**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Amendment of Parts 2, and 15 of the )

Commission\'s Rules to Permit Use of Radio ) ET Docket No. 94-124

Frequencies Above 40 GHz for New Radio )

Applications )

)

**THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: May 8, 2000 Released: May 17, 2000**

By the Commission:

**INTRODUCTION**

1.  By this action, the Commission denies the Petitions for
    Reconsideration filed by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory
    (\"NRAO\") and New England Digital Distribution, Inc., (\"NEDD\").
    These petitions request reconsideration of the Commission\'s *Third
    Report and Order* (\"*Third Order*\") in this proceeding.[^1] This
    action reaffirms the previous Commission decisions on the spurious
    emission limit for unlicensed vehicular radar devices operating in
    the 76-77 GHz band, and the coordination channel and transmitter
    identification requirements contained in the spectrum etiquette for
    unlicensed operation in the 59-64 GHz band.

**BACKGROUND**

2.  In the *Third Order*, the Commission adopted a spurious emission
    limit of 1000 pW/cm^2^ as measured at three meters for unlicensed
    vehicular radar devices operating in the 76-77 GHz band. This limit
    was adopted to protect radio astronomy operations in the 217-231 GHz
    band from potential interference created by the third harmonic of
    these unlicensed devices. In adopting this limit, the Commission
    rejected a more restrictive limit of 2 pW/cm^2^ proposed by the
    National Academy of Sciences Committee on Radio Frequencies
    ("CORF"). The Commission found that CORF's proposed limit was too
    strict and instead concluded that the limit recommended by the
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA")
    of 1000 pw/cm^2^ was sufficient to provide adequate protection to
    radio astronomy operations.[^2]

3.  In the *Third Order*, the Commission also adopted a spectrum
    etiquette for unlicensed operation in the 59-64 GHz band. The
    spectrum etiquette was developed by the Millimeter Wave
    Communications Working Group ("MWCWG").[^3] The Commission proposed
    the spectrum etiquette in the *Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making* ("Fourth Notice") in this proceeding.[^4] No comments were
    filed expressing opposition to the spectrum etiquette. Accordingly,
    the Commission adopted the proposed spectrum etiquette in the *Third
    Order* finding that it offered the best plan to maximize the number
    of users and minimize the potential for interference in the 59-64
    GHz band.

4.  The NRAO filed a Petition for Reconsideration requesting a more
    stringent spurious emission limit of 2 pW/cm^2^ rather than the
    limit of 1000 pW/cm^2^ for vehicle radar systems operating in the
    76-77 GHz band. NEDD filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the
    coordination channel and transmitter identification requirements of
    the spectrum etiquette for unlicensed operation in the 59-64 GHz
    band.[^5]

**EMISSION LIMITS ABOVE 200 GHZ**

5.  The NRAO requests a more stringent spurious emission limit of 2
    pW/cm^2^ as measured at three meters for unlicensed devices
    operating in the 76-77 GHz band. The NRAO petition provides no new
    information to support its request; it instead points to comments
    filed by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Radio
    Frequencies (\"CORF\") earlier in this proceeding as the basis for
    its request.[^6] NRAO alleges that, in the *Third Order*, the
    Commission did not adequately address the specific concerns or
    calculations set forth by CORF, nor did it explain the basis of its
    beliefs in rejecting CORF\'s proposed limits in favor of those
    recommended by the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (\"NTIA\").[^7] NRAO believes that such a failure to
    address the key argument is arbitrary and capricious and does not
    constitute reasoned decision-making.[^8]

6.  In comments and reply comments to the *Second Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making*[^9] in this proceeding, General Motors Corporation
    (\"GM\") and the American Automobile Manufacturers Association
    (\"AAMA") indicated that adoption of a 2 pW/cm^2^ limit for spurious
    emissions would deny the public the safety and associated benefits
    of unlicensed vehicular radar devices.[^10] GM asserted that the
    more stringent limit would substantially increase the cost of the
    unlicensed vehicular radar devices, and could delay or interrupt the
    availability of vehicular radar systems in the market, contrary to
    the public interest.[^11] GM further asserted that radio astronomy
    observatories currently have a coordination zone of 1 km to prevent
    interference due to spark plug emissions from automobiles.[^12] AAMA
    stated that CORF\'s calculations assumed that the vehicular radar
    main beam was directed at the telescope, and it noted that this
    condition could only exist if vehicles were traveling on a road
    perpendicular to the site.[^13]

7.  The Commission did not address in detail the calculations and other
    supporting statements contained in CORF's comments. Instead the
    Commission stated that because emissions in the 76-77 GHz frequency
    range tend to be highly focused and directional while radio
    astronomy equipment discriminates against off-beam signals such as
    those from moving vehicles, it found that there would be little
    likelihood of interference to radio astronomy operations.[^14]

8.  Our review reveals that CORF essentially assumes that the vehicular
    radars will be within boresight of or targeted at the radio
    astronomy receive antenna and be capable of radiating a coherent and
    focused emission directly into a 0 dBi side lobe of a radio
    astronomy antenna without taking into account any attenuation from
    the atmosphere, intervening terrain, angular separation or elevation
    separation that may be present. In addition, we note that IEEE
    Vehicular Radar Standards Subcommittee document VRS-96-6 states that
    radio astronomy observatories typically have control over access to
    a distance of one kilometer from the telescopes to provide
    protection from interference caused by automobile spark plugs and
    other uncontrolled RFI sources.[^15] It is unclear from reading the
    comments why CORF selected a distance of 250 meters as a distance
    beyond which radio astronomy operations are not able to restrict
    operation of RF devices. We are aware that the radio astronomy
    observatory at Kitt Peak, Arizona may have had a controlled distance
    of less than 1 kilometer due to the public access afforded the site.
    We also note that NRAO has announced that they will be closing the
    millimeter wave telescope at Kitt Peak on July 1, 2000.[^16] The
    record in this proceeding has not made us aware of any other radio
    astronomy observatories that offer similar essential public access.
    We note that the IEEE standard implies that radio astronomy
    observatories do have control of areas surrounding their receive
    antennas. As a result there may be interference mitigation
    procedures, such as erecting a fence, that could be utilized to
    further minimize the potential for receiving any interference from
    the vehicular radars. We continue to agree with the comments filed
    earlier in this proceeding by GM and AAMA that the assumptions
    underlying CORF\'s calculations are unnecessarily conservative.
    Given the limited number of radio astronomy observatories and the
    potential benefit of these unlicensed devices we encourage the radio
    astronomy community and the automobile industry to work together to
    develop interference mitigation procedures.[^17]

9.  We also concur with GM and AAMA that adoption of CORF\'s proposed
    spurious emission limits would increase the cost of these devices
    and result in the delay or interruption of the availability of these
    beneficial devices to the public. Depriving the public of or
    eliminating the availability of these unlicensed devices, which will
    enhance the safety of travel of the public via motor vehicles would
    be contrary to the public interest.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
10. We have carefully considered NRAO's petition for reconsideration and
    related comments and determine that the public interest will be best
    served by adopting rules that will permit the introduction of these
    unlicensed vehicular radar devices. We conclude that the public
    interest would best be served by maintaining the spurious emission
    level of 1000 pW/cm^2^, which provides adequate protection to radio
    astronomy observatories without being unreasonably restrictive for
    unlicensed vehicular radar devices. Accordingly, NRAO\'s petition
    for reconsideration is denied.

**SPECTRUM ETIQUETTE**

11. In the *Third Order* the Commission adopted a spectrum etiquette for
    unlicensed operation in the 59-64 GHz band. Included in the spectrum
    etiquette is the reservation of the 59.0-59.05 GHz band as a
    designated coordination channel. In addition, the etiquette requires
    that any transmitter operating with a peak power equal to or greater
    than 0.1 mW in the 59.05-64 GHz band must transmit once every second
    a transmitter identification data block that contains the
    following: 1) the FCC identifier, which is programmed at the
    factory; 2) a manufacturer\'s serial number, also programmed at the
    factory; and 3) at least 24 bytes of user definable data.

12. In its petition, NEDD states that the requirement for a special
    coordination channel at 59.0-59.05 GHz will impose an unfair burden
    on developers of point to point systems and appears to violate the
    spirit of unencumbered commercial development.[^18] NEDD further
    states that because there is no specific protocol or definition for
    the transmitter identification data block and no database for these
    identifiers, it appears that the MWCWG has proposed this etiquette
    to gain a tactical advantage over other innovators.[^19] NEDD
    provides no new facts to support its assertions.

13. The Commission reserved 50 MHz of spectrum and named it a
    coordination channel. However, we believe that the 50 MHz of
    spectrum would be more aptly referred to as a reserve channel. The
    reserve channel was established in order to save a 50 MHz block of
    spectrum for use as a future test bed to determine techniques for
    mitigating or eliminating interference that may occur between
    different unlicensed transmitters operating in the 59-64 GHz
    band.[^20] We believe that NEDD may have viewed the coordination
    channel as a requirement to utilize the 59.0-59.05 GHz band to
    coordinate the simultaneous operation of multiple unlicensed
    devices. As indicated in our rules, the 50 MHz of spectrum can only
    be utilized after receiving approval under the experimental
    authorization provisions of Part 5 of the Commission\'s rules.[^21]
    As a result, our rules do not require any operation in the 50 MHz of
    reserved spectrum.

14. In order to provide manufacturers with maximum flexibility in the
    design of unlicensed devices that operate in the 59-64 GHz band, no
    specific method of encoding the transmitter identification was
    included in the Commission\'s rules. In its opposition to the NEDD
    petition, the MWCWG notes that the Commission\'s rules require each
    application for equipment authorization to specify how interested
    parties can obtain sufficient information, at no cost, to enable
    them to detect fully and decode the transmitter identification
    information, which can be used to identify a source of
    interference.[^22] MWCWG observes that this requirement simply
    provides manufacturers and operators with a tool to mitigate and
    resolve interference among unlicensed users of the 59-64 GHz band,
    without the intervention of the FCC.[^23]

15. We agree with MWCWG\'s observation that the sharing and coordination
    benefits provided by the transmitter identification requirement
    outweigh any burden it imposes. We find that the transmitter
    identification requirement does not thwart or delay development or
    deployment of unlicensed devices. Nor does the rule provide any
    tactical advantage to any manufacturer because all manufacturers of
    unlicensed devices that operate in the 59-64 GHz band have to comply
    with the requirement. Accordingly, the petition for reconsideration
    filed by NEDD is denied.

**ORDERING CLAUSES**

16. In accordance with the above discussion and pursuant to the
    authority contained in Sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g),
    303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, IT IS
    ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by National
    Radio Astronomy Observatory and New England Digital Distribution,
    Inc., ARE DENIED.

17. For further information regarding this Third Memorandum Opinion and
    Order in this proceeding, contact Rodney P. Conway, via phone
    at (202) 418-2904, via e-mail at rconway@fcc.gov, or via TTY (202)
    418-2989, Office of Engineering and Technology.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

[^1]: ^?^ *See Third Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 94-124, 13 FCC
    Rcd 15074 (1998), adopted July 6, 1998.

[^2]: ^?^ *See* letter of November 2, 1995, from Richard D. Parlow of
    NTIA to Richard D. Smith, Chief, Office of Engineering and
    Technology.

[^3]: ^?^ *See* Public Notice, *Commission Receives Industry Proposal
    for Unlicensed Operation Above 40 GHz,* DA 97-288, released February
    10, 1997; and *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fourth Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, in ET Docket 94-124, 12 FCC Rcd 12212 (1997),
    at para. 24.

[^4]: ^?^ *See* *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fourth Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, in ET Docket 94-124, 12 FCC Rcd 12212 (1997),
    at para. 24.

[^5]: Harmonix Corporation filed a Petition for Reconsideration
    concerning the portions of the spectrum etiquette but subsequently
    withdrew its Petition for Reconsideration.

[^6]: ^?^ *See* Comments filed by CORF on May 28, 1996.

[^7]: ^?^ *See* Petition for Reconsideration filed by NRAO at para 4.

[^8]: ^?^ *See* Petition for Reconsideration filed by NRAO at para 4.

[^9]: *See First Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making* in ET Docket 94-124, 11 FCC Rcd 4481 (1995).

[^10]: ^?^ *See* Reply Comments of GM, filed on June 27, 1996, at page
    3. *See also* Reply Comments of AAMA, filed on June 26, 1996, at
    page 6.

[^11]: ^?^ *See* Reply Comments of GM, filed on June 27, 1996, at pages
    2-3.

[^12]: ^?^ *See* Comments of GM, filed on May 28, 1996, at page 6.

[^13]: ^?^ *See* Comments of AAMA, filed on May 28, 1996, at page 3.

[^14]: *See Third Report and Order* in ET Docket 94-124, 13 FCC Rcd
    15074 (1998), adopted July 6, 1998, at paragraph 13.

[^15]: ^?^ *See* IEEE Vehicle Radar Standards Subcommittee document
    VRS-96-6 entitled "Vehicular Radar and Radio Astronomy", dated
    February 28, 1996. The document is available at the following web
    address:
    http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/\~allen/IEEE_VRS/VRSDocs/doclist.html

[^16]: *See* NRAO Press release entitled \"National Radio Astronomy
    Observatory Announces Closure of Millimeter Wave Telescope, dated
    February 22, 2000. The press release is also available on the
    internet at http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/pr/12meter.html.

[^17]: We note that the operating requirements for unlicensed devices
    contained in Section 15.5 of the Commission\'s rules provides
    incentive for both parties to work together to solve potential
    interference issues concerning unlicensed vehicular radar devices
    and radio astronomy operations.

[^18]: *See* Petition for Reconsideration filed by NEDD.

[^19]: *Id*.

[^20]: *See* 47 CFR § 15.255(d)

[^21]: *See* 47 CFR § 15.255(d) and accompanying note.

[^22]: ^?^ *See* Opposition of Millimeter Wave Communications Working
    Group to Petition for Reconsideration dated February 22, 1999, at
    page 3.

[^23]: *Id*.