the near future.

[^311]: WCA comments at pg. 1.

[^312]: *Id.* at pg. 2.

[^313]: *Id.* at pg. 3-5.

[^314]: *Id.* at pg. 7.

[^315]: Sprint reply comments at pg. 23.

[^316]: XSI reply comments at pg. 3. XSI also argues that WCA's comments
    are an untimely filed request for reconsideration, not comments.

[^317]: *Id.* at pg. 4.

[^318]: *Id*.

[^319]: *Id.* at pg. 5.

[^320]: We concur with XSI that the WCA filing consists of untimely
    filed requests for reconsideration and is not a comment with regard
    to the timely filed petitions. This alone is sufficient to dismiss
    WCA's requests. However, in the interest of fair treatment of all of
    the issues raised by the various parties, we responding to the
    issues raised by WCA.

[^321]: *See Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in MM Docket No. 97-217, 15 FCC Rcd
    14566 (2000), at pg. 8-10.

[^322]: *See*, for example, 47 C.F.R. § 74.936(f).

[^323]: The level of -50.3 dBm/MHz is from the new UWB public safety
    communication systems, based on the applied antenna directionality,
    and is the same limit we are permitting in the PCS band.

[^324]: Low power refers to a maximum power of -6 dBW per 6 MHz channel.

[^325]: *Report and Order on Further Reconsideration* in MM Docket No.
    97-217, *supra*.

[^326]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.937(a).

[^327]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.35(b).

[^328]: MSSI Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 9. The pulse
    desensitization correction factor is a technique used to determine
    the true pulse amplitude based on measurements taken from a spectrum
    analyzer. The analyzer is unable to respond fast enough and
    therefore does not use sufficient bandwidth to measure all of the
    energy in the pulsed signal. The pulse desensitization correction
    factor originally was designed specifically for measuring the peak
    output level of pulsed radar transmissions.

[^329]: *Id.* at pg. 6.

[^330]: *Id.* at pg. 2 and 3. *See*, also, Public Notice of July 8,
    1999, "The Office of Engineering and Technology Grants Waivers for
    Ultra-Wide Band Technologies," DA 99-1340.

[^331]: USGPSIC comments at pg. 8.

[^332]: MSSI further comments at pg. 2-3. We agree that is the power
    that appears in the bandwidth of the victim receiver that is the
    potential source of interference. However, as already noted the
    current rules were based on the use of narrowband emissions and may
    unfairly penalize systems employing wide bandwidths.

[^333]: *See NOI*, *supra*, at para. 5 and 13. *See Notice*, *supra*, at
    para. 4, 35, 48, 51, and 53. *See Order*, *supra*, at para. 8 and
    236.

[^334]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.205.

[^335]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.201(f) and 15.5(d).

[^336]: *See* HP Application Note 150-2.

[^337]: The statement contained in the press release is obviously in
    error. A PDCF is applied only when there is a requirement to obtain
    a peak measurement of a pulsed emission. A limit on peak emission
    levels, requiring the peak measurement, occurs only when the
    emission levels are presented as average levels. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    15.35(b). However, many Part 15 emission limits below 960 MHz are
    performed using a CISPR quasi-peak detector and do not require a
    peak measurement. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.209(d) and 15.521(d). Thus,
    a statement that a PDCF is employed only for emission measurements
    below 1000 MHz must be incorrect.

[^338]: FCC Project TRB 02-02 Report, *Measured Emissions Data for Use
    in Evaluating the Ultrawideband (UWB) Emissions Limits in the
    Frequency Bands Used by the Global Positioning System (GPS)*," ET
    Docket No. 98-153, October 22, 2002.

[^339]: The coalition filing the Application for Review and the Request
    for Declaratory Ruling consist of: Air Transport Association of
    America, Inc.; American Airlines; American Congress on Surveying and
    Mapping; ARINC; AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.; The Boeing Company;
    Delta Air Lines, Inc.; Garmin International, Inc.; General Aviation
    Manufacturers Association; Multispectral Solutions, Inc.; National
    Business Aviation Association, Inc.; NavCom Technology, Inc.; Nortel
    Networks, Inc.; Northwest Airlines, Inc.; NovAtel Inc.; PanAmSat
    Corporation; QUALCOMM Incorporated; Raytheon Company; Rockwell
    Collins, Inc.; Satellite Industry Association; Sirius Satellite
    Radio Inc.; Spatial Technologies Industry Association; Sprint
    Corporation; Tendler Cellular, Inc.; Trimble Navigation Ltd.; United
    Airlines; United States GPS Industry Council; and XM Radio Inc.

[^340]: *See*, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, adopted February 10,
    2003, FCC 03-28.

[^341]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.521(c).

[^342]: *R&O, supra*, at para. 207.

[^343]: 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

[^344]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f).

[^345]: 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

[^346]: NTIA Special Publication 01-43, *supra*.

[^347]: Conversely, high PRF systems would be limited by the average
    limit established under the rules and not by the peak limit.

[^348]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.519.

[^349]: Vehicular radar systems operate under the standards in 47 C.F.R.
    § 15.515.

[^350]: As noted in para. 32 of the *R&O*, *supra*, the emissions from
    transmitters employing frequency hopping modulation are measured
    with the frequency hop stopped. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.31(c). While
    this regulation specifically addresses swept frequency devices,
    having been established prior to frequency hopping systems being
    permitted under the regulations, it also has been applied to
    frequency hopping systems. *See* Public Notice of March 30, 2000,
    *Filing and Measurement Guidelines for Frequency Hopping Spread
    Spectrum Systems*, DA 00-705. No other measurement procedures have
    been proposed or established for frequency hopping systems.

[^351]: At any point in time, there would be fewer hopping channel
    radars transmitting on the same frequency, but there would be a
    higher output level from these devices. Our concern for interference
    to terrestrial services is based on nearby vehicular radars rather
    than a general cumulative impact. A considerable number of nearby
    UWB radars may be required to come up to the same instantaneous
    level emitted by the Siemens wideband radar.

[^352]: Note that we also propose to eliminate the minimum UWB bandwidth
    standards which could make this issue moot.

[^353]: Siemens Petition for Reconsideration at Appendix A, pg. 16-17.
    These measurement procedures are incorporated by reference into this
    Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making.

[^354]: *R&O*, *supra*, at para. 214.

[^355]: In order to accurately measure a peak signal, the video
    bandwidth must not be less than the RBW.

[^356]: The factional bandwidth is the UWB bandwidth, *i.e.*, the -10 dB
    bandwidth, divided by the center frequency. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    15.503(c).

[^357]: It is the limit on emission levels, particularly the limit on
    spectral power density, that primarily controls interference
    potential.

[^358]: Because of the requirement that the RBW used in the 20 log
    (RBW/50) dBm peak power formula must be no greater than the -10 dB
    bandwidth of the emission, UWB devices would be required to have a
    -10 dB bandwidth of at least 1 MHz to use the peak power formula of
    20 log (RBW/50) dBm, and must employ a -10 dB bandwidth of at least
    500 MHz in order to employ a 50 MHz RBW. Transmission systems with
    narrower bandwidths would have to operate under the peak power limit
    currently applied to narrowband Part 15 transmissions.

[^359]:   The RFA, *see* § 5 U.S.C. S 601 *et. seq*., has been amended
    by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
    104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^360]:   5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^361]:   5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^362]:   5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
    of \"small business concern\" in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. S §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies \"unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register.\"

[^363]: Small Business Act 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^364]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^365]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^366]: 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^367]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^368]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^369]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^370]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^371]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^372]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^373]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Economic
    Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract to the
    Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^374]: 47 CFR § 1.1162.

[^375]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^376]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census
    of Governments.

[^377]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census
    of Governments.

[^378]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census
    of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, UC 92-S-1, Subject
    Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 2D, Employment Size of
    Firms.

[^379]: 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 513321 (changed to 517211 in
    October 2002).

[^380]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^381]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income
    Tax: 1997," Table 5, NAICS code 513321 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^382]: *Id*. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^383]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income
    Tax: 1997," Table 5, NAICS code 513322 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^384]: *Id*. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^385]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^386]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1977 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Industry Statistics by Employment Size," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334220 (issued August 1999).

[^387]: 13 C.F. R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 517410 (formerly 513340).

[^388]: *Id*. NAICS code 517910 (formerly 513390).

[^389]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Receipt Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax:
    1997," Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^390]: *Id*.

[^391]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Receipt Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax:
    1997," Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^392]: *Id*.

[^393]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -- (c)(4).

[^394]: FCC Project TRB 02-02 Report, *Measured Emissions Data for Use
    in Evaluating the Ultrawideband (UWB) Emissions Limits in the
    Frequency Bands Used by the Global Positioning System (GPS)"*, ET
    Docket No. 98-153, October 22, 2002 (hereinafter "TRB Report").

[^395]: QUALCOMM Incorporated, *Comments of QUALCOMM Incorporated on
    Report of the Staff of the Office of Engineering and Technology*, ET
    Docket No. 98-153, November 22, 2002. ( hereinafter, "QUALCOMM
    Comments")

[^396]: *Id*. at pg. 2.

[^397]: *Id*. at pg. 3.

[^398]: *Id.*

[^399]: *Id*. at pg. 4.

[^400]: *Id.*

[^401]: *Id*.

[^402]: *Id*.

[^403]: QUALCOMM Comments at pg. 5.

[^404]: QUALCOMM Comments at pg. 4.

[^405]: QUALCOMM Comments at pg. 5.

[^406]: *Id.*

[^407]: QUALCOMM Comments at pg. 6.

[^408]: *Id.*

[^409]: Agilent Technologies, "*Agilent PSA Series Spectrum Analyzers
    Instrument Messages and Functional Tests,*" May 2002, Status
    Messages, p 38.

[^410]: QUALCOMM Comments at pg. 7.

[^411]: *Id.*

[^412]: United States GPS Industry Council, Comments on the FCC TRB
    Report, ET Docket No. 98-153, November 22, 2002. (hereinafter
    "USGSIC Comments")

[^413]: USGPSIC Comments at pg. C-1.

[^414]: *Id*.

[^415]: *Id*. at pg. C-2.

[^416]: NTIA Special Publication 01-45, *Assessment of Compatibility
    between Ultrawideband (UWB) Systems and Global Positioning System
    (GPS) Receivers*, U.S. Department of Commerce, February 2001.

[^417]: USGPSIC Comments at pg. C-2.

[^418]: *Id*.

[^419]: *GPS World*, September 2001, at pg. 24.

[^420]: Multiple GPS signals can be used simultaneously to increase the
    accuracy of the GPS navigation solution.

[^421]: *Id*.

[^422]: *Id*.

[^423]: John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,
    *Vulnerability Assessment of the Transportation Infrastructure
    Relying on the Global Positioning System*, Final Report, August 29,
    2001, p. 35.

[^424]: USGPSIC Comments @ C-3.

[^425]: TRB Report at pg. 9.

[^426]: RF Metrics Corporation, *Comments of RF Metrics Corporation on
    Report of the Staff of the Office of Engineering and Technology
    Project 02-02*, ET Docket No. 98-153, November 22, 2002.
    (hereinafter "RFM Comments")

[^427]: *Id*. at pg. 2.

[^428]: *Id*.

[^429]: RFM Comments at pg. 2.

[^430]: *Id*. at 5.

[^431]: TRB Report at pg. B-1.

[^432]: RFM Comments at pg. 3.

[^433]: *Id*. at pg. 3.

[^434]: Cingular Wireless LLC, *Comments on Emissions Report*, ET Docket
    No. 98-153, November 22, 2002. (hereinafter "Cingular Comments")

[^435]: *Id*. at pg. 3.

[^436]: *Id*. at pg. 5.

[^437]: TRB Report at pg. 15.

[^438]: Cingular Comments at pg. 5.

[^439]: XtremeSpectrum, Inc., *Comments of XtremeSpectrum, Inc.*, ET
    Docket No. 98-153, November 22, 2002.

[^440]: Time Domain Corporation, *Comments of Time Domain Corporation*,
    ET Docket No. 98-153, November 22, 2002,

[^441]: Ground Penetrating Radar Industry Coalition, *Comments of the
    Ground Penetrating Radar Industry Coalition*, ET Docket No. 98-153,
    November 22, 2002.

[^442]: Public Safety Wireless Network, *Comments to the Federal
    Communications Commission Report, Measured Emissions Data for Use in
    Evaluating the Ultra-Wideband (UWB) Emissions Limits in the
    Frequency Bands Used by the Global Positioning System (GPS)*, ET
    Docket No. 98-153, November 22, 2002.