********************************************************
                         NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of                )
                                )
                                )
Amendment of Parts 2, 15, and 97 of the)
 Commission's Rules to Permit Use of Radio)ET Docket No. 94-124
 Frequencies Above 40 GHz for New Radio)RM-8308
Applications                    )
                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
           AND FOURTH NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
    Adopted:  July 28, 1997Released:  August 14, 1997
   Comment Date:  [30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register]
   Reply Comment Date:  [45 days from date of publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission:
                           INTRODUCTION
     1.By this action, the Commission grants the Petition for Reconsideration, as supplemented,
filed by Cutler-Hammer, Inc. ("Cutler-Hammer") and denies the Petition for Reconsideration filed
by Vorad Safety Systems, Inc., ("Vorad") both of which request reconsideration of the First Report
and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("Order") in this proceeding.  This action
makes available the 59-64 GHz band for fixed field disturbance sensors and reaffirms the previous
Commission decision on the limit for spurious emissions from vehicle radar systems operating in
the 46.7-46.9 GHz band.  In addition, the Commission is requesting comments regarding a proposed
spectrum etiquette ("Spectrum Etiquette") filed by the Millimeter Wave Communications Working
Group ("MWCWG") for operation of systems in the 59-64 GHz band.  Moreover, this action permits
the interim operation in the 59-64 GHz band pending consideration of the proposed Spectrum
Etiquette.  Further, on its own motion, the Commission is correcting two errors that were contained
in the Order.
                            BACKGROUND
     2.In the Order, the first of several that are expected to be forthcoming in this proceeding,
the Commission adopted regulations to permit the commercial development and use of a portion of
the "millimeter wave" frequency bands above 40 GHz.
     3.The 59-64 GHz band ("60 GHz band") was made available for use by general unlicensed
communications devices.  Possible uses of this band include the development of short-range, high
capacity wireless radio systems that could be used for educational and medical applications and for
wireless access to libraries or other information databases.  The Order also prohibited the use of field
disturbance sensors in the 60 GHz band due to the likelihood that they would interfere with data
communications systems.  In response to several comments in this proceeding, the Commission
delayed the implementation of the 60 GHz band for up to one year in order to permit industry to
develop a spectrum etiquette.
     4.  The 46.7-46.9 GHz band ("46 GHz band") and the 76-77 GHz band ("76 GHz band")
were made available for use by vehicle radar systems.  The use of these bands would permit the
development of collision avoidance systems that could be used in conjunction with Intelligent
Transportation Systems.  In order to provide interference protection to present and future
Government operations near 94 GHz and 140 GHz, the Commission proposed and adopted strict
limits on spurious emissions from transmitters operating in the 46 GHz band.  The second and third
harmonics of a fundamental emission operating in the 46 GHz band fall within the 94 GHz and 140
GHz bands.  The Commission understood in the Order that its decision might have an adverse
economic impact on the manufacture of vehicle radar systems in the 46 GHz band, and it indicated
that it would be willing to reconsider this spurious emission limit if the manufacturers of vehicle
radar systems could demonstrate, in collaboration with the manufacturers of equipment operating
on harmonically-related frequencies, that there is a low probability of interference.  Transmitters
operating in the 76 GHz band were not subject to the same strict limits for spurious emissions
because their second and third harmonics do not fall in the 94 GHz and 140 GHz bands.
     5.  Two Petitions for Reconsideration were filed in response to the Order.  The Petition for
Reconsideration filed by Cutler-Hammer seeks to permit the operation of fixed field disturbance
sensors in the 60 GHz band.  The Petition for Reconsideration filed by Vorad  requests that the
spurious emission limits for field disturbance sensors operating in the 46 GHz band be relaxed and
made the same as the spurious emission requirements of field disturbance sensors operating in the
76 GHz band.
                      CUTLER-HAMMER PETITION
     6.  Petition.  Cutler-Hammer, a manufacturer of sensors used in industrial applications,
requests that the Commission amend its rules to permit the operation of lower power, fixed field
disturbance sensors in the 60 GHz band.  Cutler-Hammer states that lower frequency sensors of the
type currently being manufactured are limited in their ability to perform speed control, fluid level,
and motion detection functions because humidity, fog, or dust can cause measurement errors.  It adds
that millimeter wave sensors can overcome these limitations because they are not susceptible to these
environmental factors.  Furthermore, Cutler-Hammer argues that millimeter wave sensors can be
designed to fit into smaller enclosures and can provide greater sensor accuracy and distance than
lower frequency sensors.  Cutler-Hammer also asserts that its sensor applications typically require
an operating range of less than two feet, with a need to perform accurate measurements with the
sensor within six inches of the target and indicates that a 5 GHz bandwidth is necessary to eliminate
problems from measurements at this near distance.
     7.  Cutler-Hammer recognizes that a number of parties participating in this proceeding
expressed concern about suggestions that vehicle radar systems be permitted to operate in the 60-61
GHz band.  It agrees that the potential for interference from mobile field disturbance sensors to fixed
operations is hard to predict and to avoid.  Fixed field disturbance sensors operating characteristics
are much more predictable and the potential for causing and receiving interference is more easily
determined, while the operating characteristics of mobile field disturbance sensors are very difficult
to predict due to the inherently variable nature of the system, which results in unpredictable radiation
patterns and potentials for causing and receiving interference.  In addition, Cutler-Hammer indicates
that, in contrast, the fixed sensors it desires to employ would operate with very little power and
would create a predictable radiation pattern, permitting them to be designed and installed in such a
way that they would neither be susceptible to, nor likely to cause, interference.  Accordingly, Cutler-
Hammer believes that the prohibition against the use of fixed field disturbance sensors is
unnecessarily broad and is not supported by the record.
     8.  Cutler-Hammer's Petition for Reconsideration originally requested that fixed field
disturbance sensors operate with an output level of 200 nW/cm2 measured at a distance of 3 meters
for the 60 GHz band.  However, Cutler-Hammer's supplemental filing indicates that the sensors
typically would operate at an output level of 9 nW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters, an output that is
about 30 dB lower than the level permitted for other communications systems in the 60 GHz band.
Cutler-Hammer argues that the fixed, low power operation makes it unlikely that emissions from the
sensors would be strong enough to interfere with communications systems operating in this band.
     9.  Cutler-Hammer also notes that the Commission, as indicated above, delayed the
implementation of the 60 GHz band to permit industry to develop a spectrum etiquette.  Cutler-
Hammer is concerned that delays in the industry negotiations regarding a spectrum etiquette  could
delay the introduction of field disturbance sensors in this band.  Cutler-Hammer adds that because
its sensors will not present a risk of interference to data communications systems, implementation
of a spectrum etiquette is not needed to ensure that the sensors can co-exist with other broadband
applications.  Moreover, Cutler-Hammer indicates that its sensors will comply with the spectrum
etiquette submitted by industry and argues that it should be permitted to commence operation
immediately with its sensors conditioned upon the final outcome of any spectrum etiquette for the
60 GHz band.
     10.  Comments.  MWCWG filed comments in support of Cutler-Hammer's supplemented
Petition for Reconsideration, stating that 9 nW/cm2 is acceptable for fixed field disturbance sensors
operating throughout the 60 GHz band.  MWCWG also indicates that fixed field disturbance
sensors occupying less than 500 MHz of bandwidth can operate in the 61-61.5 GHz band with an
output level of 9 W/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters.  Cutler-Hammer indicates in its supplemental
filing that it agrees with these specifications.  No other comments were received concerning Cutler-
Hammer's Petition for Reconsideration.
     11.  Discussion.  The Commission agrees with Cutler-Hammer that fixed field disturbance
sensors at the proposed output level of 9 nW/cm2 at 3 meters would not be likely to be a source of
interference to other communications systems in the 60 GHz band.  This is the only unlicensed
frequency band under the Commission's regulations that provides a bandwidth this wide and at a
power level that makes operation practical.  Accordingly, the Commission is granting the request
from Cutler-Hammer to remove the prohibition against fixed field disturbance sensors. The
Commission also recognizes that, in many cases, the manufacturing process may require that the
sensor be capable of movement, even though the equipment in which the sensor is installed is fixed.
Thus, the Commission will clarify in its rules that the permission to operate fixed field disturbance
sensors applies to sensors installed in fixed equipment, even if the sensor itself moves within the
equipment.  However, this action does not affect the Commission's existing prohibition on mobile
field disturbance sensors.  The Commission agrees with Cutler-Hammer's request that it 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.
  INTERIM OPERATION PENDING ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED SPECTRUM
                           ETIQUETTE
     12.  Although the Commission stated in the Order that operation in the 60 GHz band would
be permitted only after adoption of a spectrum etiquette, we now believe that this prohibition no
longer is necessary and would be detrimental to the introduction of new products and services.
Therefore, the Commission will permit operation in the 60 GHz band, of any authorized, unlicensed
communications devices, including fixed field disturbance sensors, on an interim basis pending
consideration of the Spectrum Etiquette proposed in the Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
The Commission believes that permitting interim operation will serve the public interest by
permitting early rollout of new and innovative technologies and services.  The Commission will
require, however, that equipment approved for such interim operation comply with the proposed
Spectrum Etiquette.  The Commission stresses that any spectrum etiquette finally adopted in this
proceeding may differ significantly from the proposed Spectrum Etiquette contained in the Fourth
Notice and that manufacture and operation of equipment under this interim provision is at the risk
of the manufacturer and operator exclusively.  The Commission 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.
                         VORAD PETITION
     13.  Petition.  Vorad Safety Systems, Inc. ("Vorad"), a manufacturer of field disturbance
sensors used for vehicle collision avoidance systems, requests reconsideration of the spurious
emission limit for sensors operating in the 46 GHz band.  Vorad requests that the limits on spurious
emissions applicable to field disturbance sensors operating in the 76 GHz band also be applied to
sensors operating in the 46 GHz band.
     14.  Vorad states that it originally requested 200 MHz of spectrum for a vehicle radar system
to operate in the 46-50 GHz band to permit it to adapt its existing 24 GHz system through the use
of a frequency doubler.  This would permit a rapid introduction of the new equipment at a lower
cost.  Vorad notes that, while the Commission originally proposed a spurious emission limit of 2
pW/cm2 at 3 meters for all unlicensed millimeter wave devices, this limit was strongly opposed by
proponents of vehicle radar systems and other unlicensed operations.  These parties argued that the
limit would be extremely difficult to meet and was unnecessary to protect other communications
users.  Further, the emissions meeting this limit would be difficult to measure.  Vorad adds that the
Commission, in response to these concerns, relaxed the standard for vehicle radar systems in the
76 GHz band but adhered to its strict proposal for radar operating in the 46 GHz band.  Vorad states
that the adopted limit conflicts with the Commission's stated goal of encouraging expeditious
development of an important safety product.  Vorad adds that meeting the stricter limit using
current technology would be possible only by reducing operating power, which would significantly
degrade the performance of the system.  Further, Vorad states that even if technology permitting
compliance with the adopted limits could be developed, at a minimum this would delay the
introduction of vehicle radar systems in the 46 GHz band at least one to two years and would result
in a large cost increase.  This cost increase, according to Vorad, would make the system less
affordable and might make it uneconomical to produce and market.  It would also place the 46 GHz
equipment at a competitive disadvantage once systems in the 76 GHz band become available.
     15.  Vorad argues that the limit on spurious emissions adopted by the Commission for the
46 GHz band is not technically justified.  It states that the Commission based its decision on the
need to protect existing and future U.S. Government uses of the 94 GHz and 140 GHz bands.
However, Vorad indicates that the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that there is a real
threat of interference to such uses by vehicle radar systems, since vehicle radar systems use highly
directionalized antennas and will primarily be used on the nation's highways.  It adds that it has
operated vehicle radar systems in the 24 GHz band for several years and has been experimenting
with operations in the 47 GHz band for over a year.  Vorad indicates that the spurious emissions
from its 24 GHz and 47 GHz transmissions were suppressed by only 50 dB, and that no complaints
of interference were received.  Thus, Vorad states that its experience with these systems
demonstrates that an attenuation standard of 50 dB is sufficient to protect other spectrum users.
Vorad adds that there is no evidence that operations in the 46 GHz band will present more of an
interference risk than do operations in the 76 GHz band, for which a much more reasonable standard
was adopted.  Vorad believes that it is likely in the initial states of development that 76 GHz radar
devices will employ 38 GHz or 26 GHz fundamental oscillators 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.
     16.  Finally, Vorad argues that vehicle radar systems in the 76 GHz band will create spurious
emissions over a much larger range of spectrum than will operations in the 46 GHz band.  It states
that the narrow 200 MHz bandwidth employed by transmitters in the 46 GHz band will limit the
bandwidth of harmonic emissions.  In contrast, the permissible bandwidth of the 76 GHz radar is
1000 MHz, resulting in spurious emissions over much more of the spectrum due to intermodulation
frequency products.
     17.  Comments.  The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
was the only party to file comments in response to the Vorad petition.  NTIA strongly opposes
VORAD's request to relax the spurious emission limit.  It states that the majority of U.S.
Government operations occur in the propagation windows centered at 94 GHz, 140 GHz and
220 GHz.  It adds that new radio receiver technologies using wide bandwidth (typically 4-10 GHz)
and improved sensitivities have resulted in greater resolution and precision for detection and
guidance systems and remote sensing of the environment.  NTIA points out that a joint Federal
Aviation Administration/Department of Defense/Industry program is currently underway to develop
and test "synthetic vision" systems intended for use in airport environments during poor visibility.
Further, it states that recent analysis indicates that the noise threshold of these receivers can be more
than 30 dB below the threshold assumed by the Commission in its Order for this type of equipment,
so further relaxation of the limit on spurious emissions could have serious consequences on the
effectiveness of systems in these bands.  Finally, NTIA states that it invited Vorad to present its
views to the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), but that Vorad did not respond
to this offer.  NTIA adds that it remains willing to assist Vorad 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.
     18.  Discussion.  The Commission is denying Vorad's petition to relax the limits on spurious
emissions from field disturbance sensors operating in the 46 GHz band.  The Commission
recognized in the Order that its decision might have an adverse economic impact on manufacturers
but concluded that the limit was appropriate to protect present and future U.S. Government
operations in the 94 and 140 GHz bands.  It stated that the 94 GHz and 140 GHz bands share many
potential uses, since these bands are in the only two atmospheric transmission windows between
60 GHz and 300 GHz.  The 94 GHz band is employed for radio astronomy, U.S. Government
passive imaging systems, and Department of Defense classified applications.  The 140 GHz band
is used for radio astronomy and Government military passive imaging systems.  In particular, the
Commission noted that the Advanced Research Projects Agency's MIMIC program to develop
lower-cost millimeter wave components has involved technology in the 94 GHz area and is likely
to increase the use of this and other millimeter wave bands.  The Commission, in the Order, added
that, while it appreciated the arguments in the comments from General Motors Corporation and GM
Hughes Electronics for relaxing the spurious emission limits, it did not agree that directional
antennas and the use of vehicle radar systems on highways would be sufficient to eliminate
interference to airborne passive sensors.  Further, as noted by NTIA in its comments on Vorad's
petition, current development of a passive imaging system used as an aircraft landing aid in adverse
weather conditions involves resolution capabilities which are directly related to the amount of RF
signal noise in the band.  Thus, we continue to believe that the presence of excessive spurious
emissions from other signal sources, e.g., harmonic emissions from vehicle radar systems in the
46 GHz band, would degrade the usefulness of these bands for passive imaging and other possible
functions.
     19.   While Vorad indicates that its previous experience with field disturbance sensors
operating at 24 GHz and at 47 GHz and employing a spurious emission suppression of 50 dB has
not resulted in complaints of interference, the Commission does not find this sufficiently conclusive
to relax the spurious emission requirements.  First, operations in the 94 GHz and 140 GHz bands are
only now being developed.  As U.S. Government and other operations increase in these bands, along
with the proliferation of field disturbance sensors in the 46 GHz band, the potential for interference
would also increase.  Second, Vorad's argument does not address the cumulative effects of multiple
transmitters operating simultaneously within a service area.  Finally, 50 dB attenuation of the
spurious emissions from transmitters operating in the 24 GHz band results in an emission level that
is relatively close to the emission limit adopted in the Order for spurious emissions from the 46 GHz
band.
     20.  The Commission does not agree with Vorad's claims that harmonic emissions from the
76 GHz system present the same, or greater, interference potential to 94 GHz and 140 GHz systems
as sensors operating in the 46 GHz band, even if the 76 GHz devices use frequency doublers or
triplers to achieve the fundamental emission.  If, as suggested by Vorad, the 76 GHz systems
generate their fundamental emissions through the use of a 25.5 GHz oscillator, the third harmonic
is at 76.5 GHz, the fourth harmonic is at 102 GHz, the fifth harmonic is at 127.5 GHz, and the sixth
harmonic is at 153 GHz.  If the 76 GHz systems generate their fundamental emissions through the
use of a 38.25 GHz oscillator, the second harmonic is at 76.5 GHz, the third harmonic is at 114.75
GHz, and the fourth harmonic is at 153 GHz.  In every case, the harmonic emissions from the
76 GHz system are well removed from the 94 GHz and 140 GHz bands.  While Vorad also argues
that the wider bandwidth of the 76 GHz system will result in spurious emissions covering a larger
bandwidth, as compared to systems in the 46 GHz band, this wider bandwidth is not sufficient to
cause the harmonic emissions to fall within the 94 GHz or 140 GHz bands.
     21.  Finally, in the Order, the Commission added that it would be willing to reconsider the
spurious emission limit for the 46 GHz band if manufacturers of vehicle radar equipment can
demonstrate, in collaboration with the manufacturers of equipment operating on harmonically-related
frequencies, a low probability of interference, e.g., based on angular distribution and susceptibility
of the sensor to off-axis signals.  While NTIA invited Vorad to present its views to the IRAC,
Vorad did not respond to this offer.
     22.  For the reasons explained above, we decline to permit a higher spurious emission level
for field disturbance sensors operating in the 46 GHz band.  Accordingly, the Petition for
Reconsideration of Vorad Safety Services, Inc. is denied.  We will consider revisiting this issue  later
if Vorad and NTIA demonstrate that a different emission limit would be unlikely to cause harmful
interference.
             FOURTH NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
     23.  Spectrum Etiquette.  In the Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making the Commission
requested comment regarding a spectrum etiquette for operation in the 59-64 GHz band.  The
Commission provided one year for a spectrum etiquette to be submitted and encouraged industry to
form a working group to develop a spectrum etiquette to permit efficient use of the 59-64 GHz
band.
     24.  In response, the MWCWG developed and proposed a Spectrum Etiquette for equipment
operating in the 59-64 GHz band.  MWCWG's proposal includes five recommendations.  First, the
proposed Spectrum Etiquette seeks to establish a coordination channel located at 59.0-59.05 GHz
to be used exclusively to establish techniques that various transmitters could use to help mitigate or
eliminate interference.  Second, it seeks to establish a format for transmitter identification by
requiring a 60 GHz transmitter with an output power of 0.1 mW or more to transmit information that
contains the FCC ID number, the serial number of the transmitter, and a user definable field of up
to 24 bytes of information.  Third, the Spectrum Etiquette seeks to adopt a limit for peak equivalent
isotropically radiated power of 20 W for 60 GHz transmitters.  Fourth, the Spectrum Etiquette seeks
to limit the peak transmitter output power to 500 mW.  Fifth, the Spectrum Etiquette seeks to limit
the peak transmitter output power for transmitters employing a 6 dB bandwidth of less than 100
MHz, as measured with a 100 kHz resolution bandwidth spectrum analyzer, according to the
following formula:  P < 500 [bandwidth in MHz/100] mW.
     25.  The Spectrum Etiquette submitted by MWCWG differs from the standards adopted in
the Order.  The standards in the Order did not consider a coordination channel, transmitter
identification requirements, limits on the peak equivalent isotropically radiated power or peak
transmitter output power.  Instead, the Order adopted a power spectral density for transmitters
operating in the 60 GHz band of 9 W/cm2 measured at three meters from the transmit antenna.
MWCWG seeks adoption of its proposal to permit efficient use of the spectrum by enabling greater
frequency reuse and lowering the probability of interference.
     26.  The Commission seeks comments on whether it should adopt the standards contained
in the MWCWG proposal.  The Commission is particularly interested in comments regarding the
proposed transmitter identification requirements and the designation of a coordination channel.  It
wishes to clarify, however, that the reference in the MWCWG filing for "radiated power" actually
refers to transmitter output power.  Further, the Commission notes that the limits on total peak
output power are based on the use of "an RF detector that encompasses the 59-64 GHz band and that
has a video bandwidth of at least 10 MHz."  However, Section 13.1.4.2 and Appendix I4, note 2,
of the Commission's measurement procedure, as specified in ANSI C63.4-1992, both indicate that
a pulse desensitization correction factor must be applied if the bandwidth of the measuring
instrument is less than the pulse repetition frequency.  Parties commenting on the proposed peak
limits and measurements should be aware of the possible application of a pulse desensitization
correction factor.  Comments should be directed towards the specific substance contained in the
proposed Spectrum Etiquette and we remind parties that the actual regulations adopted may differ
from those contained in the proposed Spectrum Etiquette.
                          OTHER ISSUES
     27.  The Commission is taking this opportunity to correct two typographical errors contained
in the Order in this proceeding.  Section 15.215(a) is being amended to reflect the two new rule
Sections 15.253 and 15.255 covering operations above 40 GHz.  Section 15.215 notes the
exceptions to the general emission limits contained in Section 15.209 and should have been amended
in the Order.  Section 15.31(f)(1) is also being corrected to reflect that the inverse linear-distance-
squared extrapolation factor (40 dB per decade) for measurements above 40 GHz applies only to
measurements performed in the near field.  In response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in
this proceeding, Epsilon Lambda, General Motors and Vorad expressed concern that measurements
at the specified distance of 3 meters could result in measurements in the near field, requiring the use
of an inverse linear-distance-squared extrapolation factor (40 dB per decade) instead of inverse
linear-distance (20 dB per decade), as previously specified in the rules.  The Commission agreed
with these comments but inadvertently stated that all measurements above 40 GHz could be made
at a distance greater than 3 meters using an inverse linear-distance-squared extrapolation factor, even
if the measurements were not being performed in the near field.  However, the inverse linear-
distance-squared factor correctly extrapolates the change in signal level versus distance when
measurements are made in the near field, whereas the inverse linear-distance factor correctly
extrapolates the change in signal level versus distance when measurements are made in the far field.
The use of the inverse linear-distance-squared extrapolation factor under all measurement conditions
could permit a manufacturer to increase measurement distance until the results demonstrated
compliance, even though the emissions exceed the limit when the product is measured at a shorter
distance.  Accordingly, the rules are being amended to indicate that the use of an inverse linear-
distance-squared extrapolation factor applies only to near-field measurements.  Measurements in the
far field will continue to be extrapolated employing an inverse linear-distance extrapolation factor.
Since these changes to the rules involve typographical amendments, public notice and comment on
these changes is unnecessary pursuant to Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure
Act.
                       PROCEDURAL MATTERS
     28.  This is a permit-but-disclose proceeding.  Ex Parte presentations are permitted, except
during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's
rules.  See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
     29.  As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the expected impact on small entities
of the proposals suggested in the Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making.  The IRFA is set forth in
Appendix B.  Written public comments are requested on the IRFA.  These comments must be filed
in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Notice, but they must
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.  The Secretary shall
send a copy of this Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a)
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq
(1981).
     30.  Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis.  The Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making contains either a proposed or modified
information collection.  As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the
general public and the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") to take this opportunity to
comment on the information collections contained in the NPRM, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13.  Public and agency comments are due at the same time
as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication in the
Federal Register.  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; and, (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.
     31.  Comment Dates.  Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419
of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415 and  1.419, interested parties may file comment on
the Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making on or before [insert date 30 days from date of
publication in the Federal Register] and reply comments on or before [insert date 45 days from
date of publication in the Federal Register].  To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an
original and five copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments.  If you want
each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus nine
copies.  You should send comments and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington DC 20554.  You may
also file comments electronically via the Internet at mmwaves@fcc.gov.  Comments and reply
comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference
Center of the Federal Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington
DC 20554.  Written comments on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due
[insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register].  Written comments must
be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") on the proposed and/or modified
information collection on or before [insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal
Register].  In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the
Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and 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.
                         ORDERING CLAUSES
     32.  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 Petition for Reconsideration filed by Cutler-Hammer, Inc., as
supplemented, to permit operation of low power, fixed field disturbance sensors in the 60 GHz band
IS GRANTED as described below by the amendments to the rules shown in appendix A.  IT IS
FURTHER ORDER that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Vorad Safety Systems, Inc., IS
DENIED.
     33.  For further information regarding this Memorandum, Opinion and Order and Fourth
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, contact John A. Reed (202) 418-2455 or Rodney P. Conway (202)
418-2904, Office of Engineering and Technology.
     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
     William F. Caton
     Acting Secretary                            APPENDIX A
     Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 15, is amended as follows:
     1.  The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:
     AUTHORITY:  Sec. 4, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 624A of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.
     2.  Section 15.31 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(1), to read as follows:
Section 15.31  Measurement standards.
  *              *              *              *              *
(f)  *     *     *
(1)  At frequencies at or above 30 MHz, measurements may be performed at a distance other than
that specified provided:  measurements are not made in the near field, and it can be demonstrated
that the signal levels to be measured at the distance employed can be detected by the measurement
equipment.  Measurements shall not be performed at a distance greater than 30 meters unless it can
be demonstrated that measurements at a distance of 30 meters or less are impractical.  When
performing measurements at a distance other than that specified, the results shall be extrapolated to
the specified distance using one of the following formulas:  for measurements above 30 MHz that
are not performed in the near field, an inverse linear-distance extrapolation factor (20 dB/decade);
for measurements performed in the near field, an inverse linear-distance-squared extrapolation factor
(40 dB/decade).
  *              *              *              *              *
     3.  Section 15.215 is amended by revising paragraph (a), to read as follows:
Section 15.215  Additional provisions to the general radiated emission limitations.
(a)  The regulations in sections 15.217-15.255 provide alternatives to the general radiated emission
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.
  *              *              *              *              *
     4.  Section 15.255 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b), to read as follows:
Section 15.255  Operation within the band 59.0-64.0 GHz.
NOTE:  Equipment may be authorized and operated on an interim basis under the provisions of this
section provided it complies with the proposed Spectrum Etiquette parameters contained in the
Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket 94-124.
(a)  Operation under the provisions of this section is not permitted for the following products:
(1)  Equipment used on aircraft or satellites.
(2)  Field disturbance sensors, including vehicle radar systems, unless the field disturbance sensors
are employed for fixed operation.  For the purposes of this section, the reference to fixed operation
includes field disturbance sensors installed in fixed equipment, even if the sensor itself moves within
the equipment.
(b)  Within the 59-64 GHz band, emission levels shall not exceed the following:
(1)  For products other than fixed field disturbance sensors, the power density of any emission shall
not exceed 9 W/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters.
(2)  For fixed field disturbance sensors that occupy 500 MHz or less of bandwidth and that are
contained wholly within the frequency band 61.0-61.5 GHz, the power density of any emission
within the band 61.0-61.5 GHz shall not exceed 9 W/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters and the power
density of any emission outside of the 61.0-61.5 GHz band, but still within the 59-64 GHz band,
shall not exceed 9 nW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters.
(3)  For fixed field disturbance sensors other than those operating under the provisions of paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, the peak transmitter output power shall not exceed 0.1 mW and the peak power
density shall not exceed 9 nW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters.
 *              *              *              *              *
                           APPENDIX B
              FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
     As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603 ("RFA"), an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") was incorporated into the Notice of Proposed Rule
Making ("Notice") in ET Docket No. 94-124.  The Commission sought written public comments
on the proposals in the Notice, including the IRFA.  The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis ("FRFA") in this Memorandum Opinion and Order conforms to the RFA, as amended by
the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat.
847 (1996).
     Need for and Objective of the Rules.  Our objectives are to permit the operation within the
59-64 GHz band of fixed field disturbance sensors in an industrial environment.  These products
were prohibited under the Report and Order in ET Docket No. 94-124.
     Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA.  No
comments were submitted in direct response to the IRFA.  However, Cutler-Hammer, Inc. filed a
Petition for Reconsideration requesting that the Commission amend its rules to permit the operation
within the 59-64 GHz band of fixed field disturbance sensors in an industrial environment.  No
comments were filed in response to this petition.
     Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply.
For the purposes of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the RFA defines a "small business" to
be the same as a "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632, unless
the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities.  Under
the Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that:  1) is independently owned and
operated; 2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 3) meets any additional criteria established
by the Small Business Administration (SBA).  Since the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments
were not in effect until the record in this proceeding was closed, the Commission did not request
information regarding the number of small businesses that might 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 Cutler-Hammer, Inc.
     The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to unlicensed
communications devices.  Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition applicable to manufacturers
of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment.  According to the SBA
regulations, unlicensed transmitter manufacturers must have 750 or fewer employees in order to
qualify as a small business concern.  Census Bureau data indicates that there are 858 U.S.
companies that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and
that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified as small entities.
The Census Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are not available as to how many of
these firms will manufacture unlicensed communications devices.  However, we believe that many
of them may qualify as small entities.
     Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements.
Our new rules permit the introduction of a new type of equipment which will operate in the
59-64 GHz band.  As with other communications equipment already permitted to operate within this
frequency band, the transmitter must be authorized under the Commission's certification procedure.
No changes were made to the standards that must be met by the equipment or the reporting or
recordkeeping requirements.
     Significant Alternatives and Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on a
Substantial Number of Small Entities Consistent with Stated Objectives.  No alternatives or other
steps were addressed in this proceeding.
     Report to Congress.  The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, along with this Memorandum Opinion and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant 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.
    INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR FOURTH NPRM
     Need for and Objective of the Rules.  This rule making proceeding is initiated to obtain
comments regarding the proposed Spectrum Etiquette for general unlicensed operation in the 59-64
GHz band.  The Commission seeks comment on a spectrum etiquette proposed by the Millimeter
Wave Communications Working Group for the purpose of  minimizing  interference among general
unlicensed systems operating in the 59-64 GHz band.
     Legal Basis.  The proposed action is authorized under Sections 4(j), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(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.
     Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements.  We propose to establish
a spectrum etiquette that would apply to and minimize interference between general unlicensed
systems operating in the 59-64 GHz band.  The spectrum etiquette will require measurements to be
reported to the Commission as part of the normal equipment authorization process under our
certification procedure.
     Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules.  None.
     Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities Involved.  We expect that
multiple manufacturers will manufacture transmitters to operate in the 59-64 GHz band for fixed
field disturbance sensors and high speed computer to computer transmission systems.
     Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities Consistent with Stated
Objectives.  None.