65FR37332 Revision of the Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems
robop...@us.govnews.org
Posting-number: Volume 65, Issue 115, Page 37332
[Federal Register: June 14, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 115)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37332-37335]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jn00-35]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket No. 98-153; FCC 00-163]
Revision of the Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission
Systems
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document is proposing regulations that would permit the
operation of ultra-wideband (UWB) radio systems on an unlicensed basis
under the Commission's rules. Comments are requested on the standards
and operating requirements that are proposed to be applied to UWB
systems to prevent interference to other radio services.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 12, 2000, and
reply comments on or before October 12, 2000.
ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary,
Magalie Roman Salas, Office of Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Reed, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-2455.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No. 98-153, adopted May 10, 2000,
and released May 11, 2000. The complete text of this Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street,
SW, Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's
copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-
3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making
1. This Notice of Proposed Rule Making responds to an earlier
Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding, 63 FR 50184, September 21, 1998.
We are proposing to amend 47 CFR 15 to permit products incorporating
ultra-wideband (UWB) technologies. While comprehensive tests have not
been completed, UWB devices appear to be able to operate on spectrum
already occupied by existing radio services without causing
interference. This would permit scarce spectrum resources to be used
more efficiently. Further testing and analysis is needed before the
risks of interference are completely understood. Such testing is being
planned by a number of organizations, and an ample opportunity will be
provided to ensure that the test results are submitted into the record
for public comment.
2. Most near-term applications involve relatively low powers and
short operating ranges. Further, it appears that UWB devices are
intended to be mass marketed to businesses and consumers such that
individual licensing of each device would be impractical. Accordingly,
it is proposed that UWB devices be regulated under part 15 of the
rules.
3. UWB definition. We propose to employ the definition established
by the OSD/DARPA UWB radar review panel with some modifications. The
OSD definition states that the -20 dB fraction bandwidth of an UWB
emission must be at least 0.25, i.e., the -20 dB bandwidth must be at
least 25% of the center frequency. We propose to define a UWB device as
any device where the -10 dB fractional bandwidth is greater than 0.25
or the -10 dB bandwidth is greater than 1.5 GHz. The center frequency
is proposed to be defined as the average of the upper and lower -10 dB
points. We also propose that the bandwidth be determined using the
antenna designed to be used with the UWB device. Comments are requested
on the following: (1) Should the fractional bandwidth be changed to
account for the narrower bandwidth that would be measured using the -10
dB emission points instead of the -20 dB points. (2) Should some other
method be used to determine the emission bandwidth, such as a
calculated bandwidth based on pulse width. (3) Should UWB be defined as
limited to devices that solely use pulsed emissions where the bandwidth
is directly related to the narrow pulse width. (4) Should extremely
high speed data systems that comply with the UWB bandwidth requirements
only because of the high data rate employed, as opposed to meeting the
definition solely from the narrow pulse width, be permitted. (5) What
alternative definitions should be considered?
4. Frequency bands of operation. We observe that ground penetrating
radars (GPRs) must operate at frequencies below 2 GHz in order to
obtain the penetration depth and resolution necessary to detect and
obtain the images of buried objects. GPRs can neither avoid nor notch
out the restricted frequency bands. However, it appears that the risk
of interference from GPRs is negligible because the overwhelming
majority of their energy
[[Page 37333]]
is directed into the ground where most of the energy is absorbed and
emissions in other directions can be easily shielded. Accordingly, we
propose to allow GPRs to operate in any part of the spectrum.
5. It is unclear whether the same arguments that apply to GPRs
concerning penetration depth and resolution similarly apply to other
imaging devices. We invite comments on whether we should treat such
imaging systems the same as GPRs or restrict the operation of such
devices below a certain frequency. Comments should address whether the
operation of through-wall imaging systems should be limited to parties
eligible for licensing under the Public Safety pool of frequencies in
part 90 of our rules. Comments also are requested on whether through-
wall imaging systems should be required to incorporate automatic power
control feathers that would reduce power levels to the minimum
necessary to function based on the composition of the surface and its
absorption of RF energy.
6. We believe that most other UWB devices generally can operate in
the region of the spectrum above approximately 2 GHz without causing
harmful interference to other radio services. We have significant
concerns about the operation of UWB devices, except for GPRs and
possibly through-wall imaging systems, in the region of the spectrum
below approximately 2 GHz. We invite comments on UWB operations,
potential restrictions on operation for UWB below 2 GHz and the impacts
such restrictions would have on any potential applications for UWB
technology. We also invite comments as to the precise frequency below
which operations of UWB devices may need to be restricted. We also wish
to consider a number of alternative approaches to expressly prohibiting
operations below 2 GHz. We invite comment as to whether and at what
levels, if any, we should permit operation in the restricted bands
below 2 GHz, the viability of establishing a general emission limit for
UWB devices below 2 GHz, and whether a very stringent limit, or notch,
should be applied to the GPS band. We will consider allowing access to
the spectrum below 2 GHz provided test results and detailed technical
analysis are submitted demonstrating that there is no risk of harmful
interference to GPS, to other services operating in restricted
frequency bands, or to TV broadcasting.
7. Further testing and analysis. We understand that certain
manufacturers of UWB devices and other interested parties are planning
tests. We encourage parties to submit the test results into the record
by October 30, 2000. We will issue a public notice to provide an
opportunity to provide comments and replies on the test results and
analysis.
8. Emission limits. We tentatively conclude that it is necessary to
regulate both the peak and average emission levels above 1 GHz and the
quasi-peak emission levels below 1 GHz. We request comment on whether
it is possible for UWB designers to select system parameters to space
the UWB spectral lines in places within the GPS band where GPS
receivers are less sensitive to interference. We also seek comment on
whether we should require use of a scrambler technology that prevents
long strings of unchanging bits or, alternatively, a performance
requirement that would show that the transmitted spectrum remains noise
like in the case of unchanging input data.
9. We believe that the general emission limits contained in
Sec. 15.209 of our rules appear appropriate for UWB operations.
However, for emissions from UWB devices other than GPRs and, possibly,
through-wall imaging systems we tentatively propose that emissions that
appear below approximately 2 GHz be attenuated by at least 12 dB below
the general emission limits. Comments are requested on whether such an
attenuation level is necessary, or whether additional attenuation below
2 GHz is possible or necessary. We also seek comment on whether the
proposed reduction in the emission levels should apply to all emissions
below 2 GHz or only to emissions below 2 GHz that fall within the
restricted bands. Comments also are requested on whether UWB devices
other than GPRs, and possibly through-wall imaging systems, should be
permitted to operate below 2 GHz provided they comply with these
reduced emission levels.
10. A limit on peak emissions is necessary to reduce the potential
for UWB emitters to cause harmful interference to radio operations
above 1 GHz. The Notice proposes to establish peak emission limits
above 1 GHz as follows: (1) the peak level of the emission when
measured over a bandwidth of 50 MHz shall not exceed the maximum
permitted average emission level by more than 20 dB; and (2) the
absolute peak output of the emission over its entire bandwidth shall
not exceed the maximum permitted average emission level by more than
[20 + 20log<INF>10</INF>(-10 dB bandwidth of the UWB emission in Hz/50
MHz)] dB or 60 dB, whichever is the lower value. We intend to rely
heavily on submitted test data in determining what peak emission
standards should apply to UWB products. We believe that further testing
and analysis is desirable on the cumulative impact of emissions from
multiple UWB transmitters.
11. We believe that the existing limit in Sec. 15.207 for
controlling the amount of energy permitted to be conducted onto the AC
power lines is a reasonable starting point for establishing standards
until additional experience can be gained with this equipment. We do
not agree that higher conducted limits, equivalent to the limits for
Class A digital devices, should be permitted in non-residential
environments.
12. Measurement procedures. Below 1 GHz, we propose to require
emissions to be measured using a quasi-peak detector. Above 1 GHz, we
propose to require average measurements to be made with a 1 MHz
resolution bandwidth (RBW) as we currently do for intentional and
unintentional radiators. We also propose that spectrum analyzer video
averaging with a video bandwidth (VBW) of no greater than 10 kHz or
less than 10 Hz be used in conjunction with peak hold to determine the
average level as a function of frequency. We request comments on
applying the measurement procedures specified in HP Application Note
150-2.
13. We propose to measure the peak emission levels of UWB signals
directly in the time domain. For peak measurements over a 50 MHz
bandwidth, the IF output of a microwave receiver that uses a wide
bandwidth, e.g., 50 MHz, can be analyzed using a conventional
oscilloscope. We believe that the total peak output can be measured
with standard sampling oscilloscope techniques for UWB signals with
evenly spaced identical elements, such as radar signals, and for UWB
signals with modulation on their amplitude or spacing. We also request
comments on allowing peak measurements to be made using the pulse
desensitization correction factor (PDCF) provided the applicant can
show that the measurements, as corrected by the PDCF, is the true peak
for the waveform being tested. As with average measurements, the
procedures specified in HP Application Note 150-2 would be applied. We
recognize that the peak level measured with a spectrum analyzer is the
RMS peak and must be adjusted to obtain the true peak. We seek comment
on the type of UWB signals, if any, for which this latter measurement
procedure would be appropriate. Comments also are sought on whether the
PDCF should be calculated based on an effective pulse width, i.e., two
divided by the bandwidth, in Hertz, of the emitted
[[Page 37334]]
fundamental lobe. We seek comment on what type of measurement antennas
are needed to make accurate peak measurements and the least restrictive
way we might specify this in our rules.
14. For impulse systems, we believe that the center frequency, as
determined by the -10 dB points, should be used as the reference for
determining the upper frequency range over which emissions should be
measured. However, we are concerned that a manufacturer could employ a
low frequency carrier with an extremely narrow pulse or that a narrow
pulse impulse system could be used with a low frequency antenna,
resulting in emissions extending far beyond the tenth harmonic, the
normal upper range of measurements. Accordingly, comments are requested
on whether a different method of determining the frequency measurement
range should be employed, e.g., based on pulse rise time and width. In
addition, commenting parties should note that the lower frequency range
of measurements would continue to be determined by the lowest radio
frequency generated in the device. Comments are requested on whether
the pulse repetition frequency, pulse dithering frequency, modulating
frequency or other factors would permit the investigation of a low
enough frequency to address the possible amplification of the emitted
signal due to antenna resonances below the fundamental emission.
15. Prohibition against Class B, damped wave emissions. We agree
that we should eliminate the prohibition against Class B, damped wave
emissions for UWB devices as this prohibition does not appear relevant
at the power levels being proposed.
16. Other matters. In the Notice we proposed specific regulations
regarding the frequency of operation and emission levels that would
apply to UWB devices. We also propose to amend 47 CFR 15.215(c) to
state that intentional radiators operated under the provisions of 47
CFR 15.217 through 15.255 or subpart E of the current regulations must
be designed to ensure that the main lobe or the necessary bandwidth,
whichever is less, is contained within the frequency bands designated
in those rule section under which the equipment is operated. The
requirement to contain the fundamental emission within one of the
specified frequency bands would include the effects from frequency
sweeping, frequency hopping and other modulation techniques that may be
employed as well as the frequency stability of the transmission over
variations in temperature and supply voltage. If a frequency stability
is not specified, the regulation would continue to recommend that the
fundamental emission be kept within at least the central 80 percent of
the band in order to minimize the possibility of out-of-band operation.
17. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ the Commission has prepared this
present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Notice''). Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments on the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of this Notice,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). We have included this
IRFA, although we expect that this action will not cause interference
to existing radio stations. We have determined to do this analysis to
create a fuller record in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996,
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the
CWAAA is the Small Business Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
This rule making 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
whether its standards should be amended to permit the operation of
ultra-wideband transmission systems.
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 of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 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.\2\ The Regulatory
Flexibility Act defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small business concern.'' \3\ 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 SBA.\4\ Nationwide, there are approximately 4.44
million small business firms, according to SBA reporting data.\5\ A
small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
\6\ Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small
organizations.\7\ ``Small governmental jurisdiction'' generally means
``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
50,000.'' \8\ As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such
jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes 38,978
counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have
populations of fewer than 50,000.\9\ 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 (91
percent) are small entities. SBA has defined a small business for
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) category 4812 (Radiotelephone
Communications) to be small entities when they have no more than 1500
employees.\10\ According to the Bureau of Census, only 12
radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated
during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.\11\ Given this definition,
nearly all such companies are considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\3\ Id. Section 601(3).
\4\ Id. Section 632.
\5\ 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
(special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
the U.S. Small Business Administration).
\6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
\7\ 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
(special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
the U.S. Small Business Administration).
\8\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
\9\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, ``1992 Census
of Governments.''
\10\ See 13 CFR 121.201.
\11\ U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, UC92-
S-1, Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5,
Employment Size of Firms, 1992, SIC code 4812 (issued May 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements
Part 15 transmitters already are required to be authorized under
the Commission's certification procedure as
[[Page 37335]]
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. All radio equipment
manufacturers, large and small, would be provided with the opportunity
to produce this equipment.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives: (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 or
reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small entities. We
do not expect that the rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule
Making will have a significant economic impact on small entities.
In response to the Notice of Inquiry, in this proceeding no party
raised small entity issues. We have considered several alternatives to
the proposed standards, however. For example, in response to some of
the comments, we considered the possibility of prohibiting all UWB
operation below 2 GHz, (except for ground penetrating radar systems) in
order to provide additional interference protection to the authorized
radio services operating below this frequency. Instead, we have
indicated our concerns about operation below 2 GHz and have stated that
such operation would be considered provided test results and technical
analysis demonstrated that there was no risk of harmful interference to
other authorized entities (which would include small authorized
entities). Similar issues were considered for all of the standards
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making. The proposed standards
are intended to accommodate most of the systems presented to us without
favoring any particular manufacturer's design.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
None.
18. 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 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r),
304, and 307.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14982 Filed 6-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P