WPCk 2HBX@ Z3|P (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 4/4M II NTXPT1HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,,G"kP2. z3R3|PTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)ozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)"oUP2`V5 Ru @  X0 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#XP\  P6Q DXP#y.C8*XC\  P6QPI7PC2,W XP\  P6QXP.J7UC2,PXU4  pQX5PC2,3.MXP*f9 xQXXBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd29X9@yZ@ly.C8*XC\  P6QPm7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.n7UC2XxXU4  pQX5PC2X3EXP*f9 xQXXBBddBdBd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2!@kX r!ru!"5@^(1<(q=)e=*e=+Z>Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g(  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g)  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g*  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g+*    2QA,p?-?.!@/@Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g,  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g-8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g.A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g/0     2ID0A1'B2B3CRight Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g0J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g1S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g2\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g3e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2SG4{D5CE6F7FRight Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g4n` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g5w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g6F    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g7&!"  . 2I8G9 H:H;;ITechnical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g8&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g9*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g:''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g;&)*   21X<J=J>6K?v KTechnical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g<4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g=&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g>&/0  . MACNormal?;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#2M[@ocXAXBiQYCZFootnote@Íčfootnote tex#A'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#headerBAx 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# referenceC;#FxX  Pg9CXP#2aD~[Ei\F^f^GO_itemizeX1D&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2EI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3FF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!G!!#d\  PCP#2d@Ea #&"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!()!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)8'8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!t!77778c<range, high capacity wireless radio systems that could be used for educational and medical  X- xapplications and for wireless access to libraries or other information databases. The Order also  xprohibited the use of field disturbance sensors in the 60 GHz band due to the likelihood that they  xwould interfere with data communications systems. In response to several comments in this  xjproceeding, the Commission delayed the implementation of the 60 GHz band for up to one year  X3-in order to permit industry to develop a spectrum etiquette.G3۠ {O -ԍxId. at para. 64.G   Ox4. The 46.7-46.9GHz band ("46GHz band") and the 76-77GHz band ("76GHz band")  xwere made available for use by vehicle radar systems. The use of these bands would permit the  x[development of collision avoidance systems that could be used in conjunction with Intelligent  xTransportation Systems. In order to provide interference protection to present and future  xGovernment operations near 94 GHz and 140 GHz, the Commission proposed and adopted strict  X- x[limits on spurious emissions from transmitters operating in the 46 GHz band.ZZ۠ {O-  ԍxId. at para. 4547. Spurious emissions from transmitters operating in the 46GHz band shall not exceed  yOg- x2pW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters. If the transmitter is operating at its maximum permitted output level, 60  yO/-W/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters, spurious emissions must be attenuated by about 75 dB. The second and  xthird harmonics of a fundamental emission operating in the 46 GHz band fall within the 94 GHz  Xd- xand 140 GHz bands.d|۠ yO-  MԍxThe bands 94 GHz and 140 GHz are two spectrum windows above 40 GHz that have minimal attenuation due to the atmosphere. The Commission understood in the Order that its decision might have an  x[adverse economic impact on the manufacture of vehicle radar systems in the 46 GHz band, and  xit indicated that it would be willing to reconsider this spurious emission limit if the manufacturers  xZof vehicle radar systems could demonstrate, in collaboration with the manufacturers of equipment  X - xoperating on harmonicallyrelated frequencies, that there is a low probability of interference.  xTransmitters operating in the 76 GHz band were not subject to the same strict limits for spurious  xemissions because their second and third harmonics do not fall in the 94 GHz and 140 GHz bands.  X-  x5. Two Petitions for Reconsideration were filed in response to the Order. The Petition  xfor Reconsideration filed by CutlerHammer seeks to permit the operation of fixed field  xdisturbance sensors in the 60 GHz band. The Petition for Reconsideration filed by Vorad  xyrequests that the spurious emission limits for field disturbance sensors operating in the 46 GHz  xLband be relaxed and made the same as the spurious emission requirements of field disturbance sensors operating in the 76 GHz band.  X-B CUTLERHAMMER PETITION ă",-(-(ZZ<"Ԍ X-  ԙx6. Petition. CutlerHammer, a manufacturer of sensors used in industrial applications,  xrequests that the Commission amend its rules to permit the operation of lower power, fixed field  xdisturbance sensors in the 60GHz band. CutlerHammer states that lower frequency sensors of  x[the type currently being manufactured are limited in their ability to perform speed control, fluid  xlevel, and motion detection functions because humidity, fog, or dust can cause measurement  xerrors. It adds that millimeter wave sensors can overcome these limitations because they are not  x[susceptible to these environmental factors. Furthermore, CutlerHammer argues that millimeter  x\wave sensors can be designed to fit into smaller enclosures and can provide greater sensor  XH- xKaccuracy and distance than lower frequency sensors.tH۠ {O -ԍxSee Petition for Reconsideration of CutlerHammer, Inc. at 6.t CutlerHammer also asserts that its sensor  xapplications typically require an operating range of less than two feet, with a need to perform  xaccurate measurements with the sensor within six inches of the target and indicates that a 5GHz  X -bandwidth is necessary to eliminate problems from measurements at this near distance.C Z۠ {O-ԍxId. at 2. C   |x7. CutlerHammer recognizes that a number of parties participating in this proceeding  xyexpressed concern about suggestions that vehicle radar systems be permitted to operate in the  x60-61 GHz band. It agrees that the potential for interference from mobile field disturbance  X- xksensors to fixed operations is hard to predict and to avoid.B۠ {O--ԍxId. at 89.B Fixed field disturbance sensors  xoperating characteristics are much more predictable and the potential for causing and receiving  xNinterference is more easily determined, while the operating characteristics of mobile field  x>disturbance sensors are very difficult to predict due to the inherently variable nature of the  xZsystem, which results in unpredictable radiation patterns and potentials for causing and receiving  xLinterference. In addition, CutlerHammer indicates that, in contrast, the fixed sensors it desires  xto employ would operate with very little power and would create a predictable radiation pattern,  xipermitting them to be designed and installed in such a way that they would neither be susceptible  xto, nor likely to cause, interference. Accordingly, CutlerHammer believes that the prohibition  xagainst the use of fixed field disturbance sensors is unnecessarily broad and is not supported by the record.   x8. CutlerHammer's Petition for Reconsideration originally requested that fixed field  Xe- xdisturbance sensors operate with an output level of 200 nW/cm2 measured at a distance of 3  xmeters for the 60 GHz band. However, CutlerHammer's supplemental filing indicates that the  X7- xzsensors typically would operate at an output level of 9 nW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters, an  x.output that is about 30 dB lower than the level permitted for other communications systems in  X - xthe 60GHz band. ~۠ {O8%-ԍxSee Ex Parte Presentation, filing from CutlerHammer, Inc., dated December 19, 1996. CutlerHammer argues that the fixed, low power operation makes it unlikely  x that emissions from the sensors would be strong enough to interfere with communications systems operating in this band.",-(-(ZZw"Ԍ  ԙx9. CutlerHammer also notes that the Commission, as indicated above, delayed the  X- ximplementation of the 60GHz band to permit industry to develop a spectrum etiquette.u ۠ {Ob-ԍxSee Petition for Reconsideration of CutlerHammer at 4, 1012.u Cutler xHammer is concerned that delays in the industry negotiations regarding a spectrum etiquette  xcould delay the introduction of field disturbance sensors in this band. CutlerHammer adds that  x/because its sensors will not present a risk of interference to data communications systems,  x-implementation of a spectrum etiquette is not needed to ensure that the sensors can coexist with  xyother broadband applications. Moreover, CutlerHammer indicates that its sensors will comply  xkwith the spectrum etiquette submitted by industry and argues that it should be permitted to  xcommence operation immediately with its sensors conditioned upon the final outcome of any spectrum etiquette for the 60 GHz band.  X -  !x10. Comments. MWCWG filed comments in support of CutlerHammer's supplemented  X - x>Petition for Reconsideration, stating that 9 nW/cm2 is acceptable for fixed field disturbance  X - xsensors operating throughout the 60 GHz band.u Z۠ {O-ԍxSee MWCWG Ex Parte Presentation dated December 13, 1996.u MWCWG also indicates that fixed field  xdisturbance sensors occupying less than 500 MHz of bandwidth can operate in the 6161.5 GHz  X - xband with an output level of 9 W/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters. CutlerHammer indicates in  xits supplemental filing that it agrees with these specifications. No other comments were received concerning CutlerHammer's Petition for Reconsideration.  XK-  {x11. Discussion. The Commission agrees with CutlerHammer that fixed field disturbance  X4- xsensors at the proposed output level of 9nW/cm2 at 3 meters would not be likely to be a source  x-of interference to other communications systems in the 60GHz band. This is the only unlicensed  xfrequency band under the Commission's regulations that provides a bandwidth this wide and at  xa power level that makes operation practical. Accordingly, the Commission is granting the  xrequest from CutlerHammer to remove the prohibition against fixed field disturbance sensors.  x<The Commission also recognizes that, in many cases, the manufacturing process may require that  xthe sensor be capable of movement, even though the equipment in which the sensor is installed  xis fixed. Thus, the Commission will clarify in its rules that the permission to operate fixed field  xdisturbance sensors applies to sensors installed in fixed equipment, even if the sensor itself moves  x<within the equipment. However, this action does not affect the Commission's existing prohibition  xon mobile field disturbance sensors. The Commission agrees with CutlerHammer's request that  xit be permitted to operate its sensors immediately, conditioned upon the final outcome of any spectrum etiquette adopted for the 60 GHz band, as described below.  X-WM INTERIM OPERATION PENDING ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED SPECTRUM  X-.ETIQUETTE TP  X!-  "x12. Although the Commission stated in the Order that operation in the 60 GHz band  x]would be permitted only after adoption of a spectrum etiquette, we now believe that this"" ,-(-(ZZ!"  xprohibition no longer is necessary and would be detrimental to the introduction of new products  xand services. Therefore, the Commission will permit operation in the 60 GHz band, of any  xauthorized, unlicensed communications devices, including fixed field disturbance sensors, on an  xinterim basis pending consideration of the Spectrum Etiquette proposed in the Fourth Notice of  xProposed Rule Making. The Commission believes that permitting interim operation will serve  xthe public interest by permitting early rollout of new and innovative technologies and services.  x>The Commission will require, however, that equipment approved for such interim operation  xcomply with the proposed Spectrum Etiquette. The Commission stresses that any spectrum  xetiquette finally adopted in this proceeding may differ significantly from the proposed Spectrum  xEtiquette contained in the Fourth Notice and that manufacture and operation of equipment under  x^this interim provision is at the risk of the manufacturer and operator exclusively. The  xkCommission also stresses that initial operation which complies with the proposed Spectrum Etiquette does not guarantee continued operation if any changes in that etiquette are adopted.  X -t VORAD PETITION ĐTP  X-  x13. Petition. Vorad Safety Systems, Inc. ("Vorad"), a manufacturer of field disturbance  xsensors used for vehicle collision avoidance systems, requests reconsideration of the spurious  xemission limit for sensors operating in the 46 GHz band. Vorad requests that the limits on  xspurious emissions applicable to field disturbance sensors operating in the 76GHz band also be  X4-applied to sensors operating in the 46 GHz band., $4۠ {O-  kԍxSee Petition for Reconsideration of Vorad Safety Systems, Inc. at i, 12. The limits on spurious emissions  yOw- xJfrom transmitters in the 76GHz band are 300 pW/cm2 at 3 meters for side or rear looking sensors and 600 pW/cm2  xat 3 meters for forward looking sensors. The limit for spurious emissions from transmitters operating in the 46 GHz  {O-band is 2 pW/cm2 at 3 meters. See 47 CFR  15.253(c).,   x14. Vorad states that it originally requested 200 MHz of spectrum for a vehicle radar  xsystem to operate in the 4650 GHz band to permit it to adapt its existing 24 GHz system through  xthe use of a frequency doubler. This would permit a rapid introduction of the new equipment  X- xat a lower cost.R ۠ {O&-ԍxSee Vorad petition at 2, 6.R Vorad notes that, while the Commission originally proposed a spurious  X- x=emission limit of 2 pW/cm2 at 3 meters for all unlicensed millimeter wave devices, this limit was  xstrongly opposed by proponents of vehicle radar systems and other unlicensed operations. These  xparties argued that the limit would be extremely difficult to meet and was unnecessary to protect  x other communications users. Further, the emissions meeting this limit would be difficult to  xmeasure. Vorad adds that the Commission, in response to these concerns, relaxed the standard  x-for vehicle radar systems in the 76GHz band but adhered to its strict proposal for radar operating  X - xin the 46 GHz band.B F۠ {O%-ԍxId. at 23.B Vorad states that the adopted limit conflicts with the Commission's stated  X- xgoal of encouraging expeditious development of an important safety product.N۠ {O -ԍxId. at iii, 3, 5, 78.N Vorad adds that"j ,-(-(ZZy"  xmeeting the stricter limit using current technology would be possible only by reducing operating  X- xpower, which would significantly degrade the performance of the system.aZ۠ yOb-  kԍxAccording to Vorad, the reduced power would mean that the radar system would not detect weaker targets  xKand may miss some critical targets altogether. The effect on performance would be particularly severe in snowy  {O-or rainy conditions. Id. at 7.a Further, Vorad states  x[that even if technology permitting compliance with the adopted limits could be developed, at a  xyminimum this would delay the introduction of vehicle radar systems in the 46GHz band at least  X- xone to two years and would result in a large cost increase.۠ yO? -  NԍxVorad states that adhering to the present emission limit would require inserting special filtering in the  x,transmission line, which in turn would produce additional transmitter and receiver losses to the system. In addition,  xradio frequency (RF) shielding would need to be incorporated into the equipment packaging and cabling and that  xYgenerally more demanding specifications for system components would be necessary. Vorad estimates that the total  {O_ -impact of these requirements would be to increase system costs by 2550 %. Id. at 89. This cost increase, according to  xLVorad, would make the system less affordable and might make it uneconomical to produce and  x[market. It would also place the 46 GHz equipment at a competitive disadvantage once systems in the 76GHz band become available.   x15. Vorad argues that the limit on spurious emissions adopted by the Commission for the  X - x46 GHz band is not technically justified.G ۠ {Og-ԍxId. at 4, 1011.G It states that the Commission based its decision on  xthe need to protect existing and future U.S. Government uses of the 94 GHz and 140 GHz bands.  xZHowever, Vorad indicates that the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that there is a real  xthreat of interference to such uses by vehicle radar systems, since vehicle radar systems use  xhighly directionalized antennas and will primarily be used on the nation's highways. It adds that  x?it has operated vehicle radar systems in the 24 GHz band for several years and has been  xexperimenting with operations in the 47 GHz band for over a year. Vorad indicates that the  x=spurious emissions from its 24GHz and 47GHz transmissions were suppressed by only 50 dB,  xand that no complaints of interference were received. Thus, Vorad states that its experience with  xythese systems demonstrates that an attenuation standard of 50 dB is sufficient to protect other  xspectrum users. Vorad adds that there is no evidence that operations in the 46 GHz band will  xpresent more of an interference risk than do operations in the 76GHz band, for which a much  X- xmore reasonable standard was adopted.". ۠ yO-  ԍxThe limits on spurious emissions from transmitters in the 76GHz band are 300 pW/cm2 at 3 meters for  yO - x;side or rear looking sensors and 600 pW/cm2 at 3 meters for forward looking sensors. If the transmitter is operated  {Ou!- xat its maximum permitted output levels, spurious emissions must be attenuated by at least 50 dB. See 47 CFR  15.253(c). Vorad believes that it is likely in the initial states of  xdevelopment that 76GHz radar devices will employ 38 GHz or 26 GHz fundamental oscillators  x-and use frequency doublers or triplers or second or third harmonic pumped oscillators to achieve the fundamental, resulting in harmonics near the 94 or 140 GHz bands.   }x16. Finally, Vorad argues that vehicle radar systems in the 76GHz band will create",-(-(ZZ3"  x\spurious emissions over a much larger range of spectrum than will operations in the 46GHz  X- xband.S۠ {Ob-ԍxSee Vorad petition at 1112.S It states that the narrow 200 MHz bandwidth employed by transmitters in the 46GHz  xjband will limit the bandwidth of harmonic emissions. In contrast, the permissible bandwidth of  x[the 76GHz radar is 1000 MHz, resulting in spurious emissions over much more of the spectrum due to intermodulation frequency products.  Xv-  x17. Comments. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration  x(NTIA) was the only party to file comments in response to the Vorad petition. NTIA strongly  xopposes VORAD's request to relax the spurious emission limit. It states that the majority of U.S.  x\Government operations occur in the propagation windows centered at 94 GHz, 140 GHz and  X - x{220GHz.  Z۠ yO% -   ԍxThe band centered at 220 GHz is centered at a null for water absorption, while still having relatively low  x<attenuation properties due to absorption from dry air. Since the bands being addressed in this proceeding did not  xiexceed 155 GHz and spurious emissions were addressed only below 200 GHz, the 220 GHz band was not addressed in the Commission's earlier considerations. It adds that new radio receiver technologies using wide bandwidth (typically  x4-10GHz) and improved sensitivities have resulted in greater resolution and precision for  xdetection and guidance systems and remote sensing of the environment. NTIA points out that  xa joint Federal Aviation Administration/Department of Defense/Industry program is currently  xunderway to develop and test "synthetic vision" systems intended for use in airport environments  xduring poor visibility. Further, it states that recent analysis indicates that the noise threshold of  xLthese receivers can be more than 30 dB below the threshold assumed by the Commission in its  Xy- xLOrder for this type of equipment, so further relaxation of the limit on spurious emissions could  Xd- xhave serious consequences on the effectiveness of systems in these bands.qdB۠ {OW-  ԍxSee Technical Characteristics and Interference Criteria for Radiolocation Systems Operating in the 92100  {O!- xGHz Band, and Compatibility with Active Spaceborne Sensors, U.S. paper to the ITUR JWP 78R, Document 7 x,8R/27E, March 12, 1996. In this paper, the radiometer threshold for a 4 GHz passive imager operating at 94 GHz  {O- xwas stated to be 136 dBW, as opposed to the value of 103 dBW used by the Commission in its Order. See Order at footnote 57.q Finally, NTIA states  x>that it invited Vorad to present its views to the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee  x(IRAC), but that Vorad did not respond to this offer. NTIA adds that it remains willing to assist  xyVorad should it decide to pursue an effort to demonstrate compatibility of its equipment, but in the interim urges the Commission not to relax the limit on spurious emissions.  X-  nx18. Discussion. The Commission is denying Vorad's petition to relax the limits on  xspurious emissions from field disturbance sensors operating in the 46GHz band. The  X- xCommission recognized in the Order that its decision might have an adverse economic impact  xon manufacturers but concluded that the limit was appropriate to protect present and future U.S.  X- xGovernment operations in the 94 and 140 GHz bands.S ۠ {O)&-ԍxSee Order at para. 46.S It stated that the 94 GHz and 140 GHz  xZbands share many potential uses, since these bands are in the only two atmospheric transmission"i ,-(-(ZZ"  xMwindows between 60GHz and 300 GHz. The 94 GHz band is employed for radio astronomy,  xjU.S. Government passive imaging systems, and Department of Defense classified applications.  xlThe 140 GHz band is used for radio astronomy and Government military passive imaging  xsystems. In particular, the Commission noted that the Advanced Research Projects Agency's  xMIMIC program to develop lowercost millimeter wave components has involved technology in  xthe 94 GHz area and is likely to increase the use of this and other millimeter wave bands. The  Xv- xCommission, in the Order, added that, while it appreciated the arguments in the comments from  xkGeneral Motors Corporation and GM Hughes Electronics for relaxing the spurious emission  xZlimits, it did not agree that directional antennas and the use of vehicle radar systems on highways  X3- xwould be sufficient to eliminate interference to airborne passive sensors.M3۠ {O -ԍxSee Order at para. 46.M Further, as noted by  xiNTIA in its comments on Vorad's petition, current development of a passive imaging system used  x<as an aircraft landing aid in adverse weather conditions involves resolution capabilities which are  xdirectly related to the amount of RF signal noise in the band. Thus, we continue to believe that  X - x<the presence of excessive spurious emissions from other signal sources, e.g., harmonic emissions  xfrom vehicle radar systems in the 46GHz band, would degrade the usefulness of these bands for  X -passive imaging and other possible functions.| Z۠ yO-  ԍxAt the sensitivity level stated by NTIA in its comments, 136 dBW, using a parabolic receiving antenna  xwith an efficiency factor of 55 % and an area of 1 square meter, the second harmonic would have to be reduced  yOF- xto less than 0.2 pW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters in order not to be detected by 94GHz passive imaging receivers  {O- xat a distance of 600 meters, the distance originally considered in the Order. If the 1 MHz resolution bandwidth of  x-the measuring instrument is taken into account, the 400 MHz bandwidth of the second harmonic of the 46GHz  {O- xtransmission indicates that the attenuation factor would need to be reduced by a factor of 1/400, i.e., to  yOj-0.0005pW/cm2 at 3 meters, in order not to be detected at 600 meters.   x19. While Vorad indicates that its previous experience with field disturbance sensors  xoperating at 24 GHz and at 47 GHz and employing a spurious emission suppression of 50 dB has  x{not resulted in complaints of interference, the Commission does not find this sufficiently  xMconclusive to relax the spurious emission requirements. First, operations in the 94 GHz and  x140GHz bands are only now being developed. As U.S. Government and other operations  x=increase in these bands, along with the proliferation of field disturbance sensors in the 46 GHz  xband, the potential for interference would also increase. Second, Vorad's argument does not  xaddress the cumulative effects of multiple transmitters operating simultaneously within a service  xjarea. Finally, 50 dB attenuation of the spurious emissions from transmitters operating in the 24  xGHz band results in an emission level that is relatively close to the emission limit adopted in the  X-Order for spurious emissions from the 46GHz band.۠ yO"-  ԍxThe fundamental output level of the 24 GHz systems is limited to 2.5 V/m at a distance of 3 meters. Based  yO#- xon free space propagation, this is roughly equivalent to a spectral power density of 1.7 W/cm2 at 3 meters. With  yOv$- x50 dB of attenuation, the level of the spurious emissions would be approximately 17 pW/cm2 at 3 meters. This level  xJis only about 9 dB higher than the fundamental emission limit adopted for spurious emissions from the 46GHz band  xsystems. However, for a transmitter operating at 24 GHz it is the fourth and sixth harmonics that produce emissions  xnear the 94GHz and 140GHz bands. Typically, the fourth and sixth order harmonics are lower than the second,"&,-(-(-'"  xthird, and fifth order harmonics. Therefore, it is likely that the fourth and sixth order harmonics from a 24 GHz  xtransmitter are attenuated considerably more than 50 dB. A similar calculation for the attenuation of spurious  xemissions on Vorad's transmission at 46 GHz was not performed because Vorad did not disclose the output level  xYof its 46 GHz transmission system in its petition. However, as stated above, operations in the 94GHz and 140GHz  xbands are only now being developed, making it unlikely that harmful interference would have been caused regardless of the levels of the harmonics produced in Vorad's earlier experimental operation."@,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ  ԙx20. The Commission does not agree with Vorad's claims that harmonic emissions from  xthe 76GHz system present the same, or greater, interference potential to 94 GHz and 140GHz  xzsystems as sensors operating in the 46GHz band, even if the 76 GHz devices use frequency  xdoublers or triplers to achieve the fundamental emission. If, as suggested by Vorad, the 76GHz  xsystems generate their fundamental emissions through the use of a 25.5 GHz oscillator, the third  xharmonic is at 76.5 GHz, the fourth harmonic is at 102 GHz, the fifth harmonic is at 127.5 GHz,  xand the sixth harmonic is at 153 GHz. If the 76GHz systems generate their fundamental  xkemissions through the use of a 38.25 GHz oscillator, the second harmonic is at 76.5 GHz, the  xthird harmonic is at 114.75 GHz, and the fourth harmonic is at 153 GHz. In every case, the  x/harmonic emissions from the 76GHz system are well removed from the 94 GHz and 140 GHz  xbands. While Vorad also argues that the wider bandwidth of the 76GHz system will result in  xZspurious emissions covering a larger bandwidth, as compared to systems in the 46GHz band, this  xwider bandwidth is not sufficient to cause the harmonic emissions to fall within the 94 GHz or 140GHz bands.  X -  |x21. Finally, in the Order, the Commission added that it would be willing to reconsider  xthe spurious emission limit for the 46GHz band if manufacturers of vehicle radar equipment can  x=demonstrate, in collaboration with the manufacturers of equipment operating on harmonically Xd- xrelated frequencies, a low probability of interference, e.g., based on angular distribution and  XO- xsusceptibility of the sensor to offaxis signals.SO@۠ {O@-ԍxSee Order at para. 47.S While NTIA invited Vorad to present its views to the IRAC, Vorad did not respond to this offer.   mx22. For the reasons explained above, we decline to permit a higher spurious emission  x.level for field disturbance sensors operating in the 46GHz band. Accordingly, the Petition for  xyReconsideration of Vorad Safety Services, Inc. is denied. We will consider revisiting this issue  xlater if Vorad and NTIA demonstrate that a different emission limit would be unlikely to cause harmful interference.  X-  FOURTH NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING ĐTP  XR-  x23. Spectrum Etiquette. In the Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making the Commission  xrequested comment regarding a spectrum etiquette for operation in the 5964 GHz band. The  xKCommission provided one year for a spectrum etiquette to be submitted and encouraged industry  xto form a working group to develop a spectrum etiquette to permit efficient use of the 5964 GHz" ,-(-(ZZ"  X-band.M۠ {Oy-ԍxSee Order at para. 64.M  X-  Ax24. In response, the MWCWG developed and proposed a Spectrum Etiquette for  X- xAequipment operating in the 5964 GHz band.\Z۠ {O-  kԍxSee MWCWG Ex Parte Presentation dated December 13, 1996. See Public Notice, Commission Receives  {O- xIndustry Spectrum Etiquette Proposal for Unlicensed Operation Above 40 GHz, DA 97288, released February 10, 1997. The MWCWG proposed Spectrum Etiquette can be accessed at [http://www.fcc.gov/oet/dockets/et94124/]. MWCWG's proposal includes five  xzrecommendations. First, the proposed Spectrum Etiquette seeks to establish a coordination  xchannel located at 59.059.05 GHz to be used exclusively to establish techniques that various  xjtransmitters could use to help mitigate or eliminate interference. Second, it seeks to establish a  xformat for transmitter identification by requiring a 60 GHz transmitter with an output power of  x0.1 mW or more to transmit information that contains the FCC ID number, the serial number of  x[the transmitter, and a user definable field of up to 24 bytes of information. Third, the Spectrum  xEtiquette seeks to adopt a limit for peak equivalent isotropically radiated power of 20 W for 60  x-GHz transmitters. Fourth, the Spectrum Etiquette seeks to limit the peak transmitter output power  xto 500 mW. Fifth, the Spectrum Etiquette seeks to limit the peak transmitter output power for  x\transmitters employing a 6 dB bandwidth of less than 100 MHz, as measured with a 100 kHz  X - xresolution bandwidth spectrum analyzer, according to the following formula: P < 500 [bandwidth in MHz/100] mW.   !x25. The Spectrum Etiquette submitted by MWCWG differs from the standards adopted  Xy- xin the Order. The standards in the Order did not consider a coordination channel, transmitter  xidentification requirements, limits on the peak equivalent isotropically radiated power or peak  XM- xytransmitter output power. Instead, the Order adopted a power spectral density for transmitters  X8- x[operating in the 60 GHz band of 9 W/cm2 measured at three meters from the transmit antenna.  X!- xMWCWG seeks adoption of its proposal to permit efficient use of the spectrum by enabling greater frequency reuse and lowering the probability of interference.   x26. The Commission seeks comments on whether it should adopt the standards contained  xin the MWCWG proposal. The Commission is particularly interested in comments regarding the  xproposed transmitter identification requirements and the designation of a coordination channel.  x/It wishes to clarify, however, that the reference in the MWCWG filing for "radiated power"  X- x.actually refers to transmitter output power.~۠ {O -ԍxSee MWCWG Ex Parte Presentation dated December 13, 1996 at pages 3, 5 and 6. Further, the Commission notes that the limits on  x<total peak output power are based on the use of "an RF detector that encompasses the 5964 GHz  XR- x/band and that has a video bandwidth of at least 10 MHz.":R۠ {O$-ԍxId.: However, Section 13.1.4.2 and  x.Appendix I4, note 2, of the Commission's measurement procedure, as specified in ANSI C63.4"; ,-(-(ZZ"ԫ X- x01992,\۠ {Oy-  ԍxSee American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.41992, "Methods of Measurement of RadioNoise  xEmissions from LowVoltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the Range 9 kHz to 40 GHz," Institute of  {O -Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., July 17, 1992, document number SH5180. See also 47 CFR 15.31(a). both indicate that a pulse desensitization correction factor must be applied if the  X- xbandwidth of the measuring instrument is less than the pulse repetition frequency. ۠ yO-  ԍxThe pulse desensitization correction factor is contained in the HewlettPackard Spectrum Analyzer  yON-Application Note number 1502, Spectrum Analysis . . . Pulse RF. Parties  xcommenting on the proposed peak limits and measurements should be aware of the possible  x[application of a pulse desensitization correction factor. Comments should be directed towards  xthe specific substance contained in the proposed Spectrum Etiquette and we remind parties that  xthe actual regulations adopted may differ from those contained in the proposed Spectrum  Xv-Etiquette.z!XvD۠ yOk -  ԍxFor example, the rule amendment proposed for  15.35(b) does not incorporate the Commission's existing  x<requirement to use a minimum 1 MHz bandwidth resolution for emissions greater than 1 GHz. The Commission is not proposing to delete this existing standard for other measurements above 1 GHz.z  XH-!  OTHER ISSUES ĐTP   x27. The Commission is taking this opportunity to correct two typographical errors  X - xcontained in the Order in this proceeding. Section 15.215(a) is being amended to reflect the two  X - xynew rule Sections 15.253 and 15.255 covering operations above 40GHz.Q" d ۠ {O-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.215(a).Q Section 15.215 notes  xythe exceptions to the general emission limits contained in Section 15.209 and should have been  X - xamended in the Order.N# ۠ {Og-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.209.N Section 15.31(f)(1) is also being corrected to reflect that the inverse  xlineardistancesquared extrapolation factor (40 dB per decade) for measurements above 40 GHz  X- xlapplies only to measurements performed in the near field.S$ ۠ {O-ԍxSee 47 CFR  15.31(f)(1).S In response to the Notice of  X- xiProposed Rule Making in this proceeding, Epsilon Lambda, General Motors and Vorad expressed  xconcern that measurements at the specified distance of 3 meters could result in measurements in  xthe near field, requiring the use of an inverse lineardistancesquared extrapolation factor (40 dB  xper decade) instead of inverse lineardistance (20 dB per decade), as previously specified in the  X%- xrules.Z%%۠ {O"-ԍxSee Order at para. 52 and 55.Z The Commission agreed with these comments but inadvertently stated that all  xmeasurements above 40 GHz could be made at a distance greater than 3 meters using an inverse  xlineardistancesquared extrapolation factor, even if the measurements were not being performed  xyin the near field. However, the inverse lineardistancesquared factor correctly extrapolates the  x.change in signal level versus distance when measurements are made in the near field, whereas" %,-(-(ZZ"  x<the inverse lineardistance factor correctly extrapolates the change in signal level versus distance  xwhen measurements are made in the far field. The use of the inverse lineardistancesquared  xextrapolation factor under all measurement conditions could permit a manufacturer to increase  xmeasurement distance until the results demonstrated compliance, even though the emissions  xjexceed the limit when the product is measured at a shorter distance. Accordingly, the rules are  xbeing amended to indicate that the use of an inverse lineardistancesquared extrapolation factor  xapplies only to nearfield measurements. Measurements in the far field will continue to be  x[extrapolated employing an inverse lineardistance extrapolation factor. Since these changes to  xthe rules involve typographical amendments, public notice and comment on these changes is  X1-unnecessary pursuant to Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act.K&1۠ {O -ԍxSee 5 U.S.C. 553(b).K  X - PROCEDURAL MATTERS ĐTP  X -  x28. This is a permitbutdisclose proceeding. Ex Parte presentations are permitted, except  xxduring the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's  X -rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).   mx29. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has  x\prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the expected impact on small  x=entities of the proposals suggested in the Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making. The IRFA  x?is set forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These  xcomments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest  x-of the Notice, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses  x.to the IRFA. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making,  xincluding the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in  x=accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat  X-1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq (1981).  X|-  x30. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. The Memorandum Opinion and  xOrder and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making contains either a proposed or modified  x[information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite  xthe general public and the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") to take this opportunity  xto comment on the information collections contained in the NPRM, as required by the Paperwork  xReduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413. Public and agency comments are due at the same  x^time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of  xpublication in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed  xNcollection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the  xCommission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of  xthe Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,utility, and clarity of the  x.information collected; and, (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on  x]the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of"h$ Z&,-(-(ZZF#"  XX information technology.  X-  x31. Comment Dates. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and  xl1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415 and  1.419, interested parties may file  X- xcomment on the Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making on or before [ insert date 30 days from  X- x date of publication in the Federal Register ] and reply comments on or before [ insert date 45  Xv- xdays from date of publication in the Federal Register ]. To file formally in this proceeding,  xyou must file an original and five copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting  x=comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you  xmust file an original plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to the  x.Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W.,  X - x@Washington DC 20554. You may also file comments electronically via the Internet at  xmmwaves@fcc.gov. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection  x/during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center of the Federal Communications  xzCommission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington DC 20554. Written comments on  X - x;the proposed and/or modified information collections are due [ insert date 30 days from date of  X- xpublication in the Federal Register ]. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of  x[Management and Budget ("OMB") on the proposed and/or modified information collection on  Xb- x or before [ insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register ]. In addition  xto filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections  xzcontained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission,  xRoom 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov  xkand to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.  X-  ORDERING CLAUSES ă   lx32. In accordance with the above discussion and pursuant to the authority contained in  xSections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934,  xas amended, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by CutlerHammer, Inc.,  xas supplemented, to permit operation of low power, fixed field disturbance sensors in the 60 GHz  xband IS GRANTED as described below by the amendments to the rules shown in appendix A.  xIT IS FURTHER ORDER that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Vorad Safety Systems, Inc., IS DENIED.   !x33. For further information regarding this Memorandum, Opinion and Order and Fourth  xNotice of Proposed Rule Making, contact John A. Reed (202) 4182455 or Rodney P. Conway (202) 4182904, Office of Engineering and Technology. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@William F. Caton x` `  hh@Acting Secretary" ( &x-))jj&"  X-) APPENDIX A ă xTitle 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 15, is amended as follows: x1. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:  Xv-  Zx AUTHORITY: Sec. 4, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 624A of the Communications Act of  X_-1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A. x2. Section 15.31 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(1), to read as follows:  X -Section 15.31 Measurement standards. * * * * * (f) * * *  x(1) At frequencies at or above 30 MHz, measurements may be performed at a distance other than  xthat specified provided: measurements are not made in the near field, and it can be demonstrated  xthat the signal levels to be measured at the distance employed can be detected by the  xmeasurement equipment. Measurements shall not be performed at a distance greater than 30  xmeters unless it can be demonstrated that measurements at a distance of 30 meters or less are  ximpractical. When performing measurements at a distance other than that specified, the results  xshall be extrapolated to the specified distance using one of the following formulas: for  xmeasurements above 30 MHz that are not performed in the near field, an inverse lineardistance  xextrapolation factor (20 dB/decade); for measurements performed in the near field, an inverse lineardistancesquared extrapolation factor (40 dB/decade). * * * * * x3. Section 15.215 is amended by revising paragraph (a), to read as follows:  X -Section 15.215 Additional provisions to the general radiated emission limitations.  x{(a) The regulations in sections 15.21715.255 provide alternatives to the general radiated  xZemission limits for intentional radiators operating in specified frequency bands. Unless otherwise stated, there are no restrictions as to the types of operation permitted under these sections. * * * * * "h$&x-))jj(#" x4. Section 15.255 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b), to read as follows:  X-Section 15.255 Operation within the band 59.064.0 GHz.  xyNOTE: Equipment may be authorized and operated on an interim basis under the provisions of  xthis section provided it complies with the proposed Spectrum Etiquette parameters contained in the Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket 94124. (a) Operation under the provisions of this section is not permitted for the following products: (1) Equipment used on aircraft or satellites.  x\(2) Field disturbance sensors, including vehicle radar systems, unless the field disturbance  xsensors are employed for fixed operation. For the purposes of this section, the reference to fixed  xoperation includes field disturbance sensors installed in fixed equipment, even if the sensor itself moves within the equipment. (b) Within the 5964 GHz band, emission levels shall not exceed the following:  x[(1) For products other than fixed field disturbance sensors, the power density of any emission  X4-shall not exceed 9 W/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters.  x.(2) For fixed field disturbance sensors that occupy 500 MHz or less of bandwidth and that are  x.contained wholly within the frequency band 61.061.5 GHz, the power density of any emission  X- xwithin the band 61.061.5 GHz shall not exceed 9 W/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters and the  xjpower density of any emission outside of the 61.061.5 GHz band, but still within the 5964 GHz  X-band, shall not exceed 9 nW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters.  x(3) For fixed field disturbance sensors other than those operating under the provisions of  xparagraph (b)(2) of this section, the peak transmitter output power shall not exceed 0.1 mW and  XN-the peak power density shall not exceed 9 nW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters.  * * * * * TP" &x-))jjy"  X-) APPENDIX B ĐTP  X-TP  FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă   1xAs required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603 ("RFA"),  X- xan Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") was incorporated into the Notice of Proposed  Xx- xzRule Making ("Notice") in ET Docket No. 94124.Q'xL {O-ԍxSee 9 FCC Rcd 7078 (1994).Q The Commission sought written public  Xc- xcomments on the proposals in the Notice, including the IRFA. The Commission's Final  x[Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") in this Memorandum Opinion and Order conforms to  xthe RFA, as amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Pub.  X -L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).( ZL yO+ -  OԍxSubtitle II of the CWAAA is "The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996"  {O -(SBREFA), codified at 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq.  X -  xNeed for and Objective of the Rules. Our objectives are to permit the operation within  xthe 59-64 GHz band of fixed field disturbance sensors in an industrial environment. These  X -products were prohibited under the Report and Order in ET Docket No. 94124.R) L {O+-ԍxSee 11 FCC Rcd 4481 (1995).R  X-  xSummary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA. No  xcomments were submitted in direct response to the IRFA. However, CutlerHammer, Inc. filed  xMa Petition for Reconsideration requesting that the Commission amend its rules to permit the  xoperation within the 59-64 GHz band of fixed field disturbance sensors in an industrial environment. No comments were filed in response to this petition.  X-  xDescription and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply.  xjFor the purposes of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the RFA defines a "small business"  xto be the same as a "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632,  x]unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its  X- x]activities.*FL {O-  ԍxSee 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 5 U.S.C. 632). Under the Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: 1)is  xindependently owned and operated; 2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and 3)meets any  X- x!additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).N+L {O#-ԍxSee 15 U.S.C.  632.N Since the  xRegulatory Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect until the record in this proceeding was  xclosed, the Commission did not request information regarding the number of small businesses that  xmight use this service and is unable at this time to determine the number of small businesses that would be affected by this action in addition to CutlerHammer, Inc. ".2 +x-))jj"Ԍ  ԙxThe Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to unlicensed  xcommunications devices. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition applicable to  xmanufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment. According  xto the SBA regulations, unlicensed transmitter manufacturers must have 750 or fewer employees  X- xKin order to qualify as a small business concern.c,L {O-ԍxSee 13 C.F.R.  121.201, (SIC) Code 3663.c Census Bureau data indicates that there are 858  x{U.S. companies that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications  x=equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified  X_- x as small entities.-_ZL {Oj -  MԍxSee U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995), SIC category 3663. The Census Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are not  xavailable as to how many of these firms will manufacture unlicensed communications devices. However, we believe that many of them may qualify as small entities.  X -  zxDescription of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements.  xOur new rules permit the introduction of a new type of equipment which will operate in the  xj59-64GHz band. As with other communications equipment already permitted to operate within  xthis frequency band, the transmitter must be authorized under the Commission's certification  xprocedure. No changes were made to the standards that must be met by the equipment or the reporting or recordkeeping requirements.  Vd-  xSignificant Alternatives and Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on a  XM- xSubstantial Number of Small Entities Consistent with Stated Objectives. No alternatives or other steps were addressed in this proceeding.  X -  xReport to Congress. The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory  xFlexibility Analysis, along with this Memorandum Opinion and Order, in a report to Congress  xpursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.  X-o INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR FOURTH NPRM ĐTP  Xk-  xNeed for and Objective of the Rules. This rule making proceeding is initiated to obtain  xcomments regarding the proposed Spectrum Etiquette for general unlicensed operation in the 59 xl64 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on a spectrum etiquette proposed by the  xMillimeter Wave Communications Working Group for the purpose of minimizing interference among general unlicensed systems operating in the 5964 GHz band.  X-  "xLegal Basis. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 4(j), 301, 302, 303(e),  xz303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304 and 307. ""-x-))jj!"Ԍ X-  xReporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements. We propose to establish  xya spectrum etiquette that would apply to and minimize interference between general unlicensed  xysystems operating in the 5964 GHz band. The spectrum etiquette will require measurements to  xbe reported to the Commission as part of the normal equipment authorization process under our certification procedure.  Xx-xFederal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules. None.  XL-  xDescription, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities Involved. We expect that  x=multiple manufacturers will manufacture transmitters to operate in the 5964 GHz band for fixed field disturbance sensors and high speed computer to computer transmission systems.  V -  xAny Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities Consistent with  X -Stated Objectives. None.