Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 38431

Source of flooding and location

#Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

At the City of Toledo corporate limits ....................... *580

At CSX Transportation .......... *580

Swan Creek:

At the confluence with

Maumee River ................... *580

Approximately 105 feet upstream of Monroe Street ... *580

Maumee River:

At the confluence with

Maumee Bay ..................... *580

Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of the corporate

limits .................................. *581

Maumee Bay: Entire coastline

within the City of Toledo *580

Otter Creek:

Upstream side of Taylor

Road .................................. *585

Downstream side of Seaman

Street ................................. *585

Haefner Ditch:

Approximately 330 feet upstream of Holland-Sylvania

Road .................................. *634

Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Holland-Sylvania

Road .................................. *638

Hill Ditch:

Upstream side of Elmer Drive *627

Approximately 600 feet upstream of Orchard Hills

Boulevard .......................... *637

Delaware Creek:

Confluence with Maumee

River .................................. *581

Approximately 30 feet downstream of Rohr Road ......... *581

Maps available for inspection

at the City of Toledo Division

of Building Inspection, One

Government Center, Suite

1600, Toledo, Ohio.

———

Waterville (Village), Lucas

County (FEMA Docket No.

7227)

Maumee River:

Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Dutch Road ....... *607

Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Forst Road ........ *624

Maps available for inspection

at the Waterville Village Hall,

25 North Second Street,

Waterville, Ohio.

———

Whitehouse (Village), Lucas

County (FEMA Docket No.

7295)

Lone Oak Ditch:

Just downstream of

Whitehouse-Spencer Road *645

Just upstream of Waterville

Street ................................. *655

Maps available for inspection

at the Village of Whitehouse

Zoning and Building Department, 6655 Providence

Street, Whitehouse, Ohio.

Source of flooding and location

#Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

PENNSYLVANIA

Delaware Water Gap (Borough), Monroe County

(FEMA Docket No. 7303)

Delaware River:

Approximately 1.2 miles

downstream of Interstate

80 ....................................... *313

Approximately 500 feet

downstream of confluence

with Cherry Creek ............. *321

Maps available for inspection

at the Delaware Water Gap

Borough Office, 49 Main

Street, Delaware Water Gap,

Pennsylvania.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Dated: May 16, 2000.

Michael J. Armstrong,

Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 00–14294 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

[ET Docket No. 94–124; FCC 00–161]

Use of Radio Frequencies Above 40

GHz for New Radio Applications.

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commision.

ACTION: Final rule; denial.

SUMMARY: This document denies the

Petitions for Reconsideration filed by

the National Radio Astronomy

Observatory (‘‘NRAO’’) and New

England Digital Distribution, Inc.,

(‘‘NEDD’’). These petitions requested

reconsideration of the Commission’s

Third Report and Order (‘‘third Order’’)

in this proceeding. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rodney Conway, Office of Engineering

and Technology, (202) 418–2904.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Order, ET

Docket 94–124, FCC 00–161, adopted

May 8, 2000 and May 17, 2000. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Information Center,

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC, and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s

duplication contractor, International

Transcription Service, (202) 857–3800,

1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC

20036.

Summary of the Memorandum Opinion

and Order

1. The NRAO filed a Petition for

Reconsideration requesting a more

stringent spurious emission limit of 2

pW/cm2 rather than the limit of 1000

pW/cm2 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. These

petitions requested reconsideration of

the Commission’s Third Report and

Order (‘‘Third Order’’) in this

proceeding, 63 FR 42276, August 7,

1998.

Emission Limits Above 200 GHz

2. The NRAO requests a more

stringent spurious emission limit of 2

pW/cm2 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. 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’’).

NRAO believes that such a failure to

address the key argument is arbitrary

and capricious and does not constitute

reasoned decision-making.

3. 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

38432 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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. 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. 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.

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.

4. 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/cm2, 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

5. 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.

6. 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. 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 Millimeter Wave

Communications Working Group

(‘‘MWCWG’’) has proposed this

etiquette to gain a tactical advantage

over other innovators. NEDD provides

no new facts to support its assertions.

7. 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. 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. As

a result, our rules do not require any

operation in the 50 MHz of reserved

spectrum.

8. 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.

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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–15578 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 98–67; FCC 00–56]

Telecommunications Relay Services

and Speech-to-Speech Services for

Individuals With Hearing and Speech

Disabilities

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends

Commission rules governing the

delivery of telecommunications relay

services to expand the kinds of relay

services available to consumers and to

improve the quality of relay service. The

Commission amended its rules to better

conform to the statutory mandate that

TRS must be ‘‘functionally equivalent’’

to voice telecommunications service to

the extent possible. Among other things,

these rules are intended to improve the

speed at which calls are answered and

conversations relayed.

DATES: Section 64.604 is effective on

June 30, 2000, however compliance is

not required until the dates stated in