Unleashing the Power of Unlicensed Ultra-Wideband Devices; Petition of Robert Bosch LLC for Amendment of the Part 15 Subpart F Ultra-Wideband Rules; and Petition of Alliance for Automative Innovation et al. To Amend Part 15 of the FCC's Rules To Permit the Operation of Certain Ultra-Wideband Devices

Issuing agencies

Abstract

The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) proposes to update its rules for Ultra-Wideband (UWB) devices to reflect significant technological developments since the rules were first adopted in 2002. UWB technology has matured into a widely used, low-power enabler that supports applications in tracking, automation, precision location, health monitoring, athletic performance, and public safety. As capabilities of UWB have expanded, the existing rules have not kept pace with the technological change, resulting in an increasing number of waiver requests received by the Commission to authorize modern devices. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on revisions intended to modernize the UWB framework, provide greater flexibility for future applications, promote continued innovation, and ensure the protection of incumbent federal and non-federal spectrum users.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 210 (Monday, November 2, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 210 (Monday, November 2, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68912-68925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-22337]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 26-245; RM-11844; RM-12014; FCC 26-66; FR ID 372216]


Unleashing the Power of Unlicensed Ultra-Wideband Devices; 
Petition of Robert Bosch LLC for Amendment of the Part 15 Subpart F 
Ultra-Wideband Rules; and Petition of Alliance for Automative 
Innovation et al. To Amend Part 15 of the FCC's Rules To Permit the 
Operation of Certain Ultra-Wideband Devices

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) 
proposes to update its rules for Ultra-Wideband (UWB) devices to 
reflect significant technological developments since the rules were 
first adopted in 2002. UWB technology has matured into a widely used, 
low-power enabler that supports applications in tracking, automation, 
precision location, health monitoring, athletic performance, and public 
safety. As capabilities of UWB have expanded, the existing rules have 
not kept pace with the technological change, resulting in an increasing 
number of waiver requests received by the Commission to authorize 
modern devices. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on 
revisions intended to modernize the UWB framework, provide greater 
flexibility for future applications, promote continued innovation, and 
ensure the protection of incumbent federal and non-federal spectrum 
users.

DATES: Comments are due on or before December 2, 2026 and reply 
comments are due on or before January 4, 2027.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS). You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 26-
245, by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    <bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be 
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    <bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    <bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the 
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701.
    <bullet> Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, 
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street 
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d3b3e3e686d691d3b3e3e733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94f2f7f7a1a4a0d4f2f7f7baf3fbe2">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Syed S. Hasan of the Office of 
Engineering and Technology at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a29031f1e54321b091b143a1c1919541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99cae0fcfdb7d1f8eaf8f7d9fffafab7fef6ef">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-2454.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in ET Docket No. 26-245, FCC 26-
66, adopted on September 30, 2026, and released on October 1, 2026. The 
full text of this document is available for public inspection during 
regular business hours at Commission's headquarters 45 L Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20554 or at the following internet address: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-66A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-66A1.pdf</a>.
    Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains proposed 
information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general 
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this document, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Public and agency comments are due January 4, 2027.
    Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) 
way to further reduce the information collection burden on small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant 
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might 
further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 
as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact 
of the rule and policy proposals in this document on small entities. 
The Commission invites the general public, particularly small 
businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments on the Third Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking indicated in the DATES section of this document and must 
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to 
the IRFA.
    Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this document initiates 
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''

[[Page 68913]]

proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in the proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
    Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with 
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 1189-
9, a summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be available at 
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
    OPEN Government Data Act. The OPEN Government Data Act requires 
agencies to make ``public data assets'' available under an open license 
and as ``open Government data assets,'' i.e., in machine-readable, open 
format, unencumbered by use restrictions other than intellectual 
property rights, and based on an open standard that is maintained by a 
standards organization. This requirement is to be implemented ``in 
accordance with guidance by the Director'' of the OMB. The term 
``public data asset'' means ``a data asset, or part thereof, maintained 
by the Federal Government that has been, or may be, released to the 
public, including any data asset, or part thereof, subject to 
disclosure under [the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)].'' A ``data 
asset'' is ``a collection of data elements or data sets that may be 
grouped together,'' and ``data'' is ``recorded information, regardless 
of form or the media on which the data is recorded.''

Synopsis

I. Background

    UWB is a unique and powerful technology in the arsenal of radio 
applications that operate on an unlicensed basis. Designed to operating 
at very low power, UWB uses extremely wide radio channels (typically 
500 megahertz or more) that can determine both distance and direction 
over a short range with more precise accuracy than narrowband 
unlicensed technologies, such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.
    Like all devices operating under the part 15 rules, UWB systems 
operate on a non-interference basis, i.e., they share radio spectrum 
with authorized radio services, may not cause harmful interference, and 
must accept any interference they receive. However, UWB devices are 
also permitted to operate across restricted frequency bands that other 
unlicensed devices may not use. This is because UWB operates with a 
``light touch'' on any particular frequency at any given time due to 
UWB's combination of low power operation across wide swaths of 
bandwidth; this, in turn, mitigates the risk that UWB devices can cause 
harmful interference to incumbent users, including those providing 
critical services.
    Subpart F of the Commission's part 15 rules governs operation of 
UWB transmitters. Currently, the rules are structured to support 
specific categories of UWB operations--ground penetrating radars, wall 
imaging systems, through-wall imaging systems, surveillance systems, 
medical imaging systems, indoor UWB systems, and handheld UWB systems. 
For each of these applications, the rules specify technical 
requirements, including the frequency bands over which the UWB device 
may operate, operational constraints, and radiated emission limits that 
may vary by induvial device categories. In addition, each type of 
device is subject to additional restrictions, such as limits on the 
types of operation permitted and the entities that are permitted to use 
the device. UWB devices may not be operated on board aircraft, ships or 
satellites. The rules prohibit employment for the operation of toys, 
but do not provide any guidance on what qualifies as a toy. The 
Commission codified these UWB rules in a deliberate and cautious manner 
to ensure that the framework supported what was known at that time 
about UWB device characteristics, to take extremely protective steps to 
guard incumbent operations against harmful interference, and to limit 
an excessive proliferation of UWB devices that nearly a quarter century 
ago were considered to be new and novel.
    The first UWB rules were adopted in February 2002, when the 
Commission permitted the marketing and operation of a range of UWB 
devices, including imaging systems, vehicular radars, and indoor and 
outdoor communication devices. Subsequent orders made further 
modifications to the rules but did not fundamentally alter the 
structure of part 15, subpart F nor abandon the cautious approach the 
Commission had taken when permitting the first UWB operations. Over the 
past two decades manufacturers have developed new and innovative 
applications, and the technology has likewise evolved to incorporate a 
wider variety of waveforms than had been accounted for when the rules 
were first adopted. Today's UWB devices can be designed to employ a 
number of different modulation types that can transmit very short, low-
power pulses. Modern devices can also use chirp signals that sweep 
rapidly across the band. They may also employ stepped frequency or 
swept band techniques that move across portions of the spectrum in 
quick succession. As a result, the Commission has received numerous 
requests for waivers of the UWB rules to support these types of devices 
and applications, that do not conform to the rules as they exist today.
    On June18, 2019, Robert Bosch LLC filed a Petition for Rulemaking 
requesting that the Commission modernize the UWB rules. Bosch argued 
that the 2002 framework had been intentionally conservative and no 
longer reflected how modern UWB devices were designed, measured, or 
used, resulting in most contemporary UWB products requiring waivers for 
certification. It further stated that more than a decade of operational 
experience, the absence of interference complaints, and advances in 
mitigation techniques demonstrated that the rules could be updated 
while maintaining protection for federal and non-federal incumbents. 
The Bosch Petition also pointed to more flexible international UWB 
regulations and urged greater harmonization to

[[Page 68914]]

support innovation and global manufacturing. Twenty-four parties filed 
comments and four parties made ex parte filings addressing the 
petition.
    More recently, on December 18, 2025, the Alliance for Automotive 
Innovation, the Car Connectivity Consortium, the FiRa Consortium, 
Profibus &Profinet International/omlox, and the Ultra-Wideband Alliance 
(collectively, the Joint Petitioners) filed a Petition for Rulemaking 
seeking targeted updates to the UWB rules. The Joint Petitioners 
asserted that the Commission's UWB framework, largely unchanged for 
more than two decades, no longer reflects current UWB technologies, 
deployment environments, or global regulatory developments. They 
contended that outdated definitional, operational, and equipment-
classification provisions routinely necessitated waivers for low-power 
UWB devices that operated similarly to existing authorized systems and 
posed no greater interference risk. The Commission placed the petition 
on Public Notice which resulted in eight parties filing comments and 
one party filing an ex parte comment.
    In consideration of the evolving uses for and importance of UWB 
applications, recognizing the rulemaking petitions that have been filed 
and the large portfolio of UWB waiver petitions that the Commission 
have fielded to date, and considering the amount of time since the last 
comprehensively evaluated UWB rules, the Commission initiates the 
rulemaking proceeding.

II. Discussion

    In this document, the Commission undertakes a comprehensive review 
of the UWB framework to ensure that the rules are optimized to keep 
pace with modern technologies, deployment environments, and advances in 
UWB modalities. Specifically, the Commission proposes to modify 
technical rules and requirements that appear to be ill-suited for the 
expanded scope and breadth of today's UWB devices and that warrant a 
fresh look considering the long span of time since their adoption. 
Second, the Commission proposes to create a new UWB device category to 
enable certification of the emerging class of location-sensing devices 
that have heretofore only been brought to market after completing time-
consuming and increasingly repetitive rule waiver proceedings. The 
Commission also explores whether to establish a new class for AI-
enabled UWB sensing applications. Finally, the Commission examines all 
existing UWB device categories to determine whether their technical, 
operational, eligibility, labeling, and emission related provisions 
remain necessary, and the Commission seeks comment on potential 
updates, including consolidating, simplifying, or removing redundant 
rules to ensure that the UWB framework remains clear, technically 
justified, and capable of supporting future innovation while continuing 
to protect incumbent services.
    Modernizing Technical Rules and Requirements--UWB Transmitter 
Definition. The Commission's rules define a ``UWB transmitter'' as 
``[a]n intentional radiator that, at any point in time, has a 
fractional bandwidth equal to or greater than 0.20 or has a UWB 
bandwidth equal to or greater than 500 MHz, regardless of the 
fractional bandwidth.'' In adopting the UWB rules in 2002, the 
Commission recognized that this definition was likely to preclude 
certain types of modulations, such as swept frequency (e.g., Frequency 
Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW)), stepped frequency, or frequency 
hopping systems, noting that no measurement procedure had been 
proposed, nor had the interference potential of such devices been 
analyzed.
    The Commission's original ``at any point in time'' bandwidth 
requirement no longer accurately reflects how modern UWB systems 
operate. Petitioners explain that although many modern UWB devices are 
designed to meet the underlying bandwidth requirement, they do not 
satisfy it at all points in time, which results in them failing to meet 
the UWB transmitter definition. Moreover, devices that are purposely 
designed to improve the operational environment--such as a UWB device 
that is ``notched'' to avoid a particular frequency segment--might no 
longer comply with the ``at any point in time'' requirement. As a 
result, devices that function like UWB systems in practice but that 
generate individual pulses that fall outside of the defined bandwidth 
requirement, even momentarily, are excluded from the UWB category and 
must seek a waiver of the Commission's rules to operate. The Commission 
believes that the ``at any point in time'' requirement serves as an 
unnecessary impediment to developing and deploying new UWB 
applications. As both the Joint Petitioners and Bosch note, the 
Commission has granted many such waivers, consistently finding that it 
would not undermine the purpose of the rule because waiving the ``at 
any point in time'' requirement for such devices has not been shown to 
increase the potential for harmful interference to authorized services. 
The Commission specifically notes here that it has consistently found 
that stepped and swept frequency devices have a difficult time meeting 
the definition and other technical rules because the large bandwidth 
achieved by stepping or sweeping a narrow signal through the broader 
frequency range won't be instantaneously wide enough to meet the rules' 
specific requirements. Making this rule change will remove the 
requirement that has hindered the development and deployment of this 
technology. Therefore, the Commission tentatively concludes that it 
should update the UWB transmitter definition to remove the ``at any 
point in time'' requirement, essentially codifying the numerous granted 
waivers, to better accommodate popular UWB methodologies, such as 
frequency hopping, stepped frequency, swept frequency, and other time-
varying waveforms that momentarily fall outside of the instantaneous 
bandwidth threshold--which is 500 MHz at all times (``at any point in 
time'') for UWB devices, as well as to reduce the burdens associated 
with the existing waiver process necessary to authorize such devices. 
The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion. Would 
removing this ``at any point in time'' requirement reduce or eliminate 
the need for the Commission to issue waivers for devices that 
demonstrate UWB-like performance and have low interference potential 
but do not satisfy the instantaneous bandwidth threshold under the 
existing definition? What are the impacts on device design and the 
ability of devices to avoid causing harmful interference if the 
Commission eliminates the ``any point in time'' requirement? To ensure 
that the Commission has an adequate record for making decisions about 
the future of UWB devices, and to minimize the potential for harmful 
impact to incumbent licensees, the Commission requests technical 
analysis and coexistence studies that are in line with the Commission's 
goals of promoting efficient use of spectrum. In evaluating revisions 
to the UWB transmitter definition, the Commission emphasizes that any 
updated definitions or measurement procedures must include sufficient 
technical detail to support robust coexistence assessments with Federal 
systems. The Commission also expects parties to provide technical 
studies explicitly showing that proposed methodologies will not 
increase the potential for harmful interference to Federal operations, 
and to ensure that certification processes preserve clear visibility 
into waveform characteristics essential for Federal

[[Page 68915]]

compatibility analyses. Because modern UWB modulation techniques were 
not fully contemplated in 2002, the Commission wants to ensure that 
changes to the UWB definition or measurement framework may that alter 
emission characteristics are evaluated as part of this proceeding, 
including how such changes may correlate to instantaneous power, 
spectral density, temporal occupancy, aggregate emissions, and receiver 
susceptibility.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether instantaneous bandwidths 
below 500MHz could result in higher instantaneous power spectral 
density, and if so, whether concentrating power into a narrower 
bandwidth could affect incumbent service protections, including for the 
aeronautical radionavigation service (ARNS), radionavigation satellite 
service/global navigation satellite service (RNSS/GNSS), mobile 
satellite service (MSS), radar altimeters, and weather radars. 
Commenters are invited to propose related measurement procedures, as 
well as operational or technical limits that may be necessary to ensure 
continued compatibility with these authorized services. The Commission 
also seeks comment on how this updated UWB definition aligns with 
ongoing work in standards bodies, such as the IEEE, and whether those 
efforts should inform the approach. Finally, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether it would need to make any additional updates to the 
rules for purposes of clarity and conformity.
    Measurement Procedures. Section 15.31(c) requires swept frequency 
devices to be measured with the frequency sweep stopped at the 
frequencies selected for reporting. Separately, Sec.  15.521(d) 
requires that when pulse gating is used, and where the transmitter is 
quiescent for intervals that are long compared to the nominal pulse 
repetition interval (i.e., the break between bursts is much longer than 
the time it takes to send the next pulse), then measurements shall be 
made with the pulse train gated on (i.e., ignoring the ``off'' period 
for measurement purposes). Together, these provisions establish how UWB 
transmitters must be evaluated for compliance with the Commission's 
radiated emission limits. Generally, devices that do not meet the 
radiated emission limits under the measurement procedures requirement 
also do not meet the UWB transmitter definition.
    When the Commission adopted the UWB rules in 2002, it established 
technically neutral standards that allowed any modulation or technology 
so long as devices met the minimum bandwidth and emission limits. But 
it also noted that no measurement procedures existed for stepped-
frequency, frequency-hopping, or swept-frequency systems and that their 
interference characteristics had not been evaluated using measurements 
taken in normal operating mode, In practical terms, these types of 
devices employ continuous, rapid transmission characteristics that make 
it technically difficult to stop the frequency sweep at a single point 
in time for measurement or to create a continuous pulse train without 
disrupting the device's normal operation. In addition, the UWB devices 
have very low duty cycles and quickly sweep across wide swaths of 
frequency bands, which mitigates any potential harmful interference to 
licensed receivers that are designed to detect transmissions over much 
longer time periods. When the rules were first adopted, the Commission 
noted that the test requirements of Sec. Sec.  15.31(c) and 15.521(d) 
were optimized for pulse-based UWB signals only and different test 
configurations and methodologies would be necessary to measure 
bandwidth for other types of UWB emissions correctly. After two 
decades, modern UWB devices are often designed using stepped or swept 
frequency or frequency hopping techniques, and because of this reason 
the current measurement procedure for UWB rules is out of step with the 
changing technologies changes.
    Section 15.31(c) effectively blocks certification of swept-
frequency UWB devices without a waiver because the rule was written for 
pulse-based systems. This issue first surfaced in 2004 when the Multi-
band OFDM Alliance Special Interest Group (MBOA-SIG) requested a 
waiver, explaining that existing procedures did not apply to multiband 
OFDM systems. Through testing, MBOA-SIG showed that stepped or 
sequenced UWB systems posed no greater interference risk than impulse-
based systems. The Commission granted the waiver and later reaffirmed 
that measuring such devices in their normal operating mode does not 
increase interference potential, though the intended rule codification 
has never been completed.
    In light of the Commission's intent since 2005 that the provisions 
of the MBOA-SIG waiver could be codified and the experience gained 
since that time, the Commission proposes to update the UWB rules to 
reflect the reality that modern UWB devices use a variety of waveforms 
that cannot easily be measured under the current procedures or where 
taking such measurements under those procedures would hinder the 
devices' utility. The record of waivers spanning different UWB 
applications shows that applicants have repeatedly been able to 
demonstrate good cause for not applying the originally adopted 
measurement procedures and that, in doing so, applicants have shown 
that their devices do not undermine the purpose of the rule, i.e., to 
enable UWB devices to operate without causing harmful interference to 
authorized licensees.
    The Commission proposes to update the UWB measurement procedures by 
making targeted changes to how they apply to UWB devices. First, the 
Commission proposes adding Sec.  15.31(c) to the list of provisions in 
Sec.  15.505(a) that do not apply to UWB devices. Because Sec.  
15.31(c) applies broadly to unlicensed part 15 devices, exempting UWB 
devices from this provision would reduce unnecessary waiver requests, 
improve regulatory certainty, and better align the Commission's 
procedures with the operation of contemporary swept-frequency UWB 
devices. Second, the Commission proposes modifying Sec.  15.521(d) to 
specify that, if pulse gating is employed, measurements may be made in 
normal operating mode, thereby eliminating the need for the hop, step, 
or sequenced function to be stopped. This will similarly enable these 
frequency modulation devices to be certified without requiring a 
waiver. The Commission believes that these modifications would improve 
clarity, flexibility, and regulatory certainty for manufacturers, while 
maintaining appropriate protections for incumbent licensees and federal 
users.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether exempting UWB devices from 
Sec.  15.31(c) and allowing pulse-gated UWB devices to be measured in 
normal operating mode could negatively affect interference potential, 
including aggregate noise floor levels and coexistence with incumbent 
services. It also invites input on whether existing certification or 
technical standards, such as those from IEEE or other standards bodies, 
offer measurement methods that should inform its approach. The 
Commission asks whether alternative methods might better meet its 
objectives while protecting authorized services, and how procedures 
should account for modern modulation techniques outside traditional UWB 
frameworks. Finally, it requests technical studies demonstrating that 
the proposed procedures would accurately evaluate device operation and 
ensure protection of federal systems.
    Scope of Use. Section 15.521(a) provides that ``UWB devices may not 
be

[[Page 68916]]

employed for the operation of toys.'' In addition, ``[o]peration 
onboard an aircraft, a ship or a satellite is prohibited.'' When 
adopting the prohibition on the use of UWB devices for the operation of 
toys in the 2002 UWB First Report and Order, the Commission explained 
that the prohibition was intended to ``further limit the proliferation 
of these products'' and was ``consistent with the desire to proceed 
cautiously with the introduction of UWB devices.'' The Commission 
acknowledged that the prohibition on the use of UWB devices for the 
operation of toys was precautionary in nature and stated that it may 
revisit the prohibition within six to twelve months, recognizing that 
the rule was conservative by design and based on the limited available 
technical data. In addition, the Commission adopted these provisions 
with the intention of being overly cautious while expecting that no 
harmful interference would occur based on the available technical 
analysis. As part of the rulemaking, the Commission also analyzed 
technical studies to consider the effect that the operation of indoor 
and outdoor UWB devices would have on aviation, weather and defense 
related systems--all resulting in the same conclusion that the UWB 
operations will not negatively impact those systems. Given the time 
that has passed since these prohibitions were adopted, the Commission 
believes it is appropriate to revisit utility in today's UWB 
communications landscape.
    It is clear from the steady stream of waiver requests that the 
Commission receives routinely and have granted in recent years that 
current rules do not adequately provide an effective avenue for 
manufacturers to quickly develop and bring to market new and innovative 
UWB device types. To address the gap between what the current rules 
allow and permitting the UWB market to organically develop and 
flourish, the Commission has been operating under ``regulation by 
waiver.'' Operation under these waivers and their associated conditions 
has shown that even with widespread growth, the risk of harmful 
interference to authorized licensees is minimal. The Commission 
recognizes the benefits of expanding permissible UWB uses, but remain 
mindful that the current prohibitions can only be removed after 
understanding how device proliferation may affect the aggregate noise 
floor, how ubiquitous UWB-enabled devices are likely to become in the 
absence of existing restrictions, and how many such devices could 
coexist in a given environment while continuing to minimize the 
potential of causing harmful interference to authorized users. 
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on technical justifications 
that support revising Sec.  15.521(a) to remove the prohibition on the 
use of UWB devices in toys, as well as whether the longstanding 
prohibition on UWB operations aboard aircraft, ships, or satellites 
remains warranted. To that end, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
additional technical standards need to be considered when evaluating 
UWB operation in aeronautical or maritime environments such as the IEC 
60533, IEC 60945, RTCM 13700.0, IEC 60533 Ed.4, or others as 
applicable. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on how such 
technical standards could vary with different UWB use cases. For 
example, where the Commission's rules currently prohibit UWB operation 
on ships, could it permit UWB surveillance system use for public safety 
purposes? What about other types of UWB devices? Would similar 
reasoning be applicable for aeronautical platforms? Are there other 
internationally recognized maritime, aeronautical, or ITU-R standards 
that could inform an appropriate emissions framework for these expanded 
operating scenarios?
    The Commission invites commenters to address whether the underlying 
assumptions that informed the Commission's 2002 precautionary framework 
remain valid considering advances in modern communication systems, such 
as the availability of ubiquitous high speed internet, Wi-Fi, and 
advanced mobile technologies like 5G, and 6G; broader adoption of 
technology by the public (e.g., mass adoption of smart phones and smart 
home applications); improved coexistence techniques such as listen-
before-talk, dynamic frequency selection (DFS), adaptive frequency 
hopping (AFH), and Automatic Frequency Coordination (AFC). The 
Commission notes that all these aspects of today's communication 
landscape were neither available nor envisioned at the time the rules 
were first adopted. Taking this into account, what steps can the 
Commission take to provide more flexibility and expansion for UWB use 
cases while still ensuring that they do not cause harmful interference? 
For example, to the extent that modern communications technologies 
include advanced error detection and correction algorithms, and because 
UWB transmissions exhibit very low duty cycle and ``bursty'' in nature, 
does this further dimmish the likelihood that UWB-related interference 
would result in the degrading, obstructing, or actual interruption of a 
radiocommunication service so as to rise to the level of being 
``harmful''? Are there particular bands or uses--such as frequencies 
used for space research or radio astronomy in which there is no 
communications protocol for which error detection and correction 
algorithms can be readily employed--that warrant additional 
considerations and that might affect how the Commission implements any 
changes to its current UWB rules? If so, how can the Commission 
narrowly tailor any limitations on UWB use to account for such unique 
situations?
    The Commission seeks comment on whether relaxing any or all its 
prohibitions of uses in Sec.  15.521(a) would pose any meaningful risk 
of harmful interference. For example, would any undesired changes in 
aggregate noise floor levels be expected? If the noise floor level were 
to change, would it do so to a degree that could increase the harmful 
interference risk, or would it generally go unnoticed? Commenters 
should provide detailed technical analysis to support their positions. 
Similarly, how would device proliferation and operational density be 
expected to change? Would such changes affect the potential for harmful 
interference? How might geo-fencing be employed in these devices as a 
mitigation technique? In short, the Commission seeks to fully 
understand whether and how any changes it might make to the rules would 
affect the ability for UWB to coexist with authorized services.
    As an initial matter, the Commission notes that the term ``toys'' 
is not defined in the rules and has become more ambiguous as the number 
and types of consumer-grade electronic devices have proliferated in the 
time since the Commission adopted the prohibition. The Commission is 
concerned that the lack of a clear definition may create uncertainty 
for manufacturers and could inadvertently discourage the development of 
useful UWB-enabled products. The Commission further recognizes that the 
original caution underlying this restriction may no longer be necessary 
given UWB's longstanding record of operating without causing harmful 
interference in other applications. The Commission seeks comment on 
these observations. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should 
remove the prohibition on toys incorporating UWB devices. The Joint 
Petitioners note that UWB often interacts with other wireless 
technologies, such as Bluetooth and Wi-

[[Page 68917]]

Fi that are frequently leveraged by toys and that the distinction 
between personal devices and toys is increasingly blurred, as devices 
such as tablets and phones are often used for gaming. In seeking to 
remove this prohibition, the Joint Petitioners do not seek any changes 
in the general UWB technical rules or limits that would be applicable 
to such devices. Were the Commission to retain a restriction on toys, 
are there steps it could take to limit any burdens associated with the 
existing prohibition? For example, should the Commission adopt a 
definition for ``toys''? If so, what would be critical elements for 
such a definition both in a qualitative and quantitative perspective? 
How would toys be described and what are the critical technical 
elements to capture, like bandwidth, duty cycle, emission limits, that 
are unique to toys? Noting that UWB operating specifically in toys 
would not alter the radiofrequency environment compared to other uses, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether UWB use in toys is likely to 
become widespread. And if so, would such use create aggregate 
interference concerns? Would restricting operation of UWB-equipped toys 
to certain channels, such as Channels 8 and 9 (the center frequency of 
Channels 8 and 9 is 7488 MHz and 7987.2 MHz, respectively), or 
otherwise limiting operation on specific frequencies be an effective 
means of protecting the interests of authorized spectrum users, 
including Federal spectrum users? Are there other use characteristics 
the Commission should consider? For example, is it reasonable to expect 
that most toys would be used indoors where building entry loss would 
protect many nearby licensed users? Would a use-based limitation on 
toys be an effective approach for providing any necessary protections?
    The Commission also seeks comment on the potential for expanded UWB 
use on ships, including operations on inland waters, as requested by 
the Joint Petitioners, and whether geofencing methods, further device 
level controls and features, or operational restrictions could reliably 
ensure compliance as ships move between inland and coastal 
environments. Because the original UWB rules prohibited operation 
aboard ships and aircraft, any expansion to these platforms will be 
best supported by a thorough, comprehensive technical analysis. 
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comments on appropriate emission 
restrictions in the aeronautical and maritime bands to determine 
whether codifying expanded UWB operation in these environments is 
technically feasible and would adequately protect incumbent safety 
systems. Although the rules generally restrict UWB from operating on 
ships, the Commission also notes that most modern smartphones support 
UWB and such devices are not generally restricted from onboard use. As 
such UWB devices must meet the general 15.209 limits outside of the 
bands specified specifically for UWB use (e.g., in the HF and VHF 
maritime bands), would any additional technical restrictions be needed 
to protect these bands? How would the spectral environment in such 
bands differ from what is already experienced today? The Commission 
also seeks comment whether any operational restrictions might be 
necessary for UWB systems to operate safely aboard vessels. For 
example, should the Commission restrict UWB operations to a certain 
distance from such a certain shipboard systems? In such cases, how 
could a required separation distance be enforced? Commenters advocating 
for relaxing or eliminating these prohibitions should provide details 
on what technical limits and operational controls, if any, that should 
be implemented for UWB devices and how such implementation can be 
achieved. How much detail should be in the rules and how much should be 
left to the standards-setting process? Commenters should provide 
detailed technical justifications for their positions. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether the RF environment of inland waterways 
differs significantly from coastal or open water settings, and on 
whether propagation, clutter, usage density, or incumbent operations 
warrant distinct protections from UWB operations onboard ships. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether a blanket removal of the 
prohibition on UWB use on ships would be appropriate.
    In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether such 
operational restrictions tied to specific locations should be relaxed 
more broadly. The Commission would expect that the density of UWB 
devices on cruise ships or in other non-traditional operating 
environments such as offshore platforms, offshore energy facilities 
like oil rigs, research vessels, or other maritime or near-shore 
structures would be much less than the general case for non-controlled 
environments. In such cases, are any operational restrictions necessary 
for certain types of UWB devices? Would the resulting RF environment 
present any meaningful risk of harmful interference to authorized 
services? And what location based controls such as geofencing, 
automated disablement, or environmental sensing could ensure compliance 
as these platforms move between inland, coastal, and open ocean 
environments? Commenters supporting such relaxation should identify 
what controls would be required, how they could be implemented at the 
device or system level, and which elements should be specified in the 
rules. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the use of specific 
UWB channels, such as on Channels8 and9, would lessen the potential 
impact on Federal systems and whether adopting such a policy would 
minimize or mitigate the need for continued coordination.
    In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether UWB-based 
autonomous drone navigation and landing systems should be permitted 
under the UWB rules. The Commission recognizes the emergence of 
commercial systems capable of high-precision, GNSS (Global Navigation 
Satellite System) independent positioning that support indoor and 
outdoor autonomous landing for multiple drones and landing stations, 
which even allow the use of mobile devices as UWB landing beacons, but 
that may not be permissible under the Commission's current rules. The 
Commission seeks comment on what technical and operational conditions, 
such as indoor-only operation, confined outdoor areas, uses only in 
controlled facilities like industrial and manufacturing factories, 
altitude limits, power restrictions, and duty cycle limits, might be 
necessary to protect authorized services.
    The Commission also seeks comment on expanded UWB use in aircraft 
and satellites. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on:
    <bullet> whether expanded drone-based UWB operations could alter 
the coexistence dynamics in shared spectrum environments;
    <bullet> technical studies that model coexistence between systems 
and assess whether there might be any measurable effect on harmful 
interference risk to authorized users of the band;
    <bullet> the potential use of UWB devices aboard aircraft and 
satellites;
    <bullet> when using UWB aboard aircraft and satellites, what 
technical and operational safeguards such as geofencing, altitude based 
restrictions or other relevant restrictions would be required to 
prevent harmful interference to aeronautical and satellite services; 
and
    <bullet> other technical rules that would promote compatibility for 
airborne use

[[Page 68918]]

of UWB with other authorized users, such as emission limits and UWB 
channel restrictions.
    Commenters supporting expanded UWB use in these environments should 
provide detailed technical analyses, including propagation modeling, 
link budgets, and coexistence studies and analysis. The Commission also 
notes that the intent here is not to make drastic or wholesale changes 
to the dynamics in satellite, air and space environment via the general 
expansion of an unlicensed regime. Instead, the intention is to make 
UWB devices accessible in these environments to enable technology 
innovators to better serve the American public by expanding UWB 
capabilities to aircraft and satellites. Finally, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether any corresponding rule changes would be needed for 
other classes of UWB devices if we were to alter the use restrictions 
in Sec.  15.521(a) in any of the ways discussed in this subsection.
    Advance Written Coordination Requirement. Section15.525 requires 
UWB imaging systems to undergo written coordination by submitting 
notice to OET prior to operating, including providing contact 
information, the device FCC ID, and the intended geographic operating 
area for subsequent FCC-NTIA review. This process was originally 
established to prevent harmful interference to sensitive services such 
as the Global Positioning System (GPS), the personal communications 
service (PCS), radio astronomy, and satellite-based sensors, while 
still enabling the benefits of UWB imaging technologies. Over time, 
however, coordination has proven administratively burdensome and no 
longer appears to be necessary given the absence of reported harmful 
interference and the maturity and the predictable nature of modern UWB 
devices. Notably, the Commission is not aware of any instance where 
this written coordination information has been used to respond to an 
interference concern or has resulted in a follow-up investigation.
    The Commission therefore proposes to eliminate the Sec.  15.525 
coordination requirement and seek comment on whether its removal would 
meaningfully affect interference risk, limit the ability to manage 
device proliferation, or otherwise reduce necessary safeguards. To the 
extent parties believe that there is a need to retain a coordination 
requirement, they should give concrete examples of when and how the 
current process has provided for the identification and resolution of 
actual UWB-based interference. If there is a reason to retain a 
coordination requirement, could any part of coordination process be 
streamlined or simplified such as by removing the requirement that the 
notification be sent in writing to the Commission's physical address? 
What are the most effective ways to ensure that the benefits of such 
coordination (to the extent there are any) outweigh the substantial 
burdens that the existing requirement creates?
    Ground Penetrating Radars. Over the past two decades, the 
Commission has repeatedly relied on case specific waivers to authorize 
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and related ultrawideband sensing 
systems that could not conform to the conservative framework adopted in 
the 2002 First Report and Order (67 FR 34852; May 16, 2002). Bosch 
details in its petition that virtually every significant GPR 
advancement has necessitated tailored relief because the rules' 
definitional, operational, and measurement provisions were incompatible 
with modern GPR designs. The Commission has consistently justified 
these waivers based on the longstanding absence of harmful 
interference, the downward-directed and ground-coupled nature of GPR 
emissions, and the greater public interest benefits of infrastructure 
monitoring, construction safety, utility detection, and transportation 
applications. Collectively, these waiver grants demonstrate both the 
need and the opportunity to update these rules so that widely used and 
low-risk GPR technologies no longer depend on repeated, device specific 
waivers for market entry. The Commission continues to see that trend as 
evident by more recent waiver authorizations such as Rod Radar.
    The Commission observes that all of these waiver grants apply a 
consistent set of technical conditions tied to the same rule sections 
being waived namely Sec. Sec.  15.503(d), 15.31(c) and 15.521(d). 
Across the waivers, the Commission permits stepped-frequency and other 
frequency-agile GPR devices to operate by waiving these provisions and 
requires applicants to demonstrate compliance with emissions limits 
while the device operates in its normal stepping mode, rather than with 
the sweep disabled. The Commission limits dwell time on any individual 
frequency band to ensure the device cannot function as a narrowband 
transmitter, and it requires operation only in contact with the ground, 
consistent with part 15 subpart F's GPR definition, to ensure downward-
directed energy and reduce harmful interference potential. In addition, 
the Commission requires that waiver recipients must suppress emissions 
within restricted bands through notching or equivalent attenuation, and 
each device must still comply with all other technical and operational 
UWB GPR requirements.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether:
    <bullet> the rules should incorporate recurring conditions 
reflected across prior GPR waivers and, if so, whether there is a 
specific waiver (e.g., Rod Radar, Proceq, or Curtiss-Wright) that 
should serve as the model;
    <bullet> the rules should incorporate explicit technical parameters 
that have appeared consistently in those waivers, including reducing or 
limiting emissions over specific protected bands that are uniquely 
susceptible to harm if affected by UWB-based interference (for example, 
328.6-335.4MHz and 960-1103.51MHz), defined dwell-time limits (such as 
the 58-microsecond maximum step duration or the 2-microsecond limit 
used in earlier waivers), and other provisions such as downward-
directed emissions, ground-contact activation, and proximity- or 
motion-based interlocks;
    <bullet> incorporating the recurring conditions from prior GPR 
waivers and tailoring them to device classes that routinely require 
waivers, including stepped-frequency GPR, continuous-wave GPR, 
vehicular or bucket-mounted systems, and infrastructure inspection 
radars, would reduce regulatory uncertainty, streamline equipment 
authorization, and ensure consistent protection for authorized 
services.
    Commenters should identify which conditions remain necessary, which 
may be outdated, and how these requirements should be modernized to 
support current and emerging GPR technologies
    New UWB Device Category. Over the past several years, the 
Commission has seen a sharp increase in nearly identical UWB waiver 
requests, particularly for outdoor keyless entry/door lock systems, 
vehicle and rail safety ranging systems, and other precision tracking 
applications, seeking relief from the requirements that UWB devices in 
the hand-held category must be hand held and cannot use fixed outdoor 
infrastructure. These waiver requests are characterized by similar 
technical characteristics and mitigation measures, typically generate 
little or no public comment, and have generated no reports of harmful 
interference. This consistent pattern suggests that the current rules 
are more restrictive than necessary and are no longer aligned with 
practical deployment needs. The Commission further recognizes that 
UWB's fine-

[[Page 68919]]

ranging accuracy, robust performance in multipath environments, and 
ability to operate across wide frequency ranges can enhance continuous 
spatial awareness, intent detection, multimodal sensor fusion, and 
autonomous navigation in emerging technologies, including AI-enabled 
applications.
    The Commission therefore proposes to update and advance the rules 
by establishing a new UWB device category that reflects modern 
technology needs while providing a durable framework for future 
innovation. This category would support compact devices operating in 
either mobile or fixed configurations and that are capable of operating 
either indoors or outdoors. To protect authorized services, devices 
would be subject to practical physical safeguards, such as height 
limits, mounting restrictions, and requirements to direct emissions 
downward. Technical limits would further mitigate interference 
potential by incorporating controls, such as duty cycle limits, power 
spectral density constraints, antenna directivity requirements, pulse 
repetition frequency restrictions, or relevant combinations of these 
measures. To ensure efficient spectrum use, these devices would be 
allowed to transmit only during active, event-driven communication 
sessions and must remain idle otherwise, and be prohibited from forming 
wide-area networks. They would continue to operate at low power with 
duty cycles under one percent in any 24-hour period. Collectively, 
these safeguards would prevent continuous transmissions, minimize 
interference risks, reduce the need for waivers, and create a clear, 
technically grounded foundation for future UWB deployment.
    The Commission seeks comment on these proposed technical 
requirements and whether and how they might alter the radiofrequency 
environment for users of authorized services. Because UWB is used 
sparingly in devices, the Commission expects these devices to have low 
duty cycles. Using an example of a UWB-equipped door lock that is 
engaged up to ten times a day, with each ranging round lasting 660 
microseconds, the time the device is actively sending a signal 
represents an extremely small percentage of the day as a whole. For 
this reason, the Commission believes that a duty cycle limit at or 
below one percent is not only appropriate to maintain interference-free 
operation, but also adequately supports expected future uses cases. The 
Commission seeks comment on this observation and the specific duty 
cycle that it should adopt. In addition, the Commission seeks comment 
on whether the duty cycle should be measured over a period of 24 hours 
or over a shorter interval (e.g., hourly or even on a per-minute 
basis). The Commission also seeks comment on appropriate emission 
limits. Should they match, exceed, or be more restrictive than the 
current UWB hand held device limits, and why? The Commission also seeks 
comment on what emission limits should be associated with particular 
frequency bands to provide maximum flexibility for UWB devices while 
ensuring coexistence with incumbent services.
    To unlock the full breadth of benefits, UWB devices rely on 
specialized modulation to achieve the wide bandwidths required for UWB 
classification. Common UWB waveform types include: impulse-radio UWB 
(IR-UWB), which uses extremely short pulses for precise ranging and 
localization; Multi Band Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing 
OFDM (MB-OFDM), which divides the spectrum into sub bands and employs 
frequency hopping for high-speed data transfer; Frequency Modulated 
Continuous Wave (FMCW) modulation used in radar and sensing 
applications; and stepped frequency waveforms that sequentially 
transmit discrete tones across a broad band. Each modulation requires 
careful management of technical parameters, such as pulse repetition 
frequency, dwell time, sweep rate, and pulse shaping, to ensure 
efficient spectrum use, minimize interference, and comply with 
applicable emission limits.
    The Commission seeks comment on appropriate modulation-related 
technical requirements for this new UWB device category, including 
whether dwell time limits should be more restrictive, more flexible, or 
aligned with those adopted in prior Commission waivers. Are constraints 
on dwell time, number of activations per day, duration of each 
activation, or other operational parameters are appropriate for this 
new UWB device category? The Commission also invites comment on whether 
uniform stepping, randomized stepping, or alternative optimized sweep 
patterns should be permitted, so long as emissions remain compliant to 
the rules, and whether testing must always be performed with the 
stepping or sweep function active to reflect real-world behavior. The 
Commission also seeks comment on appropriate pulse repetition frequency 
(PRF) or burst timing limits, including whether constraints similar to 
or distinct from proposals in past filings, such as Bosch's request for 
PRF less than 4 MHz for a different device class, would be suitable 
here. The Commission seeks input on whether higher, lower, or 
comparable PRF limits should be adopted, and whether PRF should be tied 
to duty-cycle caps or minimum off-time requirements to ensure that the 
aggregate interference profile remains comparable to existing UWB 
imaging systems. The Commission also invites comment on other UWB 
modulation methods and parameters that may be optimal for this new 
device category, aiming to maximize technological benefits while 
maintaining strong protections for existing services.
    To the extent applicable to this proposed new device class, the 
Commission seeks comment on the technical parameters that Bosch 
proposed in 2019 for a more expansive imaging system (even though the 
Commission is proposing a different approach by way of the new device 
type). Bosch's proposed device class would have bandwidths up to 2.5 
GHz within the 6-9 GHz range, have mean emission limits similar to UWB, 
and operate with low duty cycles of typically less than 1%, with a 
signal transmission on time of less than 2 nanoseconds. It also 
proposed an antenna gain of less than 4 dBi for its system with antenna 
patterns restricted to a 90-degree horizontal and vertical pattern, and 
an antenna tilted downward from the horizon with an installation height 
of 2-3 meters. It claimed that this would allow motion detection to be 
active 24 hours per day with no appreciable interference potential and 
enable its system to achieve a location precision of 0.1 to 1 meter and 
a detection distance of 15-18 meters. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether some or all of these technical limits should apply to this 
device category, to the extent applicable, to maintain low interference 
potential while enabling 24-hour operation.
    In addition, the Commission seeks comment on appropriate antenna 
pattern requirements, if any, for this new UWB device category. 
Historically, the previous UWB waivers have considered antenna designs 
that place nulls at the top and bottom of the device, concentrating 
emissions in the azimuthal plane to reduce radiation toward airborne 
and satellite receivers and to promote faster attenuation with 
distance. The Commission seeks comment on whether similar constraints 
are sufficient for indoor, outdoor, and mobile use, or whether narrower 
beamwidth requirements, such as 30, 60, or 90 degrees, should be 
adopted. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether antenna

[[Page 68920]]

requirements are necessary if duty cycle limits and emission limits 
alone are adopted that can adequately control interference. The 
Commission's goal is to ensure effective emission management while 
maximizing operational flexibility to support broader UWB deployment.
    The Commission invites commenters to consider the appropriate 
interplay between duty cycle, power level, antenna pattern constraints, 
and waveform characteristics to ensure that these systems can operate 
flexibly while continuing to protect incumbent services. Because UWB 
emissions are shaped not only by average and peak power, but also by 
how frequently pulses are transmitted and how energy is directed 
spatially, would a combined framework, such as pairing low duty cycles 
with restrictive antenna patterns while allowing modest power 
increases, provide an appropriate and flexible pathway for this new 
category of devices? Should maximum permissible power limits vary based 
on antenna directivity, such as allowing slightly higher power for 
antennas that confine emissions to the azimuthal plane or employ narrow 
beamwidths (for example, ten degrees) when paired with very low duty 
cycles (e.g., less than 1% over 24 hours)? Alternatively, would 
establishing uniform limits regardless of beamwidth be more 
appropriate? The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should 
specify additional waveform parameters, including limits on modulation 
dwell times (such as stepped-frequency continuous wave dwell times not 
exceeding 2 microseconds per frequency), FMCW sweep times, impulse 
radio pulse shaping characteristics, pulse repetition interval or other 
UWB signal characteristics to ensure predictable and stable rules 
consistent with incumbent service protection. Should such waveform 
requirements be paired with operational constraints that require 
devices to transmit only during active, event-driven communication 
sessions and remain idle otherwise, thereby reinforcing low average 
emission levels and promoting efficient spectrum use?
    Are there additional operational restrictions the Commission should 
consider? Possible examples include installation-related limits, such 
as maximum mounting heights, mandatory downward tilt, or similar 
measures to ensure emissions remain directed toward the ground. Should 
the Commission adopt more permissive limits, such as allowing 
installations up to 20 meters, to support low altitude drone operations 
and other potential new UWB applications? Should device deployments 
that qualify under these new rules be limited to controlled 
environments, such as industrial or manufacturing facilities or, 
alternatively, be restricted to residential, non-professional use only? 
The Commission also asks whether it should not adopt any usage 
restrictions. Commenters should provide technical justification to 
support how any use restrictions or the absence thereof would enable 
coexistence and minimize the potential for harmful interference to 
occur. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on appropriate measurement 
procedures for demonstrating compliance with duty cycle, emission 
limits, and antenna pattern requirements, including any necessary 
modifications to existing part15 or part2 procedures and certification 
processes to capture worst-case emissions while reflecting realistic 
UWB device behavior.
    As the Commission explores ways to modernize the rules for the next 
generation of technology, the Commission finds that AI is an area where 
updated UWB provisions may provide meaningful support. In a very short 
timeframe, AI has advanced through several distinct stages from 
generative AI, which creates text, images, code, and synthetic sensor 
data, to agentic AI, which can plan, reason, and take sequenced actions 
based on real-time environmental conditions, and is headed toward 
physical AI, where intelligence is embedded in robots, drones, 
autonomous vehicles, and other embodied systems that interact directly 
with the physical world. The Commission notes that the unique technical 
capabilities enabled by UWB such as precise ranging, spatial awareness, 
and reliable low-power operation position it to play a central role in 
supporting this transformation. In this connection, the Commission also 
highlights that it has been taking action to ensure that devices sold 
and operated in the U.S. do not pose an unacceptable risk to the 
national security of the United States and to the safety and security 
of U.S. persons. The Commission anticipates that aside from purely 
technical provisions, equipment will continue to be examined under this 
umbrella, and the Commission will take actions as appropriate to ensure 
that UWB systems integrated with AI technologies are aligned with the 
national security interest of the nation. The Commission seeks comment 
on these observations.
    Because many contemporary AI applications do not fit existing UWB 
categories, the Commission seeks comment on establishing a new device 
class for AI-based sensing systems. Will emerging forms of AI, 
including agentic AI and physical AI, require distinct technical or 
operational considerations when paired with UWB technologies? For 
example, as more businesses and consumers rely on smart devices, such 
as those that employ robotics or other designs that can operate with a 
degree of autonomy, the Commission expects such devices will rely on 
UWB for sensing, spatial awareness, navigation, and positioning, given 
its ability for sub-centimeter accuracy. Are the requirements for such 
devices sufficiently different from other UWB devices that the 
Commission should create an entire category for them, and, if so, how 
do the requirements differ from existing UWB devices and what rules are 
needed? Commenters should address how such functions should be defined, 
and what technical requirements should be adopted or measurement 
procedures codified to reflect UWB AI architectures that ensure devices 
can operate as intended and coexist with incumbent users. How should 
these devices be defined? Are there specific characteristics that 
should be codified to differentiate these devices or form factors from 
other UWB devices or platforms? The Commission invites comment on 
appropriate technical and operational rules for AI enabled UWB systems, 
including whether existing power levels and emission limits are 
suitable for adaptive systems that have enhanced RF context awareness 
and onboard computing capabilities, or whether more flexible (or more 
restrictive) limits are warranted. The Commission also seeks comment on 
additional safeguards that could be implemented to minimize harmful 
interference, such as minimum duty cycle constraints, contention based 
protocols (e.g., listen before talk), or other interference-avoidance 
mechanisms that would be appropriate for AI-enabled devices. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether antenna-related restrictions (e.g., 
gain, directivity, orientation, placement) are necessary. As such 
devices are expected to be location-aware, could different limits be 
adopted for indoor versus outdoor use? Are there other categorical 
distinctions that could define various limits, such as industrial/
manufacturing/enterprise environments versus broader use by the general 
public? Should there be eligibility restrictions to use certain classes 
of these devices, (e.g., based on rule part eligibility categories or 
other classification schemes)? What other factors should the Commission 
consider

[[Page 68921]]

regarding potential rules for UWB intended for AI architectures?
    Comprehensive Review and Modernization of the UWB Regulatory 
Framework. As part of this comprehensive review of the UWB framework, 
the Commission initiates a broad examination of whether the 
longstanding technical, operational, and eligibility requirements for 
all UWB device categories continue to be necessary. Many of these 
provisions were adopted more than two decades ago, reflect early-
generation UWB technologies, and now form a fragmented and highly 
prescriptive structure that may no longer align with how modern UWB 
systems are designed, standardized, deployed, and used. In reassessing 
these rules, this proceeding presents an opportunity to modernize a 
framework originally crafted when UWB devices were nascent and less 
predictable, and to evaluate whether today's mature, well-characterized 
technologies warrant a more flexible, harmonized, and technologically 
neutral approach.
    Eligibility. The Commission's rules restrict eligibility for 
operating UWB imaging systems. Ground penetrating radar and wall 
imaging systems may be operated only by entities engaged in law 
enforcement, firefighting, emergency rescue, scientific research, 
commercial mining, or construction activities, and operators must also 
satisfy the part90 eligibility requirements; through-wall imaging 
systems are further limited to law enforcement, emergency rescue, and 
firefighting organizations operating under state or local authority; 
and surveillance systems may be used only by law enforcement and fire 
and emergency rescue organizations, as well as certain eligible 
industrial entities under part 90.7 of the rules (i.e., manufacturers, 
petroleum, and power licensees), with operators required to meet part90 
licensing eligibility. Medical imaging systems are subject to an 
additional layer of restriction, as they may be used only at the 
direction of, or under the supervision of, a licensed healthcare 
practitioner. Collectively, these provisions demonstrate that UWB 
imaging devices are confined to tightly controlled professional sectors 
with explicitly defined eligibility requirements. The Commission 
adopted these operational restrictions in conjunction with the 
technical rules as part of its overall cautious approach to authorizing 
use of UWB, stating that ``[the] combination of technical standards and 
operational restrictions will ensure that UWB devices coexist with the 
authorized radio services without the risk of harmful interference 
while the Commission gains experience with this new technology.'' In 
the intervening years, increasing numbers of UWB imaging devices have 
been authorized for an ever-widening variety of purposes, with no 
record of disruption to licensed and authorized radio services. The 
Commission is also not aware of any situation where a UWB imaging 
device has caused harmful interference because it was not being used by 
or under the supervision of an eligible party.
    Because the eligibility restrictions were adopted as part of an 
initial cautious approach to authorizing UWB and because the Commission 
intended to revisit them after UWB use had become more prevalent, the 
Commission now seeks comment on whether eligibility restrictions for 
UWB imaging systems remain relevant and necessary. Can the Commission 
eliminate the eligibility restrictions altogether? If so, would that 
unleash new consumer-grade devices, and what would be the benefits and 
risks associated with that development? If the Commission retains use 
restrictions, should it modify the list of eligible professional 
sectors? Could the Commission adopt a consistent eligibility framework 
across all imaging system categories to broaden utility? Would 
consolidating the multiple imaging rule parts into a unified umbrella 
framework provide more clarity than just adjusting eligibility 
criteria? The Commission encourages commenters to address technical or 
operational safeguards, such as coordination requirements, that would 
be necessary to ensure that any expanded access or streamlined 
framework continues to protect incumbent services. Alternatively, could 
there be a class of devices with different technical parameters that 
could be widely used by any party (i.e., with no use restrictions) 
without increasing the potential for harmful interference? If so, what 
would those parameters be? The Commission also seeks comment on how 
existing certified devices and associated inventory should be treated 
upon adoption of any final rules. For example, many equipment 
certifications include grant notes specifying that the device, ``may 
not be employed for the operation of toys'' and that ``operation 
onboard an aircraft, a ship or a satellite is prohibited.'' To address 
cases where such restrictions may no longer be consistent with rules 
the Commission ultimately adopts and based on such devices meeting the 
new technical limits the Commission ends up adopting in the proceeding, 
should the Commission require responsible parties for equipment 
authorizations to request such grant notes be removed from their 
certifications to permit already certified equipment to operate under 
more flexible conditions? Are there any other data or provisions 
associated with equipment certifications that may need to be modified? 
Could the Commission adopt an administrative rule to provide such 
flexibility? In such a case, how could already-certified devices that 
meet any new rules the Commission adopts be differentiated from devices 
that may not comply with any new rules?
    Marketing and Labeling Requirement. Section15.507 limits the 
marketing of certain UWB devices to parties eligible to operate them, 
such as law enforcement or fire and rescue organizations, and places 
responsibility on the ``responsible party'' (under Sec.  2.909 of the 
rules) to ensure that equipment is marketed only to eligible parties. 
In addition to marketing restrictions, several device-specific rules 
impose their own labeling requirements:
    <bullet> Through-wall imaging systems must display a notice 
restricting operation to law enforcement, emergency rescue, and 
firefighter personnel.
    <bullet> Surveillance systems must display a notice limiting use to 
law enforcement, fire and rescue officials, public utilities, and 
certain industrial entities.
    <bullet> Indoor UWB systems must display a statement restricting 
operation to indoor use.

These provisions impose a marketing limitation and a separate labeling 
restriction for UWB devices that is in addition to the eligibility 
requirements that govern who may use certain categories of devices. 
Furthermore, the multilayered marketing, labeling, and eligibility 
requirements are codified separately, making the UWB rule structure 
more complex.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether the marketing restrictions 
in Sec.  15.507 remain necessary given that eligibility limitations are 
already defined in Sec.  15.503(l) and reiterated in the device-
specific rules. The Commission further seeks comment on whether the 
labeling requirements in Sec. Sec.  15.510(e), 15.511(f), and 
15.517(f), which impose differing and unharmonized statements, continue 
to serve a distinct purpose. Do they impose an overly restrictive and 
unnecessary burden on manufacturers in light of the broader part15 and 
UWB framework that already govern device eligibility, usage, and 
marketing of UWB devices? Should these requirements be simplified, 
deleted, or replaced with a

[[Page 68922]]

single standardized labeling statement? If the Commission were to adopt 
a unified eligibility framework, as discussed, would that affect how 
the Commission should address marketing and labeling? The Commission 
also seeks comment on what mechanisms would best ensure continued 
protection of incumbent services if these requirements were streamlined 
or consolidated, including if the Commission were to create a new 
consumer-grade tier of UWB devices as discussed.
    Emission Limits. Across part15, subpartF, each UWB device category 
is subject to its own set of frequency-dependent emission limits 
specified in the corresponding rule sections. In general, all UWB 
devices must meet the Sec.  15.209 general radiated-emission limits at 
or below 960MHz, while average emissions above 960MHz are capped at 
levels that vary by device class and frequency band. These limits 
typically range from approximately -41.3dBm to -75.3dBm EIRP and are 
applied across bands, such as 960-1610MHz, 1610-1990MHz, 1990-3100MHz, 
3100-10,600MHz, and above 10,600MHz, with more stringent protections, 
down to -75.3dBm or -85.3dBm EIRP, applied in the 1164-1240MHz and 
1559-1610MHz frequency bands.
    In addition, UWB devices are subject to more stringent OOBE 
requirements in the GPS bands, where emissions must be suppressed to no 
more than -75.3 dBm EIRP for most UWB categories and -85.3 dBm EIRP for 
indoor and handheld systems. Because modern UWB systems operate at 
extremely low power and low duty cycles, spreading energy across wide 
bandwidths with minimal spectral density, decades of deployments have 
shown that properly compliant UWB devices do not pose a harmful 
interference risk to GPS or other GNSS services under the existing 
part15 framework. As the Commission considers proposals to modify UWB 
rules, it highlights that it is not proposing any changes to the GPS 
protection regime and expects no change to the emissions radiating in 
those bands.
    Furthermore, UWB categories are also subject to a uniform 0dBm EIRP 
peak-emission cap within a 50MHz bandwidth under Sec.  15.521. As an 
example, handheld systems operating under Sec.  15.519 must meet 
average limits ranging from -75.3dBm to -41.3dBm EIRP depending on 
frequency, with GNSS band limits of -85.3dBm EIRP and the same 0dBm 
EIRP peak requirement.
    Against this backdrop, the Commission seeks comment on whether it 
should revisit these long-standing emission limits. Adopted more than 
twenty years ago, when UWB technologies were new and the interference 
potential less well understood, the limits were intentionally 
conservative and tailored to the types of UWB waveforms and device 
architectures represented in the record at that time. Given the 
Commission's decades of experience with UWB deployments, during which 
UWB devices have operated on a non-interference basis without reported 
harmful impacts, and taking into account the substantial maturation, 
standardization, and increased predictability of contemporary UWB 
devices and standards, the Commission seeks comment on whether these 
emission limits remain appropriate today. Specifically, would it be 
beneficial to revisit the radiated emission limits and consider 
increasing average or peak power to support expanded functionality or 
new use cases? The Commission also seeks comment on whether any 
technical, interference, or coexistence analysis would be useful to 
support such adjustments, and how an increase in potential power could 
be implemented while maintaining or improving protections for incumbent 
services. Finally, the Commission invites comment on whether 
harmonizing power limits across device classes or replacing the 
existing device-specific structure with a simplified unified emission 
limit framework would improve clarity, reduce compliance burdens, and 
more accurately reflect the capabilities of modern UWB systems.
    Manual or Remote-Controlled Switches and the ``Ten Second'' Rule. 
Several categories of UWB imaging systems, including ground penetrating 
radars, wall-imaging systems, through-wall imaging systems, and medical 
imaging systems, are required to incorporate a manual or remote-
controlled switch that gives the operator direct control over when 
transmissions occur and requires that the devices cease UWB emissions 
within ten seconds after the operator releases the switch. This 
requirement was adopted to prevent continuous or uncontrolled 
transmissions and to ensure that these systems operate only when 
intentionally activated by an authorized user.
    The Commission seeks comment on eliminating, modifying, or 
replacing these rules. Is there any continued relevance of these 
transmitter control requirements in light of modern UWB device 
architectures, which now incorporate highly responsive digital 
controls, automated power management functions to conserve power, and 
enhanced sensing or activation mechanisms for modern devices? Is the 
fixed ten-second shutoff interval necessary or appropriate and, if so, 
should a shorter interval be considered? Or should the Commission move 
away from a prescribed timing requirement in favor of a more flexible, 
performance-based approach? More fundamentally, do contemporary UWB 
designs already provide sufficient safeguards to prevent unintended or 
continuous emissions? Would modernizing or removing manual or remote-
controlled switch requirements simplify the rules and better align them 
with current technologies?
    Removing Redundant Rules. In light of the Commission's broader 
initiative to eliminate obsolete rules and reduce unnecessary 
regulatory burdens, the Commission seeks comment on the continued 
relevance of these provisions in Sec. Sec.  15.521 and 15.523 that 
appear to be less technically relevant, redundant, unnecessarily 
duplicative of other part15 requirements, and otherwise do not impose 
any distinct technical or operational obligations on UWB devices:
    <bullet> Section15.521(b) (reminding manufacturers and users of the 
antenna provisions in Sec. Sec.  15.203 and 15.204).
    <bullet> Section 15.521(e) (stating that the frequency of maximum 
emission must fall within the UWB bandwidth, which is already inherent 
in the UWB definition and emission masks and codified in individual 
device rules).
    <bullet> Section15.521(f) (reiterating that imaging systems may be 
used only for the functions described in Sec.  15.503, and restating 
prohibitions already contained in the device-specific rules).
    <bullet> Section15.521(j) (providing a reminder of cross-referenced 
requirements in Sec.  15.505, including conducted-emission limits).
    <bullet> Section 15.523 (stating that measurements shall be made in 
accordance with the procedures defined by the Commission, which should 
be self-evident and is clearly set forth in part 2 of the rules).
    The Commission seeks comment on whether some or all of these 
provisions can be deleted, edited, or modernized to meet today's UWB 
environment without any undesired consequences for UWB device 
operations, authorization, or the protection of incumbent services. The 
Commission encourages commenters to address whether any of the 
identified UWB rules serve any continuing regulatory purpose or 
otherwise needed for preserving and highlighting the

[[Page 68923]]

technical requirements applicable to UWB devices. Would removing any of 
these provisions reduce regulatory burdens or improve the clarity and 
usability of the Commission's rules? Are there any UWB rules that 
should be consolidated into other sections? Finally, the Commission 
invites broad comment on all aspects of the UWB rules. For example, are 
there other UWB rules that the Commission have not discussed that it 
should modernize, modify, or eliminate, and if so, why?
    Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis--Need for Regulatory Action. As 
discussed in this document, subpart F of the Commission's part 15 rules 
governs operation of UWB transmitters. Currently, the rules are 
structured to support specific categories of UWB operations. For each 
of these applications, the rules specify technical requirements 
including the frequency bands over which the UWB device may operate, 
any application-specific bandwidth limits, and radiated emission limits 
that vary by frequency band. Each type of device is subject to 
operational restrictions, such as limits on the types of operation 
permitted and the entities that are permitted to use the device. The 
UWB rules date to February 2002. Over the past 24 years, manufactures 
have developed new and innovative applications, and the technology has 
likewise evolved to incorporate a wider variety of waveforms than had 
been accounted for when the rules were first adopted. As a result, the 
Commission has received numerous requests for waivers of the UWB rules 
to support these types of devices and applications. The rules that the 
Commission proposes in this document are necessary to account for the 
evolving uses for and importance of UWB applications that have emerged 
since the last comprehensive review of the UWB rules. The Commission's 
proposals recognize the rulemaking petitions that have been filed and 
the large portfolio of UWB waiver applications that have fielded to 
date and aim to improve and streamline regulatory processes, increase 
flexibility for stakeholders, and eliminate obsolete or redundant 
rules.
    This initial regulatory impact analysis is submitted to the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for interagency review. 
The analysis presents an assessment of the costs and benefits, 
including regulatory compliance costs, associated with the proposals in 
this document and is consistent with Executive Order 12866. The 
Commission tentatively concludes that the rules being proposed will 
result in significant benefits and cost savings that outweigh 
associated costs, if any. The Commission also tentatively concludes 
that the actions being proposed are deregulatory under Executive Order 
14192.
    Benefits and Costs. This document re-examines the Commission's 
rules and seeks public comment on proposals to update and enhance the 
rules to provide greater flexibility for UWB operations. In doing so, 
the Notice proposes rules changes that will have an immediate cost-
cutting impact on an important category of devices, while seeking 
comment on additional revisions that would optimize the UWB rules to 
keep pace with modern technologies, deployment environments, and 
advances in UWB modalities. Specifically, the Commission tentatively 
concludes that by establishing a new UWB device category that reflects 
modern technology needs the Commission will be able to eliminate the 
need for time-consuming waivers for devices that meet the requisite 
technical specifications, while providing for rules that enable UWB 
devices to take advantage of technological innovations and still avoid 
harmful interference. Absent the proposed changes to the rules, 
assuming that the Commission would grant approximately five waivers per 
year on an ongoing basis, the Commission estimate that this would save 
approximately $44,000 per year in review costs for Commission staff and 
an additional approximately $27,000 per year to industry participants 
in time saved from putting together and filing waivers with the 
Commission. The Commission seeks comment on these estimates.
    The Commission notes that these cost savings are likely 
conservatively low. For example, these cost savings do not account for 
contemporary AI applications that do not fit existing UWB categories 
and a potential corresponding increase in the number of waiver 
applications that the Commission is likely to see if it were to 
maintain the current rules. Additionally, these cost savings do not 
account for potential additional savings that may arise from 
modernizing UWB technical requirements and from the comprehensive 
review and modernization of the UWB regulatory framework, including 
anticipated savings from consolidation, simplification, or removal of 
redundant rules. Finally, the Commission's estimates do not account for 
the likely benefits to innovation that are likely to result from 
regulations that are more up to date and in line with the current state 
of UWB technology. The Commission seeks comment on the assessment and, 
more broadly, of benefits, costs, and cost savings that may result from 
the proposed rules changes. The Commission encourages commenters to 
submit both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the potential 
changes to benefits and costs.

III. Intial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared 
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and 
rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) assessing 
the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The Commission requests written public comments on this 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the DATES section of 
the document. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will be published in the Federal Register.
    Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. In the NPRM, the 
Commission proposes to comprehensively modernize its Ultra-Wideband 
(UWB) device rules that were adopted in 2002. The existing UWB rules 
were intentionally restrictive and based on the technological 
capabilities, use cases, and measurement techniques available at that 
time. Over the past two decades, however, UWB technology has matured 
significantly and is now widely used in consumer devices, industrial 
automation, automotive systems, commercial, precision ranging, asset 
tracking, and public safety applications. UWB devices continue to 
operate at a very low power on a non-interference basis, and the 
Commission is unaware of any substantiated reports of harmful 
interference.
    Despite this robust track record of UWB use cases, it is 
increasingly obvious that the existing rules are outdated and overly 
restrictive. This has resulted in repeated waiver requests for devices 
that are low risk, technologically consistent with UWB operations, and 
similar to equipment already on the market. The NPRM's proposed rule 
changes are intended to update definitions, modernize measurement 
procedures, evaluate and potentially eliminate outdated operating 
restrictions, remove coordination requirements, and examine technical 
parameters so that our rules can better match modern UWB technologies.
    The NPRM also proposes a new UWB device category to support 
emerging applications--such as locations sensing

[[Page 68924]]

technologies, industrial automation, mobility platforms, robotics, and 
AI--enabled sensing systems--that do not fit neatly within the legacy 
classifications. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
to harmonize, consolidate, or remove prescriptive requirements across 
subpart F of the part 15 rules, which govern the operation of UWB 
transmitters. Collectively, these revisions are intended to ensure 
regulatory clarity, reduce unnecessary burdens, and support innovation 
while protecting incumbent licensees, some of which are small entities, 
and federal users.
    Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 
4(i), 301, 302, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 302a, 303, and Sec. Sec.  1.407 and 1.411 of the 
Commission's rules.
    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. The 
RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same 
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and 
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act. 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. The SBA establishes small business size 
standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating 
regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish 
alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult 
and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.
    Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not 
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups 
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In 
general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all 
businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million 
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit 
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant 
in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have 
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions'' 
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty 
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we 
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government 
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
    The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in the 
industries identified in the following tables: see, Table 1. 2022 U.S. 
Census Bureau Dada by NAICS Code and Table 2. Telecommunications 
Service Provider Data, by their six-digit North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size 
standard. Additional information regarding the number of potentially 
affected entities in the industries is available at Appendix B of the 
following internet address: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-66A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-66A1.pdf</a>.
    Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting, 
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. 
The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed 
rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping 
and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes 
of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the 
type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or 
record.
    The NPRM does not propose any new reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements and it is unlikely that small entities will need to hire 
professionals to comply with the proposed rules. Instead, the proposals 
are expected to reduce existing compliance burdens by eliminating the 
Sec.  15.525 coordination requirement for UWB imaging devices, 
streamlining or removing outdated measurement procedures, reducing the 
need for waiver requests through the combination of rule changes and 
the creation of a new UWB device category, and consolidating 
duplicative labeling and marketing requirements. For example, 
establishing a new UWB device category that reflects modern technology 
needs will enable the Commission to eliminate the need for time-
consuming waivers for devices that meet the requisite technical 
specifications. Assuming the Commission would grant approximately five 
waivers per year on an ongoing basis, we estimate a potential savings 
of $27,000 per year to small entities and other industry participants 
in time saved from putting together and filing waivers with the 
Commission. We seek comment from small entities on other areas in which 
regulatory costs and other compliance requirements can be reduced. To 
the extent commenters propose alternative approaches--such as modified 
certification tests or operational constraints--the Commission will 
evaluate the impact of those alternatives on small entities.
    Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered that Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities. The RFA directs agencies 
to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the 
proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of 
applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on 
small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such 
as: ``(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.''
    In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on multiple approaches to 
minimize burdens on small entities, including whether updated 
definitions and measurement procedures would reduce the need for 
waivers and lower equipment development costs; whether eliminating 
certain operating restrictions--such as prohibitions on use in toys or 
onboard particular platforms--would remove unnecessary constraints on 
product design; whether consolidating or simplifying the existing 
prescriptive UWB device categories would provide clearer and more 
flexible rules for small manufacturers; whether a unified or harmonized 
emission framework would streamline compliance across device classes; 
and whether removing duplicative labeling and marketing provisions 
would further reduce compliance obligations.
    The Commission also invites comment on alternative technical or 
operational frameworks that could provide equal or greater flexibility 
for small entities while ensuring continued protection for incumbent 
spectrum services. Small entities are encouraged to identify any 
significant alternatives--such as different technical limits, 
operational safeguards, or administrative processes--that would 
minimize economic impacts while achieving the NPRM's goals. The 
Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will 
shape the final conclusions it reaches,

[[Page 68925]]

the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately 
takes to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on 
small entities resulting from the final rules.
    Federal Rules that May Duplicate, overlap, or Conflict with the 
Proposed Rules. None.

III. Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 302, 
and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 301, 302a, 303, and Sec. Sec.  1.407 and 1.411 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.407, 1.411, that the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking filed by 
Robert Bosch LLC and the Petition for Rulemaking filed by Alliance for 
Automotive Innovation, Car Connectivity Consortium, FiRa Consortium, 
PROFIBUS & PROFINET International/omlox, and the Ultra-Wideband 
Alliance are granted.
    It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures set 
forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking on or before December 2, 2026, and replies on or 
before January 4, 2027. Comments and reply comments shall be filed in 
ET Docket No. 26-245.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

    Communications, Communications equipment, Electronic products, 
Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend part 15 of Title 47 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 
549.

0
2. Amend Sec.  15.503 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  15.503  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (d) Ultra-wideband (UWB) transmitter. An intentional radiator that 
has a fractional bandwidth equal to or greater than 0.20 or has a UWB 
bandwidth equal to or greater than 500 MHz, regardless of the 
fractional bandwidth.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  15.505 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  15.505  Cross reference.

    (a) Except where specifically stated otherwise within this subpart, 
the provisions of subparts A and B and of Sec. Sec.  15.201 through 
15.204 and 15.207 of subpart C of this part apply to unlicensed UWB 
intentional radiators. The provisions of Sec. Sec.  15.31(c), 15.35 (c) 
and 15.205 do not apply to devices operated under this subpart. The 
provisions of Footnote US 246 to the Table of Frequency Allocations 
contained in Sec.  2.106 of this chapter does not apply to devices 
operated under this subpart.
* * * * *


Sec.  15.509  [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  15.509 by removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2).


Sec.  15.510  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  15.510 by removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2).


Sec.  15.511  [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  15.511 by removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2)
0
7. Amend Sec.  15.513 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  15.513  Technical requirement for medical imaging systems.

* * * * *
    (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.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  15.521 by revising paragraph (a) and (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  15.521  Technical requirements applicable to all UWB devices.

    (a) Operation onboard an aircraft, a ship not within inland waters, 
or a satellite is prohibited.
* * * * *
    (d) Within the tables in Sec. Sec.  15.509, 15.511, 15.513, 15.515, 
15.517, and 15.519, the tighter emission limit applies at the band 
edges. Radiated emission levels at and below 960 MHz are based on 
measurements employing a CISPR quasi-peak detector. Radiated emission 
levels above 960 MHz are based on RMS average measurements over a 1 MHz 
or 1KHz resolution bandwidth as applicable. The RMS average measurement 
is based on the use of a spectrum analyzer with a resolution bandwidth 
of 1 MHz, an RMS detector, and a 1 millisecond or less averaging time.
* * * * *


Sec.  15.525   [Removed and Reserved]

0
9. Remove and reserve Sec.  15.525.
[FR Doc. 2026-22337 Filed 10-30-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>