Revision of the Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 98-153; FCC 98-208]

Revision of the Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission

Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: By this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission is initiating a

proceeding to investigate the possibility of permitting the operation

of ultra-wideband (UWB) radio systems on an unlicensed basis under its

rules. Comments are requested on the standards and operating

requirements that should be applied to UWB systems to prevent

interference to other radio services.

DATES: Comments are due December 7, 1998, reply comments are due

January 4, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 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 Inquiry in ET Docket No. 98-153, adopted August 20, 1998, and

released September 1, 1998. The complete text of this Notice of Inquiry

is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in

the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C., 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, D.C. 20037.

Summary of the Notice of Inquiry

1. The Commission is initiating this inquiry on its own motion to

investigate the possibility of permitting the operation of ultra-

wideband (UWB) radio systems on an unlicensed basis under part 15 of

its rules. Through this inquiry, we are seeking input to help us

evaluate UWB technology and to determine what standards and operating

requirements are necessary to prevent interference to other users of

the radio spectrum. Upon review of the responses to this inquiry, we

will determine whether to propose any changes to the rules.

2. UWB radio systems typically use extremely narrow pulse (impulse)

modulation or swept frequency modulation that employs a fast sweep over

a wide bandwidth. Because of the type of modulation employed, the

emission bandwidths of UWB devices generally exceed one gigahertz and

may be greater than ten gigahertz. In some cases, these pulses do not

modulate a carrier. Instead, the radio frequency emissions generated by

the pulses are applied to an antenna, the resonant frequency of which

determines the center frequency of the radiated emission.

3. UWB systems could provide an improved method for providing radar

applications where precise distance resolution is required and for

providing covert voice or data communications that overcome multipath

problems. Radar systems are currently being developed to detect buried

objects such as plastic gas pipes or hidden flaws in airport runways or

highways. Other radar systems would be used as fluid level sensors in

difficult-to-measure situations such as oil refinery tanks and other

storage tanks. Public safety personnel have expressed a desire for

radar systems that can detect people hidden behind walls or covered

with debris, such as from an earthquake. Public safety personnel also

have expressed a need for UWB communications systems that can operate

covertly. These communications systems could also be employed by heavy

industrial manufacturers to overcome multipath and machinery-generated

radio noise.

4. Applications and general characteristics. What types of UWB

devices can we expect to be developed? What are the frequency ranges

and bandwidths expected to be used by UWB devices? What are the

expected total power levels and spectral power densities, peak and

average, of UWB devices? What are the expected or desired operating

distances?

5. Regulatory treatment. We understand that UWB systems will

operate at very low spectral power densities, producing noise-like

signals. Further, it appears that UWB systems will operate over very

short distances. Because of this, it appears appropriate to provide for

UWB technologies under part 15 of the rules. We invite comments on

whether it would be appropriate to apply our part 15 rules to UWB

technologies. Are there certain types of UWB devices or applications

that should be regulated on a licensed basis under some other rule

part? If so, which rule parts? If provisions are made for UWB

technology under part 15, how should we define UWB technology?

6. TV broadcast and restricted bands. Part 15 designates certain

sensitive and safety-related frequency bands as restricted bands. Only

spurious emissions not exceeding the general emission limits are

permitted within these restricted bands or, with few exceptions, within

the frequency bands allocated for TV broadcasting. However, it is

difficult, if not impossible, for UWB systems to avoid placing

fundamental emissions within the restricted bands or the TV broadcast

bands. Accordingly, comments are requested on whether the Commission

should eliminate the requirement that only spurious emissions be

permitted to fall within the restricted bands and the TV broadcast

bands. Should the rules generally continue to prohibit operation of UWB

systems within the restricted bands and the TV broadcast bands? Are

there certain restricted bands where operation could be permitted, but

not others? If so which bands and what is the justification? If certain

restricted bands were retained, what impact would this have on the

viability of UWB technology?

7. Emission limits. The current part 15 rules are based on the

equivalent of a spectral power density, i.e., a field strength limit is

specified along with a measurement bandwidth. In most cases, emissions

at or below 1000 MHz are based on the use of a quasi-peak detector

which employs a designated measurement bandwidth. Above 1000 MHz,

emissions are based on average field strength limits with a minimum

measurement bandwidth of one megahertz. Where an average limit applies,

there is also a limit on peak emission levels. Are the existing general

emission limits sufficient to protect other users of the spectrum,

especially radio operations in the restricted bands, from harmful

interference? Should different limits be applied to UWB systems? Should

we specify a different standard for UWB devices based on spectral power

density? Should these standards be designed to ensure that the

emissions appear to be broadband noise? What is the potential for

harmful interference due to the cumulative impact of emissions if there

is a large proliferation of UWB devices? Could the cumulative impact

result in an unacceptably high increase in the background noise level?

Should the Commission limit proliferation by restricting the types of

products or should the rules permit manufacturers to design products

for any application as long as the equipment meets the standards?

Should a limit on the total peak level apply to UWB devices? Can

emissions below or above a certain frequency range be further filtered

to reduce the potential for interference to

[[Page 50185]]

other users of the radio spectrum without affecting the performance of

the UWB systems? Are the existing limits on the amount of energy

permitted to be conducted back onto the AC power lines appropriate for

UWB devices? What operational restrictions, if any, should be required

to protect existing users? Is the use of UWB modulation techniques

necessary for certain types of communication systems; if so, for what

purposes?

8. Measurements. Part 15 references the specific measurement

procedure to be employed, the frequency range over which measurements

are to be made, and the measurement detector functions and bandwidths

to be employed. Comments are requested on whether the peak output level

continues to be indicative of the interference potential of a UWB

system. Is a pulse desensitization correction factor appropriate for

measuring emissions from a UWB device? Should any modifications be made

to this measurement procedure for UWB devices? Would another

measurement procedure that does not apply a pulse desensitization

correction factor be more appropriate for determining the interference

potential of an UWB device? The frequency range over which measurements

are required to be made depends on the frequency of the fundamental

emission. Is the frequency of the fundamental emission readily

discernible for UWB devices? Are the current frequency measurement

ranges specified in the rules appropriate for UWB devices or should

these ranges be modified? Are the measurement detector functions and

bandwidths appropriate for UWB devices? Should these standards be

modified and, if so, how? Are there any other changes to the

measurement procedures that should be applied to UWB devices?

9. Other matters. There is a prohibition in the rules against the

use of a Class B, damped wave emission. This prohibition stems from a

similar International Telecommunication Union regulation and is a

throwback to the days when spark gap transmitters were employed. There

is no longer a clear definition of a Class B, damped wave emission.

Should the prohibition against Class B, damped wave emissions apply to

UWB systems or is the prohibition irrelevant, especially in light of

the relatively low power levels employed by UWB devices? Comments are

invited on any other matters or issues that may be pertinent to the

operation of UWB systems.

10. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making

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 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.2306(a).

11. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing

of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Comments

filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the

Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html[email protected], 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.

12. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and

four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rule making

number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit

two additional copies for each additional docket or rule making number.

All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman

Salas, Office of Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M

St., N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554.

13. 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.

List of Subjects: 47 CFR Part 15

Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98-25113 Filed 9-18-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P