62476 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Name (typed): llllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

(d) The applicant must submit a nonrefundable check in the amount of $500 

(Five Hundred Dollars) made payable to 

the Maritime Administration, which is a 

minimum fee and represents a deposit 

against any cost to the Government for 

processing the application. The 

applicant must also submit a signed 

statement (see paragraph (c) of this 

section) that it agrees to pay all such 

additional costs that will be invoiced by 

the Government. Government costs will 

be billed for actual staff hours spent at 

applicable hourly rates plus overhead, 

administrative and other associated 

costs. 

(e) Required platform jacket 

transportation project information. 

(1) Applications must include a 

general description of the transport, 

placement and/or launch project, 

including: 

(i) A description of the platform jacket 

structure with launching weight, center 

of gravity, major dimensions, and a 

general arrangement plan, 

(ii) The projected loading date and 

site, 

(iii) The projected transportation date 

and destination site, 

(iv) The names of potential coastwisequalified vessel owners/operators 

contacted and their responses regarding 

suitability and availability of 

transportation vessels, and 

(v) The technical merits and 

availability studies of coastwisequalified vessels considered. 

(2) Characteristics of the applicant’s 

desired foreign launch barge, including, 

at a minimum, the following 

information: 

(i) Name of the vessel, 

(ii) Registered owner of the vessel, 

(iii) Physical dimensions, deadweight 

capacity in long tons, ballasting 

capacities and arrangements, and 

launch capacity in long tons and 

arrangements, 

(iv) Documentation showing 

classification as a launch barge by one 

of the following classification societies: 

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), 

Bureau Veritas (BV), Lloyd’s Register 

(LR), Germanischer Lloyd (GL), Det 

Norske Veritas (DNV) or Registro 

Italiano Navale (RINA). 

(v) Date and place of construction of 

the foreign launch barge and (if 

applicable) rebuilding. If the applicant 

is unable to document the origin of the 

vessel, foreign construction will be 

assumed. 

(vi) Name, address, e-mail address 

and telephone number of the foreign 

launch vessel owner. 

(3) A signed statement that the 

applicant represents that the foregoing 

information is true to the best of the 

applicant’s knowledge and belief, as 

required by paragraph (b) of this section. 

(f) The Maritime Administration may 

require additional information from an 

applicant as part of the review process. 

The application will not be considered 

complete until the agency has received 

all required information. 

§ 389.5 Review; issuance of 

determinations. 

(a) The Maritime Administration will 

review each application for 

completeness, including evidence of 

prior notification and payment of the 

application fee. Applications will not be 

processed until deemed complete. The 

Maritime Administration will notify an 

applicant if additional information is 

necessary. The agency encourages 

submission of applications well in 

advance of project dates in order to 

allow sufficient time for review under 

this part. 

(b) The Maritime Administration will 

review the information required by 

Section 389.4. When the application is 

deemed complete, the agency will 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

describing the project and platform 

jacket involved, advising that all 

relevant information reasonably 

necessary to assess the transportation 

requirements will be made available to 

interested parties upon request. The 

notice will request that information on 

the availability of coastwise-qualified 

vessels be submitted within thirty (30) 

days after the publication date. The 

Maritime Administration will also 

notify coastwise-qualified owners/ 

operators who have registered with per 

§ 389.3. 

(c) The Maritime Administration will 

review any submissions whereby an 

offeror owner or operator of a coastwisequalified vessel asserts it is available 

and will facilitate discussions between 

the offeror and a platform jacket owner/ 

operator who requires transportation 

services. If the parties are unable to 

reach agreement, the Maritime 

Administration will make a 

determination regarding vessel 

availability. 

(d) If needed, the Maritime 

Administration’s technical personnel 

will review data required by § 389.4. 

The data must be complete and current. 

Any data submitted will not be returned 

to an applicant and will be retained by 

the agency on file further to applicable 

record retention directives. Maritime 

Administration review will not 

substitute for the review or approval by 

a major classification society (ABS, BV, 

LR, GL, DNV, RINA). Maritime 

Administration review will not verify 

the accuracy or correctness of an 

applicant’s engineering proposal; rather, 

it will only pertain to the general 

reasonableness and soundness of the 

technical approach. 

(e) The Maritime Administration will 

disapprove the application if: 

(1) The agency finds the applicant 

does not comply with requirements set 

forth by § 389.3 or § 389.4; or 

(2) The agency finds that the 

applicant refused to attempt to obtain 

transportation services that comply with 

the Jones Act; or 

(3) The agency determines a suitable 

coastwise-qualified vessel is reasonably 

available. 

(f) The Maritime Administration will 

issue a determination of non-availability 

if it is determined that no suitable 

coastwise-qualified vessel is reasonably 

available. 

(g) A determination will be issued 

within ninety (90) days from the date 

the application notice was published in 

the Federal Register. 

(h) A determination of nonavailability will expire one-hundred and 

twenty (120) days after the date of 

issuance, unless the agency provides an 

extension for good cause shown. 

(i) Maritime Administration 

determinations in this regard should not 

be interpreted as a change setting new 

Federal maritime precedents. The 

Maritime Administration fully supports 

the Jones Act, the Passenger Vessel 

Services Act, and other Federal U.S.-flag 

requirements. 

Dated: September 30, 2010. 

By order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Christine S. Gurland, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25229 Filed 10–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket No. 98–153 and 04–352; FCC 

10–151] 

Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document reaffirms 

certain rules and procedures for ultrawideband (‘‘UWB’’) devices that operate 

on an unlicensed basis of the 

Commission’s rules. This action 

terminates the Ultra-Wideband 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62477 

Transmission Systems proceeding and 

thus provides certainty for the 

continued development of UWB 

equipment, including ground 

penetrating radars for underground 

imaging, through wall imaging systems, 

short-range high capacity data links, and 

other applications. 

DATES: Effective November 12, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Ansari, Policy and Rules 

Division, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–2431, e-mail: 

Karen.Ansari@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Third 

Memorandum Opinion and Order and 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET 

Docket No. 98–153 and ET Docket No. 

04–352, adopted August 10, 2010, and 

released August 11, 2010. The full text 

of this document is available on the 

Commission’s Internet site at http:// 

www.fcc.gov. It is also available for 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

full text of this document also may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplication contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554; telephone (202) 488–5300; fax 

(202) 488–5563; e-mail 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. 

Summary of the Third Memorandum 

Opinion and Order and Memorandum 

Opinion and Order 

1. In this Third Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, the Commission 

dismisses as procedurally defective a 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by the 

Satellite Industry Association (‘‘SIA’’) in 

response to the Second Report and 

Order and Second Memorandum 

Opinion and Order (‘‘Second R&O’’ and 

‘‘Second MO&O’’) in ET Docket No. 98– 

153, 70 FR 6771, February 9, 2005, that 

argues that the power level adopted for 

UWB devices is too high to protect 

C-band (3.7–4.2 GHz) fixed satellite 

service (‘‘FSS’’) earth stations from 

interference. In this Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, the Commission 

also dismisses in part and denies in part 

a Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

SIA and denies a Petition for 

Reconsideration filed by Cingular 

Wireless LLC (‘‘Cingular’’) (now AT&T) 

in response to the Order (‘‘Order’’) in ET 

Docket No. 04–352. Both petitions argue 

that the waiver granted by the Order of 

the measurement procedures for UWB 

devices operating in the 3.1–5.03 GHz 

and 5.65–10.6 GHz bands would 

significantly increase the potential for 

interference to C-band fixed satellite 

and cellular operations. 

Background 

2. On February 14, 2002, the 

Commission adopted the First Report 

and Order (‘‘First R&O’’) in ET Docket 

No. 98–153, 67 FR 34852, May 16, 2002, 

amending part 15 of its rules to permit 

the marketing and the unlicensed 

operation of products incorporating 

UWB technology. UWB devices operate 

in frequency bands that are allocated 

both to Federal and to non-Federal 

operations, including certain frequency 

bands where unlicensed devices 

generally are restricted from 

transmitting, i.e., the restricted 

frequency bands, due to the extremely 

wide bandwidths UWB devices use. 

Consequently, before the Commission 

adopted its technical and operational 

rules for UWB devices, it evaluated 

several measured and simulated 

analyses regarding the potential for 

UWB devices to cause harmful 

interference to the authorized services. 

3. Two additional orders were 

adopted in response to several Petitions 

for Reconsideration. On February 13, 

2003, the Commission adopted a 

Memorandum Opinion and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

(‘‘MO&O’’ and ‘‘FNRPM’’) in ET Docket 

No. 98–153, 68 FR 19746 and 68 FR 

19773, April 22, 2003, addressing 

fourteen Petitions for Reconsideration of 

the First R&O and proposing changes to 

the UWB regulations. On December 15, 

2004, the Commission adopted the 

Second R&O and Second MO&O, 

addressing the proposals in the FNPRM 

in addition to denying the Petitions for 

Reconsideration of the MO&O filed by 

Cingular and by SIA. In the Second 

MO&O, the Commission also addressed 

the interference analysis submitted by 

the Coalition of C-Band Constituents 

(‘‘Coalition’’). The Coalition had 

contracted with Alion Science and 

Technology (‘‘Alion’’) to determine 

what, if any, interference potential 

exists to Fixed Satellite Service (‘‘FSS’’) 

reception from UWB operation. The 

Commission found that the test report 

on this matter (‘‘Alion Report’’) was 

based on multiple worst-case and 

unrealistic assumptions and provided 

no justification to warrant reducing the 

allowed UWB emission levels in the 

FSS frequency band. 

4. On March 10, 2005, the 

Commission adopted an Order granting 

a waiver of the measurement procedures 

to permit emissions from UWB 

transmitters operating in the 3.1–5.03 

GHz and 5.65–10.6 GHz bands that 

employ frequency hopping or stepped 

frequency modulation techniques, or 

that gate the transmitted signal, to be 

measured with the transmitter operating 

in its normal transmission mode. This 

action waived the UWB measurement 

requirements not only for Multi-band 

OFDM Alliance Special Interest Group 

(‘‘MBOA–SIG’’) but also for any UWB 

device using hopped, stepped or 

sequenced modulation techniques or 

that gates the transmittal signal. 

SIA Petition for Reconsideration of the 

Second MO&O 

5. I/N Level and Alion Report. SIA 

asserts, as it has on previous occasions 

in this rulemaking proceeding, that the 

power limit adopted for UWB devices is 

not sufficient to protect C-band FSS 

earth stations from interference because, 

in devising this power limit, the 

Commission’s analysis relied on a 0 dB 

interference-to-noise ratio (‘‘I/N’’) for 

earth station receivers, which SIA states 

is too high. SIA also disagrees with the 

Commission’s conclusion in the Second 

MO&O that the Alion interference study 

was based on multiple worst-case 

assumptions that were not realistic and 

thus did not support modifying the 

UWB power limits. SIA further asserts 

that the Commission’s reliance on 

complaint procedures to protect FSS 

stations from interference from UWB 

devices, as discussed in the Second 

MO&O, is ineffective. Opposing 

comments were filed by Freescale 

Semiconductor, Inc. (‘‘Freescale’’), and 

joint supporting comments were filed by 

Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Cable 

Networks and Home Box Office, Inc. 

(‘‘Fox et al.’’). 

6. While SIA states that its petition is 

a Petition for Recondiseration of the 

Second R&O and Second MO&O, it does 

not address any changes to the 

regulations that were adopted in the 

Second R&O portion of that document. 

SIA is essentially making the same 

arguments here that it made in its 

Petition for Reconsideration of the 

Order, asserting that the Alion Report 

supports the need to modify the UWB 

technical requirements. The 

Commission explained in the Second 

MO&O that its reasons for recalculating 

the analysis in the Alion study were 

based on its rejection of the application 

of a signal aggregation factor for UWB 

devices and its rejection of the 

assumption that most UWB devices 

would operate outdoors in proximity to 

FSS earth stations. As the Commission 

indicated in the Second MO&O, the 

inclusion of either of these factors was 

sufficient to demonstrate that there was 

no need to modify the UWB emission 

limits to protect FSS earth stations. SIA 

presents no new arguments or 

information in its Third Reconsideration 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
62478 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Petition—it merely disagrees with the 

Commission’s analysis and conclusion. 

Further, SIA is essentially requesting 

reconsideration of an Order denying a 

petition for reconsideration. In that 

action, however, the Commission did 

not make any changes to the UWB 

regulations. Accordingly, pursuant to 47 

CFR 1.429(i), the Commission is 

dismissing this portion of SIA’s Third 

Reconsideration Petition as repetitious. 

7. Reliance on Complaint Procedure 

to Protect FSS. SIA protests that the 

Commission’s complaint procedures 

would not be effective for addressing 

claims of interference from UWB 

devices to FSS earth stations, and thus 

requests that the Commission modify 

the UWB power limits to reduce the 

likelihood of interference. SIA’s concern 

is based on the Commission’s statement 

in the Second MO&O that it will 

monitor the situation and will take 

whatever appropriate action is 

necessary to ensure that UWB operation 

does not result in harmful interference 

to FSS receivers. This statement was 

made in conjunction with the 

Commission’s conclusion that the Alion 

Report did not justify a reduction in the 

UWB emission levels in the FSS 

frequency band, i.e., that UWB devices 

were not a potential threat of harmful 

interference to FSS operations. The 

Commission’s acknowledgement that it 

will continue to monitor this situation 

and investigate any interference 

complaints from unlicensed UWB 

devices to authorized services is 

consistent with Commission regulations 

and policies and is not by itself a basis 

for reconsidering the UWB emission 

limits that were adopted in the First 

R&O. Further, SIA’s Third 

Reconsideration Petition is requesting 

reconsideration of an action that 

responded to a petition for 

reconsideration, but does not address 

any changes that were made to the UWB 

regulations. Accordingly, consistent 

with 47 CFR 1.429(i), the Commission is 

dismissing this portion of SIA’s Third 

Reconsideration Petition. 

SIA and Cingular Petitions for 

Reconsideration of the Order 

8. When the Commission adopted its 

UWB regulations in 2002, it established 

standards that were technically neutral, 

permitting the use of any type of 

technology or modulation technique 

that resulted in the transmitter’s 

compliance with the minimum 

bandwidth specification and the limits 

on radiated emissions. The Commission 

recognized in the First R&O that 

measurement procedures had not been 

established to address transmitters, 

UWB or otherwise, employing stepped 

frequency, frequency hopping, or swept 

frequency transmissions, and that their 

interference aspects had not been 

evaluated based on the different 

measurement results that would be 

obtained from measurements taken with 

the system operating in its normal 

operating mode. At the time the 

Commission adopted the UWB rules, its 

rules already required that frequency 

swept devices be measured with the 

frequency sweep stopped at the 

frequency chosen for the measurements 

reported. With respect to the First R&O, 

the Commission adopted a rule 

specifying measurement procedures for 

UWB devices using pulsed gated 

modulation schemes, which were under 

development at that time, requiring 

measurements to be made with the 

pulse train gated on if the transmitter is 

quiescent for intervals that are long 

compared to the nominal pulse 

repetition. The Commission, consistent 

with its existing regulations, also 

adopted a rule stating that it may 

consider alternative measurement 

procedures. The Commission stated, but 

did not codify in the rules, that UWB 

transmitters employing stepped 

frequency, frequency hopping, or swept 

frequency transmissions need to be 

measured with the step, hopping, or 

sweep function disabled and with the 

transmitter operating continuously at a 

fundamental transmission frequency. 

9. Subsequent to the adoption of the 

UWB standards, on August 26, 2004, the 

MBOA–SIG filed a petition for waiver of 

the UWB measurement procedures as 

applied to UWB systems employing 

multiband orthogonal frequency 

division multiplexing (‘‘MB–OFDM’’) 

modulation, which is a stepped or 

sequenced modulation scheme, 

operating in the 3.1–5.03 GHz and 5.65– 

10.6 GHz bands. MBOA–SIG requested 

a waiver of the measurement procedures 

for such systems, as discussed in 

paragraph 32 of the First R&O. MBOA– 

SIG also requested a waiver of the 

measurement procedure in 47 CFR 

15.521(d), as adopted in the First R&O, 

for pulse gated systems to the extent 

that this rule applied to MB–OFDM 

systems. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. 

(‘‘Freescale’’), which produces a UWB 

device based on a direct-sequence 

spreading of binary-phase-shift-keyed 

pulses (‘‘DS–UWB’’) employing pulse 

gating techniques, requested that the 

Commission extend any waiver of the 

measurement rules and procedures to 

permit any UWB device to be measured 

in its normal operating mode so as to 

retain technical neutrality in the 

Commission’s UWB regulations. In 

support of its request, MBOA–SIG 

submitted simulated and actual test data 

demonstrating that the interference 

potential of frequency hopped or 

stepped systems, measured in their 

normal operating modes, is less than 

that of a UWB transmitter employing 

impulse modulation. In addition, NTIA 

and the Commission developed detailed 

measurement procedures for frequency 

hopping and stepped frequency 

systems. 

10. In reaching its decision to adopt 

the waiver, the Commission recognized 

that the interference aspects of a 

transmitter employing frequency 

hopping, stepped frequency 

modulation, or gating are quite similar, 

as viewed by a receiver, in that 

transmitters using these burst formats 

appear to the receiver to emit for a short 

period of time followed by a quiet 

period. The Commission thus 

concluded that any requirement to stop 

the frequency hop, band sequencing, or 

system gating serves only to add another 

unnecessary level of conservatism to 

already stringent UWB standards. 

Accordingly, the Commission granted a 

waiver of the measurement procedures, 

permitting the emissions from UWB 

transmitters that employ frequency 

hopping or stepped frequency 

modulation techniques, or that gate the 

transmitted signal, to be measured with 

the transmitter operating in its normal 

transmission mode. This allows the 

measurements to account for the time 

averaging during which the UWB 

emitter is not transmitting. 

11. On April 11, 2005, Cingular and 

SIA filed Petitions for Reconsideration 

of the Order requesting that it be 

vacated. SIA also requested that 

operation of UWB devices under the 

terms of the Order not be allowed in the 

3650–4200 MHz band used for satellite 

downlinks, pending the outcome of 

NTIA studies of interference from UWB 

devices to satellite digital television 

receivers in this band. Supporting 

comments were filed by Sprint 

Corporation (‘‘Sprint’’) and supporting 

reply comments were filed by Cingular 

and by SIA. Opposing comments were 

filed by the WiMedia Alliance 

(‘‘WiMedia-MBOA’’). 

12. Cingular and SIA raise various 

objections to support their central 

argument that the waiver of the UWB 

measurement procedures will 

effectively and significantly increase the 

potential for harmful interference from 

UWB devices. SIA also argues that 

multiple studies demonstrate that the 

existing UWB power limits expose FSS 

receivers to unacceptable interference, 

and it continues to request the 

application of a -20 dB I/N as a 

protection requirement for FSS 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62479 

operation. This portion of SIA’s petition 

is merely a request to reconsider the 

standards adopted in the First R&O. The 

Commission rejects SIA’s petition on 

this same issue. Because SIA’s petition 

for reconsideration raises the same 

arguments as its earlier petition and 

does not address any decision made in 

the Order, the Commission dismisses 

this portion of its petition. The 

Commission discussed in paragraphs 

17–19 of Third MO&O and MO&O the 

other arguments raised by Cingular and 

SIA in their petitions for 

reconsideration of the Order and 

conclude that the petitions offer no new 

evidence that would support vacating or 

changing the Order. Accordingly, these 

petitions are being denied. 

13. Argument that the waiver violated 

the Administration Procedure Act 

(‘‘APA’’) and other statutes and 

eviscerates the rules. The Commission 

concludes that the waiver of the 

measurement procedures for certain 

UWB devices does not constitute a rule 

in violation of the APA and that the 

waiver does not ‘‘eviscerate’’ the rules. 

Indeed, the Commission’s action is 

entirely consistent with its rules. The 

Commission permits the use of 

alternative measurement procedures, 

provided the applicant can demonstrate 

that the requested procedure is 

reasonable. For example, the 

Commission’s rules provide that the 

Commission will accept measurement 

data that meets various standards or 

procedures established and published 

by the Commission or recognized bodies 

as well as ‘‘any measurement procedure 

acceptable to the Commission * * * 

demonstrating compliance with [its] 

requirements * * *.’’ The Commission’s 

rule specifying measurement procedures 

for pulsed gated UWB devices, 47 CFR 

15.521(d), also states that alternative 

measurement procedures may be 

considered by the Commission. Even if 

one considers the Commission’s 

statements in the First R&O regarding 

measurement procedures for gated, 

stepped frequency, frequency hopping 

or swept frequency transmissions to be 

tantamount to a ‘‘published’’ 

measurement procedure, the 

Commission’s rules clearly allow it to 

consider alternative measurement 

procedures for UWB devices without 

conducting a rulemaking proceeding. 

14. While the Commission could have 

addressed the measurement procedure 

requested by MB–OFDM without a 

notice and comment proceeding, it 

believed that the prudent course of 

action was to analyze MBOA–SIG’s 

request within the context of its waiver 

standard. It issued a Public Notice and 

entertained comments from interested 

parties. It is important to note that no 

changes were made to the emission 

standards on which the non-interference 

probability of UWB devices is based. 

Rather, the Commission relaxed an 

overly conservative measurement 

procedure that artificially constrained 

the emissions from UWB devices 

employing certain modulation types to 

levels that were effectively below the 

levels permitted under the regulations. 

Further, only the portion of 47 CFR 

15.521(d) applicable to pulsed gated 

UWB devices was waived; the 

measurement procedure for swept 

frequency transmissions was not 

waived. Thus, the Commission’s 

determination does not constitute 

‘‘evisceration’’ of the rules. 

15. It is a well-established principle 

that the Commission will waive its rules 

in specific cases only if it determines, 

after careful consideration of all 

pertinent factors, that such a grant 

would serve the public interest without 

undermining the policy which the rule 

in question is intended to serve. In the 

Order the Commission determined that 

permitting use of the new measurement 

procedures was in the public interest 

because it enabled a new technology to 

be introduced to the market to the 

benefit of businesses and consumers. In 

addition, the Commission demonstrated 

how granting the waiver would not 

undermine the policy which the rule is 

intended to serve, i.e., the prevention of 

harmful interference to the authorized 

radio services. Test information 

evaluating the interference potential of 

these emission types, based on 

measurements performed with the 

equipment in its normal operating mode 

was submitted by MBOA–SIG. Through 

testing and interference analysis, 

MBOA–SIG provided convincing 

information that the application of these 

test procedures to systems employing 

MB–OFDM modulation would not 

result in an increased risk of harmful 

interference. In the Order, the 

Commission supplied a reasonable 

explanation as to why a similar 

application to DS–UWB systems also 

would not result in an increased risk of 

interference but would retain the 

technical neutrality of the UWB 

regulations. Thus, the Commission 

concludes that the waiver granted in the 

Order permitting UWB transmitters 

employing frequency hopping, stepped 

frequency or gated modulation 

techniques to be measured in their 

normal operating mode does not 

constitute a violation of the APA. 

Further, as the Commission has not 

amended its rules, the issuance of the 

subject waiver did not violate the 

Congressional Review Act or the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Accordingly, 

this portion of Cingular’s petition is 

denied. 

16. Argument that the waiver 

increases the threat of harmful 

interference by 6 dB or more. Cingular 

claims that the change in measurement 

procedures allowed by the waiver 

effectively will increase the power 

levels of UWB devices by 6 dB or more 

and will introduce additional 

interference that cannot be mitigated 

through error correction coding or other 

means. Cingular argues that the OFDM 

waveform addressed under the waiver 

was not envisioned during the original 

rulemaking, that there were no 

measurements or tests with this 

technology, and that the waiver deviates 

from the Commission’s policy of 

proceeding cautiously with regulations. 

Cingular continues to contend that 

additional testing is needed to address 

the impact on wideband receivers. It 

argues that measurements or tests were 

not performed for the MB–OFDM 

system nor was there an analysis of 

interference potential. SIA states that 

because the Commission believed that 

the UWB emission limits were 

conservative, a view SIA does not share, 

it thought that additional interference 

could be permitted by granting the 

waiver. 

17. The petitioners’ arguments are 

based on a mistaken assertion that the 

UWB emission limits were somehow 

relaxed as a result of the waiver. The 

Commission did not change the 

emission levels for UWB devices in the 

Order. Instead, the Commission merely 

allowed the use of different 

measurement procedures that 

demonstrate, consistent with our rules, 

that the devices comply with the power 

limits for UWB devices. 

18. The UWB limits on radiated 

emissions were based on extensive and 

extremely conservative analyses in the 

First R&O and on the supposition that 

a transmitter would operate 

continuously within a single frequency 

band. However, the MB–OFDM 

transmitter envisioned by MBOA–SIG 

hops to three different channel 

frequencies. The transmission duty 

cycle on a specific channel is 26 percent 

(5.9 dB). By requiring the emissions to 

be measured with the MB–OFDM 

transmitter operating continuously on 

the same operating frequency, the duty 

cycle per channel is artificially 

increased to 100 percent and an 

emission level is measured that is 5.9 

dB higher than what would be obtained 

with the transmitter functioning in its 

normal operating mode. Thus, Cingular 

is not correct that the waiver permits the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
62480 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

UWB emission levels to increase by 6 

dB or more. Rather, the measurement 

procedures described in the First R&O 

for this type of transmission scheme 

would require testing in an artificial 

operating mode that results in the actual 

emissions from the MB–OFDM 

transmitter being restricted to 5.9 dB 

below the limits specified in the rules. 

The effect of the waiver is to provide a 

more realistic representation of the 

signal level actually produced by the 

UWB device, permitting the UWB 

transmitters to function at the emission 

levels permitted by the regulations. 

19. As stated in the Order, contrary to 

Cingular’s claims, the MBOA–SIG 

members conducted simulated and 

actual testing of devices employing the 

MB–OFDM modulation format to 

demonstrate that, under normal 

operating conditions, there is no greater 

interference potential from an MB– 

OFDM UWB waveform than from an 

impulse-generated UWB waveform even 

when compliance with the emission 

limits is demonstrated with the 

frequency hop or step function active. 

The Commission stated that these 

results are consistent with the theory, as 

expressed by NTIA, that RMS measured 

emission levels are proportional to the 

measured bandwidth and the spectral 

power density, irrespective of pulse rate 

or modulation. Indeed, an integrated 

RMS measurement provides true 

average power readings, even for noncontinuous signals such as frequency 

hopped UWB waveforms. Thus, the 6 

dB potential increase claimed by 

Cingular will not be seen by a victim 

receiver and is irrelevant with regard to 

interference potential. Instead, the 

victim receiver will see the RMS average 

of that signal. This is the reason that the 

Commission adopted RMS average 

limits for UWB devices. 

20. The Commission took a cautious 

approach throughout this proceeding, 

limiting the applications for UWB and 

adopting knowingly conservative 

emission limits. This approach was not 

contravened by the waiver since no 

changes were made to the emission 

masks. Cingular and SIA have provided 

no new information to support their 

claims of increased interference 

potential and no arguments which 

undermine our rationale in granting the 

waiver. Accordingly, these portions of 

Cingular’s and SIA’s Petitions for 

Reconsideration are denied. 

21. Argument that the Commission 

did not meaningfully respond to 

Cingular’s comments. In response to 

MBOA–SIG’s waiver request, Cingular 

argued that the waiver could not be 

granted without tests comparing the 

measurements of transmissions from 

MBOA–SIG’s proposed system that 

would result with and without the 

frequency hopping stopped. In the 

Order, the Commission concluded that 

the tests submitted by MBOA–SIG 

demonstrated that, under normal 

operating conditions, MBOA–SIG’s 

proposed system does not increase the 

potential for interference relative to a 

UWB transmitter using impulse 

modulation. Based on that conclusion, 

the Commission concluded that there 

was no need for the additional testing 

recommended by Cingular. 

22. In its Petition for Reconsideration, 

Cingular argues that the Commission 

failed to address its comments 

adequately because it did not conduct 

the tests that Cingular recommended. 

The Commission disagrees. The 

Commission considered the record 

fully, including Cingular’s arguments, in 

determining whether additional testing 

was needed. The Commission also 

explained fully why it concluded that 

MBOA–SIG’s proposed system did not 

increase the potential for interference 

relative to a UWB transmitter using 

impulse modulation, and that, therefore, 

the additional tests recommended by 

Cingular were unnecessary. 

Accordingly, we find that the 

Commission did consider Cingular’s 

comments in this proceeding, and we 

are denying this portion of Cingular’s 

petition. 

23. Furthermore, the Commission 

continues to conclude that there was no 

justification to delay the outcome of this 

proceeding by requiring MBOA–SIG to 

perform the additional testing requested 

by Cingular in its comments responding 

to the MBOA–SIG Petition for Waiver. 

By proposing testing of MBOA–SIG’s 

proposed system with the frequency 

hopping stopped, Cingular in effect 

advocated testing that system while 

artificially forced to operate at a 100 

percent per channel duty cycle. MBOA– 

SIG’s proposed system is designed to 

operate at a 26 percent per channel duty 

cycle. Testing such a system at a 100 

percent duty cycle will show an 

emission level that is 5.9 dB higher than 

it would be at a 26 percent duty cycle. 

However, such a test would be 

irrelevant, as it would not reflect the 

actual operation of the equipment and 

would not be indicative of the 

interference potential of the UWB 

emissions 

24. Argument that the Commission 

gave no weight to Freescale’s comments 

that contradicted the MBOA–SIG test 

results and the waiver was overbroad. 

As stated in the Order, several of the 

comments contained technical 

discussions on whether or not the MB– 

OFDM modulation format resulted in 

greater or lesser interference than the 

DS–UWB format. However, the 

Commission added that this issue is not 

relevant to the request for waiver. What 

is important with regard to the waiver 

request is whether or not the MB–OFDM 

modulation format, when measured in 

the normal operating mode, has a 

sufficiently greater interference 

potential than a UWB transmitter 

employing impulse modulation so as to 

increase the risk of harmful interference. 

While the comments argued this issue 

based on different criteria, the 

Commission rejected as improbable the 

theoretical analyses that were performed 

assuming a zero background noise level, 

a zero bit error rate and a victim receiver 

with a bandwidth that is greater than 

the UWB band switching rate. Instead, 

it favored the analysis from MBOA–SIG 

as being representative of an actual 

operating system where the background 

noise level will mask a low level 

undesired signal and bit error rates are 

greater than zero. Based on this realworld analysis and actual measured test 

data submitted by MBOA–SIG, the 

Commission stated that it was clear that 

the interference potential of the MB– 

OFDM format, based on compliance 

with the rules being demonstrated with 

the frequency hop active, is no greater 

than that of an impulse UWB emission. 

Thus, contrary to the claims of the 

petitioners, the Commission did explain 

why it favored the MBOA–SIG analysis 

over that of the conflicting analysis from 

Freescale and did address the objections 

to the petition. 

25. The Commission also disagrees 

with SIA’s statement that any increase 

to the number of FSS symbols that 

potentially could be affected by 

interference due to the use of frequency 

hopping waveforms will also result in 

harmful interference. In adopting rules 

for UWB devices, the Commission chose 

to rely on emission limits as the tool for 

preventing harmful interference 

irrespective of the duty cycle of the 

UWB device or its specific modulation 

type. Because the waiver does not 

change the emission limits, the 

Commission concludes that the 

potential for harmful interference will 

not be increased. Neither SIA nor 

Cingular provided any new information 

demonstrating that the Commission 

erred in its decision. 

26. The Commission also disagrees 

with SIA’s argument that application of 

the waiver to all MB–OFDM devices and 

to DS–UWB devices was overbroad. 

NTIA’s technical analyses clearly 

demonstrated that the average power of 

the transmitted signal, not its 

instantaneous power such as would be 

measured in a static mode, was the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62481 

appropriate basis for determining 

interference potential. Further, this 

reasoned analysis by the Commission 

allowed for continued technologyneutral treatment of various UWB 

design formats without undermining the 

policy which the rule is intended to 

serve, i.e., the prevention of harmful 

interference to the authorized radio 

services. Based on the above 

information, the Commission therefore 

finds that these portions of SIA’s and 

Cingular’s Petitions for Reconsideration 

are without merit and are denied. 

27. Argument that Multiple devices 

operating in an area will synchronize 

and fill up the spectrum. There is no 

evidence or valid analysis to support 

Cingular’s claims that multiple, colocated UWB devices will synchronize 

their transmissions. Freescale did make 

such claims in its comments to MBOA– 

SIG’s Petition for Waiver. However, this 

issue was specifically addressed by 

MBOA–SIG in its reply comments and 

by Texas Instruments in its ex parte 

comments. As they show in these 

findings, such synchronization would 

require nanosecond time-scale 

synchronization between devices—an 

improbable task, particularly if the 

devices were attempting to monitor the 

spectrum to determine open operating 

windows. These transmitters are thus 

uncoordinated and will employ 

different on-off starting times, and 

possibly different timing intervals, 

which will be further degraded by 

timing drifts between the devices. 

Further, the Commission has already 

demonstrated that SIA’s claims of 

cumulative interference are misplaced. 

Even if synchronization were possible, 

the emissions from co-located 

transmitters with synchronized 

operations still would not be expected 

to add linearly at a victim receiver as 

slight differences in path lengths due to 

multipath and other factors would skew 

any synchronization as well as the 

levels of the received signals. If the 

Commission assumes the unlikely 

condition where an FSS receiver will 

receive signals from multiple UWB 

devices and that these UWB signals are 

synchronized with respect to reception 

by the FSS receiver and not by the UWB 

receiver, three devices operating 

simultaneously on the three channels 

would result in a maximum increase in 

the received level of approximately 4.8 

dB. This is exactly the same increase 

that would be caused by three impulse 

devices operating under the same 

conditions. Therefore, waiving of the 

measurement rule would not increase 

the likelihood of aggregation. 

28. The Commission finds that there 

is no evidence from the petitioners that 

UWB devices will synchronize or 

interleave their transmissions or that 

there will be any aggregate or 

cumulative effects from multiple UWB 

transmitters operating in the same area. 

Thus, no rule prohibiting such 

operation is necessary. Accordingly, 

these portions of Cingular’s and SIA’s 

Petitions for Reconsideration are 

denied. 

29. Argument that the Commission 

needs to exclude operation in the 3.65– 

4.2 GHz band under the waiver, just as 

it did in the 5.03–5.65 GHz band, 

pending completion of ITS testing. The 

Commission delayed implementation of 

its waiver provisions on the 5.03–5.65 

GHz band, pending completion of the 

ITS study, solely as a matter of 

deference to NTIA and not because of 

any demonstrated potential for harmful 

interference to these systems. Such 

action is within the Commission’s 

discretion. When spectrum, such as the 

5.03–5.65 GHz band, is allocated for use 

by Federal Government agencies, the 

Commission consults with NTIA on any 

proposed non-Federal use of that 

spectrum. However, when spectrum is 

allocated exclusively for non-Federal 

operations, the Commission has 

exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and 

apply interference analyses and studies 

in determining emission limits and 

operating parameters. Because the 

Commission had already determined in 

its rulemaking proceeding that there 

was no potential for harmful 

interference to FSS reception, there was 

no need to delay implementing the 

waiver in the 3.65–4.2 GHz FSS band. 

30. In addition, the Commission notes 

that Microwave Landing Systems 

operate in the 5.03–5.65 GHz band, 

which are used for precision approach 

and landing of civilian and military 

aircraft. The Commission finds that it 

was a reasonable exercise of its 

discretion for the Commission to be 

more cautious with respect to MLS 

because of the public safety function 

that those systems serve. On the other 

hand, while we agree with SIA that 

commercial FSS merits protection from 

interference in the 3.65–4.2 GHz band, 

FSS generally does not serve the same 

public safety function as MLS. 

Accordingly, the Commission finds that 

it was a reasonable exercise of the 

Commission’s discretion for it to 

conclude based on the record in the 

Order that granting MBOA–SIG’s waiver 

request with respect to 3.65–4.2 GHz 

band would not create an unreasonable 

increase in the potential for interference 

to FSS in that band. 

31. The Commission continues to 

maintain that FSS C-band receivers are 

more than adequately protected from 

UWB emissions, as shown in the 

various interference analyses when 

rational operating conditions are 

employed. This conclusion has been 

verified through the Alion interference 

study submitted by the C-band Coalition 

and through the analysis and real world 

tests performed by MBOA–SIG. Further, 

the completed ITS study, which 

analyzed whether there were discernible 

differences between different 

modulation formats that could be used 

in UWB devices, does not alter our 

conclusion that FSS C-band receivers 

are unlikely to suffer harmful 

interference from UWB emissions. 

Accordingly, this portion of SIA’s 

Petition for Reconsideration is denied. 

Ordering Clauses 

32. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 302, 

303(f), 303(r), and 405 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 303(f), 

303(r), and 405, the Petition for 

Reconsideration from the Satellite 

Industry Association in response to the 

Commission’s Second Report and Order 

and Second Memorandum Opinion and 

Order in ET Docket No. 98–153 is 

dismissed. 

33. The Petition for Reconsideration 

from the Satellite Industry Association 

in response to the Commission’s Order 

in ET Docket No. 04–352 is dismissed in 

part and denied in part. The Petition for 

Reconsideration from Cingular Wireless 

LLC in response to the Commission’s 

Order in ET Docket No. 04–352 is 

denied. 

34. The Commission will not send a 

copy of this Order, pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act. The 

Memorandum Opinion Order does not 

change any rules; it reaffirms certain 

rules and procedures for ultra-wideband 

(UWB) devices that operate on an 

unlicensed basis under part 15 of the 

Commission’s rules, and dismisses and 

denies Petitions for Reconsideration. 

35. It is further ordered that ET Docket 

No. 98–153 and 04–352 are terminated. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25591 Filed 10–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1