*Pages 1--89 from  Microsoft Word - 25701.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  the  matter  of 
 Revision  of  Part  15  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  Ultra-  Wideband  Transmission 
 Systems 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ET  Docket  No.  98-  153 


 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 
 II.  BACKGROUND  .............................................................................................................................  2 
 III.  PETITIONS  FOR  RECONSIDERATION......................................................................................  5 
 A.  Petitions  for  reconsideration  from  the  UWB  equipment  developers:.................................  5  1.  Public  safety  imaging  systems  ...............................................................................  5 


 2.  Ground  penetrating  radar  systems  .......................................................................  10  3.  Wideband  radar  and  other  low  PRF  systems  in  the  3.1-  10.6  GHz  band..............  16 
 4.  Vehicular  radar  systems  in  the  22-  29  GHz  band  .................................................  18  5.  Indoor  UWB  operation  ........................................................................................  20 


 B.  Petitions  for  reconsideration  from  representatives  of  the  authorized  radio  services:  ............................................................................................................................  21 
 1.  UWB  emissions  in  the  cellular  and  PCS  frequency  bands  ..................................  21  2.  UWB  emissions  in  the  SDARS  frequency  bands  ................................................  41 
 3.  UWB  emissions  in  the  FSS  frequency  bands  ......................................................  51  4.  UWB  emissions  in  the  aviation  frequency  bands  ................................................  53 
 5.  UWB  emissions  in  the  MDS  and  ITFS  frequency  bands.....................................  54 
 C.  MSSI  Petition  for  Reconsideration  regarding  non-  UWB  standards:................................  56 
 IV.  OTHER  MATTERS.......................................................................................................................  58 
 V.  FURTHER  NOTICE  OF  PROPOSED  RULE  MAKING  .............................................................  59 
 VI.  ADMINISTRATIVE  PROVISIONS.............................................................................................  64 
 A.  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order.....................................................................................  64 
 B.  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making.........................................................................  66 


 VII.  INITIAL  REGULATORY  FLEXIBILITY  ANALYSIS....  Appendix  A 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 2 
 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 
 I.  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. 
 II.  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 
 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. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 3 
 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: 


 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). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 6 
 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.  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  NTIAs  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.  The  USGPSIC  opposes  Time  Domains  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 
 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. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 7 
 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.  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  Domains  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 
 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). 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 8 
 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  Domains  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 


 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. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 9 
 Domains  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. 


 28  47  C.  F.  R.    90.  20(  f)(  4). 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 10 
 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. 


 2.  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.  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 


 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. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 11 
 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  Commissions  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.  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 
 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. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 12 
 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  USGPSICs  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  Commissions  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 
 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. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 13 
 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  operators  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  Commissions  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.  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 
 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. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 14 
 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 
 59  See  Order,  supra,  at  para.  6. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 15 
 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 


 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. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 16 
 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. 


 3.  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 


 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. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 17 
 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.  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.  SARA,  Delphi  and  XSI  object  to  MSSIs  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 


 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. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 18 
 limits  represented  in  the  News  Release.  78 
 42.  Discussion.  With  regard  to  MSSIs  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,  MSSIs  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  MSSIs  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. 


 4.  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 


 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. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 19 
 modulation  types  from  consideration  as  UWB  devices.  82 
 46.  Petition.  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.  SARA  fully  supports  the  Siemens  VDO  petition.  87  No  other  comments  regarding  the  Siemens  VDO  petition  were  filed. 


 48.  Discussion.  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  VDOs  proposal  to  produce  a  vehicular  radar  system  using  frequency  hopping  techniques.  89  Accordingly,  the  inclusion  of  a 


 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  VDOs  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  (continued....) 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 20 
 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  VDOs  Petition  for  Reconsideration.  We 
 are,  however,  addressing  Siemens  VDOs  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. 
 5.  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.  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.  AWS  objects  to  increasing  the  emission  level  from  Kohlers  UWB  radar,  stating  that  Kohlers  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.  We  do  not  agree  with  Kohlers  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 


 (...  continued  from  previous  page)  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.  Kohlers  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. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 21 
 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  Kohlers  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,  Kohlers  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. 


 B.  Petitions  for  reconsideration  from  representatives  of  the  authorized  radio  services: 
 1.  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.  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 


 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. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 22 
 would  cause  interference  to  CDMA  PCS  systems;  101  2)  the  Commission  rejected  Qualcomms  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  Qualcomms  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 
 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. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 23 
 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.  Sprints  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  Commissions  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  Commissions  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 


 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. 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 24 
 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 
 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). 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 25 
 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.  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  Commissions  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 


 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. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 26 
 higher  levels  than  set  for  UWB  devices,  and  that  the  relevant  inquiry  is  whether  UWB  will  cause  harmful  interference.  144  Time  Domain  disputes  Sprints  and  Qualcomms  contentions  that  RAKE  receivers 
 eliminate  Rayleigh  fading,  noting  that  the  variation  in  the  received  signal  level  in  Sprints  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  Commissions  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  Commissions  approach  on  its  calculation  of  the  proper  emission  limit  for  UWB  emissions  in  the  PCS  band,  offer  no  evidence  as  to  why  the  Commissions  approach  evaluated  under  actual 
 operating  conditions  is  wrong.  150  XSI  disagrees  with  Sprints  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 


 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  users  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. 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 27 
 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  Commissions  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 


 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. 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 28 
 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.  Qualcomms  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  XSIs  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 


 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. 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 29 
 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  XSIs  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  IUWB/  M  where  IUWB  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  Sprints  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 
 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 
 Boltzmanns  constant  equal  to  1.38  x  10  -23  W/  Hz/  K,  T  is  temperature  in  degrees  Kelvin,  and  B  is  the  receiver  bandwidth  in  Hertz.  For  a  standard  temperature  of  290  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. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 30 
 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.  Cellular  and  PCS  Exclusivity  of  Operation.  There  is  no  basis  for  Sprints  and  Cingulars  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  Commissions  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 


 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  Commissions  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  carriers  operations),  which  is  the  case  here. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 31 
 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.  Sprints  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  (Boltzmans 
 constant  of  1.38  x  10  -23  W/  Hz/  K  times  the  temperature  in  degrees  Kelvin)  +  90  dB  +  the  noise  figure  of  the  receiver.  The  temperature  employed  for  terrestrial  receivers  is  290  Kelvin,  and  the  noise  figure  for  a 


 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. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 32 
 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  level  200  -112.6  dBm/  MHz  S  =  DSL  +  AG  +  LL 
 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) 
 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. 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 33 
 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. 


 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. 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 34 
 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  level  208  -112  dBm/  MHz  S  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  211  -101.6  dBm/  MHz  IR  =  MaxNI    N  212 
 Maximum  UWB  emission  level  at  the  PCS  handset  antenna  213  -95  dBm/  MHz  I  =  IR  AG    LL 


 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. 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 35 
 UWB  emission  limit  -53.3  dBm/  MHz  E  Required  path  loss  41.7  dB  PL  =  E    I 
 Maximum  separation  distance  1.5  meters  20  log  (D)  =  PL    20log(  F)  +  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  level  -112.6  dBm/  MHz  S  =  DSL  +  AG  +  LL 
 Processing  gain  19.4  dB  PG  Minimum  required  S/(  N+  I)  6.2  dB  S/(  N+  I) 


 (...  continued  from  previous  page)  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. 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 36 
 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  level  -106  dBm/  MHz  RTN 
 Total  noise  level  218  -103.3  dBm/  MHz  N  =  RPCSN  +  RTN  219  Maximum  UWB  emission  level  220  -101.7  dBm/  MHz  IR  =  MaxNI    N  221 
 Maximum  UWB  emission  level  at  the  PCS  handset  antenna  -95.5  dBm/  MHz  I  =  IR  AG  -  LL 
 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 


 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    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. 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 37 
 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  Sprints  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 


 224  Sprint  Petition  for  Reconsideration,  Attachment  2,  at  pg.  6. 
 225  Time  Domain  comments  at  pg.  9-  10. 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 38 
 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  Commissions  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 
 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. 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 39 
 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  Sprints  Telcordia  model  and  the  majority  of  its  ambient  noise  study  are  encompassed  in  its  Petition  for  Reconsideration  and  are  addressed  above. 
 Sprints  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.  Sprints  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 


 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. 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 40 
 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  Sprints  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 
 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. 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 41 
 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. 


 2.  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.  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 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 42 
 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  360  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  158  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 
 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. 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 43 
 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 
 XMs  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  158  K.  250  They  indicate  that  a  receiver  noise  temperature  of  290  K  may  be  appropriate  when  the  DARS  receiver  is  located  in  an  urban  environment,  but  a  temperature  of  158  K 
 is  suitable  when  the  DARS  receiver  is  located  in  an  environment  suitable  for  satellite  reception. 
 103.  Comments.  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  Commissions  intention 


 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). 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 44 
 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  XMs  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  360  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 


 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. 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 45 
 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 


 Commissions  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 


 262  Id.  at  pg.  22  and  v,  technical  appendix.  XM  notes  that  the  Commissions  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  70  K  and  that  the  158  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  Commissions  calculations,  assuming  the  SDARS  receiver  is  located  on  a  barren  mountaintop  on 
 a  -40  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. 
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 46 
 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  Commissions  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  Domains  contention  that  the  Commission  used  specific  technical  information  to  analyze  the  risk  of  SDARS  interference,  stating  that  the  Commissions  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  Commissions  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  158  K  to  290  K  and  the  Commission  erred  in  using  360  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.  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  XMs  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 


 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. 
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 47 
 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  Commissions  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  Commissions 
 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  290  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 


 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  360  K,  as  claimed  by  the  petitioners,  the  application  of  a  1.2  dB  noise  figure  to  a  noise  temperature  of  290  K  results  in  an  apparent  noise  temperature  of 


 380.  3  K.  We  believe  that  the  petitioners  derived  their  value  of  360  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. 
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 48 
 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 
 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  10s  of  meters. 
 288  XM  in  its  earlier  comments  indicated  that  a  3  dB  S/  N  is  required  for  SDARS  reception. 
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 49 
 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 
 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. 
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 50 
 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  others  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  NTIAs  earlier  study  of 
 emissions  from  multiple  UWB  devices  along  with  XSIs  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  NTIAs  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  Commissions  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. 


 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. 
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 51 
 3.  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.  SIA  filed  a  Petition  for  Reconsideration  stating  that  the  Commissions  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.  XSI  disagrees  with  SIA,  stating  that  the  Commissions  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.  In  the  R&  O,  the  Commission  relied  upon  an  analysis  of  NTIAs  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  NTIAs  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 
 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. 
51
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 52 
 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  SIAs  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  SIAs  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  SIAs  latest  submission  that  UWB 


 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. 
52
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 53 
 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. 
 4.  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.  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.  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.  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 


 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. 
53
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 54 
 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. 
 5.  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.  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  Commissions  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  customers  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  WCAs  comments.  315 


 138.  XSI  argues  that  WCA  provides  no  technical  support  in  its  disagreement  with  the  Commissions  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  Sprints  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 


 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  WCAs  comments  are  an  untimely  filed  request  for  reconsideration,  not  comments. 


 317  Id.  at  pg.  4. 
 318  Id. 
54
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 55 
 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.  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. 


 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  WCAs  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. 
55
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 56 
 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  WCAs  request. 
 C.  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  analyzers 
 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.  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 


 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. 
56
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 57 
 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.  The  US  GPS  Industry  Council  argues  that  granting  MSSIs  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.  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  MSSIs 
 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. 


 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. 
57
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 58 
 IV.  OTHER  MATTERS 
 147.  Ambient  noise  measurements.  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.  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 


 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. 
58
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 59 
 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.  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  Commissions  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.  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 


 V.  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.  MSSI  requests  that  UWB  systems  employing  a  low  pulse  repetition  frequency  (PRF)  be  permitted  to  operate  in 


 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). 
59
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 60 
 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  MSSIs  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.  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  VDOs  claim  that  a  10 
 millisecond  averaging  time  for  its  frequency  hopping  vehicular  radar  signals  would  make  them  similar 
 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. 
60
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 61 
 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 


 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. 
61
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 62 
 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.  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 


 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. 
62
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 63 
 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. 


 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). 
63
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 64 
 (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.  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  Commissions  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. 
 VI.  ADMINISTRATIVE  PROVISIONS 
 A.  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order 
 167.  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995  Analysis.  This  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  contains  a  modified  information  collection  subject  to  the  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995  (PRA),  Public 


 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. 
64
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 65 
 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.  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.  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  Petitions  for  Reconsideration  from  MSSI, 


 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). 
65
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 66 
 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 
 Commissions  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  Commissions  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. 


 B.  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 
 Commissions  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 
66
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 67 
 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 
67
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 68 
 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 


 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. 
68
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 69 
 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. 


 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. 
69
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 70 
 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. 


 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. 
70
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 71 
 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. 


 393  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  c)(  1)    (c)(  4). 
71
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 72 
 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. 
 (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 
 1610-  1990  1990-  3100 
 3100-  10600  Above  10600 


 -65.3  -53.3 
 -51.3  -41.3 
 -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 
 1559-  1610  -75.3  -75.3 
72
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 73 
 (f)  For  UWB  devices  where  the  frequency  at  which  the  highest  radiated  emission  occurs,  fM,  is  above  960  MHz,  there  is  a  limit  on  the  peak  level  of  the  emissions  contained  within  a  50  MHz  bandwidth 
 centered  on  fM.  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. 
 (a)  The  UWB  bandwidth  of  an  imaging  system  operating  under  the  provisions  of  this  section  must  be  below  960  MHz  or  the  center  frequency,  fC,  and  the  frequency  at  which  the  highest  radiated 
 emission  occurs,  fM,  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 
 1610-  1990  Above  1990  -65.3  -53.3  -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 
 1559-  1610  -75.3  -75.3 


 (d)  For  equipment  operating  with  fC  and  fM  between  1990  MHz  and  10600  MHz: 
73
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 74 
 (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 
 1610-  10600  Above  10600  -46.3  -41.3  -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 
 1559-  1610  -56.3  -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,  fM.  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. 
 (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. 
74
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 75 
 (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 
 1610-  1990  1990-  10600 
 Above  10600 


 -53.3  -51.3 
 -41.3  -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 
 1559-  1610  -63.3  -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,  fM.  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. 
 (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. 
75
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 76 
 (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 
 1610-  1990  1990-  3100 
 3100-  10600  Above  10600 


 -65.3  -53.3 
 -51.3  -41.3 
 -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 
 1559-  1610  -75.3  -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,  fM.  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. 
 *  *  *  *  * 
 (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  transmitters  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. 
 *  *  *  *  * 
 (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 
76
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 77 
 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)  *  *  * 
77
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 78 
 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) 
78
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 79 
 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)  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. 


 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. 
79
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 80 
 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  manufacturers  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. 


 397  Id.  at  pg.  3. 
 398  Id. 
80
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 81 
 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 
 399  Id.  at  pg.  4. 
 400  Id. 
 401  Id. 
 402  Id. 
 403  QUALCOMM  Comments  at  pg.  5. 
 404  QUALCOMM  Comments  at  pg.  4. 
81
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 82 
 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  users  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  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. 


 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. 
82
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 83 
 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)  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). 


 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. 
83
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 84 
 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.  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  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. 


 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. 
84
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 85 
 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 


 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. 
85
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 86 
 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  N0  in  the  FCC  TRB  report  is  not  correct  for  the  noise  floor.  The  equation  only  describes  receiver  noise    doesnt  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)  426 
 Many  of  the  measurement  results  do  not  agree  with  the  stated  measurement  system  performance  parameters.  427 


 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. 
86
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 87 
 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 


 428  Id. 
 429  RFM  Comments  at  pg.  2. 
87
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 88 
 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)  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 


 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. 
88
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  03-  33 
 89 
 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  439,  440,  441,  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. 


 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. 
89