12120 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Sulfur Dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 24, 2015. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 

52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart R—Kansas 

■ 2. In § 52.870(e) the table is amended 

by adding entry (40) in numerical order 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable geographic 

area or Nonattainment 

area 

State submittal date EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

(40) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS.

Statewide ...................... 3/19/2013 3/6/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation].This action addresses the following CAA elements 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

[FR Doc. 2015–05328 Filed 3–5–15; 08:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 90, and 95 

[ET Docket Nos. 15–26, 11–90, 10–28, RM– 

11555, RM–11666, and WT Docket No. 11– 

202; FCC 15–16] 

Operation of Radar Systems in the 76– 

81 GHz Band 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposes to authorize 

radar applications in the 76–81 GHz 

band. The Commission seeks to develop 

a flexible and streamlined regulatory 

framework that will encourage efficient, 

innovative uses of the spectrum and to 

allow various services to operate on an 

interference-protected basis. In doing so, 

it further seeks to adopt service rules 

that will allow for the deployment of the 

various radar applications in this band, 

both within and outside the U.S. The 

Commission takes this action in 

response to a petition for rulemaking 

filed by Robert Bosch, LLC (Bosch) and 

two petitions for reconsideration of the 

2012 Vehicular Radar R&O. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before April 6, 2015, and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

April 20, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Aamer Zain, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–2437, email: 

aamer.zain@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418– 

2989. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ET Docket No. 15–26, by 

any of the following methods: 

D Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and 

Reconsideration Order, ET Docket No. 

15–26, RM–11555, RM–11666, ET 

Docket Nos. 11–90, 10–28 and WT 

Docket No. 11–202; FCC 15–16, adopted 

February 3, 2015, and released February 

5, 2015. The full text of this document 

is available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12121 

D Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Summary of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. In the Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making and Reconsideration Order 

(NPRM), the Commission proposes rules 

that will accommodate the commercial 

development and use of various radar 

technologies in the 76–81 GHz band 

under part 95 of its rules. These 

proposals include allocation changes to 

the bands as well as provisions to 

ensure that new and incumbent 

operations can share the available 

frequencies in the band. Specifically, 

the Commission seeks comment on the 

following 76–81 GHz band matters; 

• Expanding radar operations in the 

76–81 GHz band; 

• Modifying the Table of Frequency 

Allocations to provide an allocation for 

the radiolocation service in the 77.5–78 

GHz band; 

• Authorizing the expanded radar 

operations on a licensed basis under 

part 95; 

• Shifting vehicular and other users 

away from the existing part 15 

unlicensed operating model; and 

• Evaluating the compatibility of 

incumbent operations, including that of 

amateur radio, with radar applications 

in the 77–81 GHz band. 

Collectively, these actions propose a 

unified approach for providing 

allocation and service rules for the 

various types of radar applications that 

will operate within the 76–81 GHz 

range. 

Background 

2. The 76–77.5 GHz and 78–81 GHz 

bands are allocated to the Radio 

Astronomy service (RAS) and the 

Radiolocation service on a primary basis 

and to the Amateur and Space research 

(space-to-Earth) services on a secondary 

basis. The 77.5–78 GHz band is 

allocated to the Amateur and AmateurSatellite services on a primary basis and 

to the Radio astronomy and Space 

research (space-to-Earth) services on a 

secondary basis. Discussed further are 

primary radiolocation services that are 

allocated in the 76–77.5 GHz and 78–81 

GHz bands. 

3. These bands are in the region of the 

radiofrequency spectrum known as 

‘‘millimeter wave’’ spectrum. At these 

frequencies, radio propagation decreases 

more rapidly with distance than at 

lower frequencies and antennas that can 

narrowly focus transmitted energy are 

practical and of modest size. While the 

limited range of such transmissions 

might be a disadvantage for many 

applications, it does allow frequency 

reuse within very short distances and 

thereby enables a higher concentration 

of transmitters in a geographical area 

than is possible at lower frequencies. 

4. In recent years, the Commission has 

sought to make frequencies in the 76– 

81 GHz range available for new and 

innovative radar applications that can 

provide important benefits to the public 

at large. In a series of rulemaking 

proceedings that date back to 1995, the 

Commission has established rules to 

allow the use of this spectrum by 

automotive collision avoidance radar 

applications (‘‘vehicular radars’’) and 

radar systems that detect foreign object 

debris (FOD) at airport facilities (‘‘FOD 

detection radars’’). Vehicular radars are 

authorized under part 15 of our rules, 

while FOD detection radars currently 

are permitted to operate under parts 15 

and 90 of the Commission’s rules. 

Vehicular Radar 

5. Vehicular radars can determine the 

exact distance and relative speed of 

objects in front of, beside, or behind a 

car to improve the driver’s ability to 

perceive objects under bad visibility 

conditions or objects in blind spots. In 

1995, the Commission adopted rules to 

allow the use of the 76–77 GHz band by 

vehicular radars on an unlicensed basis. 

These provisions were limited to 

vehicle-mounted radars; fixed 

applications were not permitted. 

6. On May 24, 2011, Toyota Motor 

Corporation filed a petition to modify 

the technical rules for vehicular radars 

to allow greater flexibility in vehicular 

radar applications. In response, the 

Commission issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making (Vehicular Radar 

NPRM) and subsequently issued a 

Report and Order (Vehicular Radar 

R&O) modifying the part 15 rules for 

vehicular radars in the 76–77 GHz band. 

The Commission, inter alia, modified 

the rules to specify average and peak 

radiated emission limits in equivalent 

EIRP and power density units so that 

manufacturers could use either 

specification to express the emissions 

from their devices. 

7. Vehicular radar technology has 

continued to evolve, and industry has 

developed more enhanced and costeffective long-range vehicular radars 

(LRR) in the 76–77 GHz band. 

Developers of these technologies claim 

that the existing 1 gigahertz bandwidth 

used by LRR is insufficient to develop 

high-resolution short-range vehicular 

radars (SRR) that can implement safety 

features such as collision warning, lane 

departure warning, lane change 

assistance, blind-spot detection, and 

pedestrian protection. As background, 

LRRs have narrow beams with 

bandwidth less than1 gigahertz and 

typical spatial resolution of 0.5 meters. 

Their range of operation is up to 150 to 

250 meters. SRRs on the other hand 

have wide beam with bandwidths up to 

4 gigahertz and typical spatial 

resolution of 0.1 meters. Their range of 

operation is up to 30 meters. 

8. Recently, Bosch filed a petition for 

rulemaking to modify § 15.253 of the 

Commission’s rules to expand the 

operation of unlicensed vehicular radar 

systems from 76–77 GHz to the 76–81 

GHz band to develop SRR applications. 

It claims that the additional 4 gigahertz 

bandwidth will provide SRR with both 

frequency separation from LRR and the 

necessary bandwidth for range accuracy, 

angular accuracy, and good object 

discrimination. 

9. On July 17, 2012, the Commission 

issued a public notice seeking comment 

on Bosch’s petition. The petition drew 

general support from the automotive 

industry, opposition from an individual 

amateur radio operator and interest from 

two developing non-vehicular radio 

applications for the band. Specifically, 

eight parties filed comments and three 

parties submitted ex parte written 

communications. 

Millimeter Wave Band Radar Operation 

at Airports 

10. The Commission has recognized 

the benefits associated with radars that 

can detect FOD at airports. Generally 

speaking, FOD include any substance, 

debris, or object that can damage aircraft 

or equipment. FOD can seriously 

threaten the safety of airport personnel 

and airline passengers and can have a 

negative impact on airport logistics and 

operations. According to the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), FOD 

‘‘has the potential to damage aircraft 

during critical phases of flight, which 

can lead to catastrophic loss of life and 

airframe, and at the very least increased 

maintenance and operating costs.’’ 

Moreover, the direct maintenance costs 

to airlines caused by FOD have been 

estimated to be one to four billion 

dollars per year. The Commission 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12122 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

provides for both unlicensed FOD 

detection radar use in the 76–77 GHz 

band under its part 15 rules and 

licensed FOD detection radar use in the 

78–81 GHz band under its part 90 rules. 

11. Interest in using the millimeter 

wave bands to support FOD detection 

radars dates back to February 23, 2009, 

when Era Systems Corporation (‘‘Era’’) 

requested for waiver of §§ 2.803, 15.201 

and 15.253 of the Commission’s rules. 

In response, the Office of Engineering 

and Technology issued a public notice 

seeking comments on Era waiver request 

and later granted Era a limited waiver to 

allow the installation of radar systems at 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International 

Airport. 

12. Also in a separate proceeding, Era 

filed comments asking the Commission 

to amend its part 15 rules to permit 

fixed use of 76–77 GHz radars at 

airports for monitoring air traffic and 

airport service vehicles only. The Office 

of Engineering and Technology (OET) 

decided to treat ERA’s comments as a 

Petition for Rulemaking, and 

consolidated Era and Vehicular Radar 

petitions into single rule making 

proceeding in the 76–77 GHz band. 

During the course of this proceeding, 

Xsight Systems Ltd. (Xsight) filed ex 

parte comments in support of Era and 

asked the Commission to allow 

operation of FOD detection radars in the 

76–77 GHz band at airport locations 

only. 

13. Subsequently, as part of the 

Vehicular Radar NPRM, the 

Commission examined the use of fixed 

radar systems in the 76–77 GHz band 

and proposed to allow such use at any 

location, rather than restrict their use to 

only airport locations per the Era 

petition for rulemaking. The 

Commission stated that limiting fixed 

radar operations to specific locations 

such as airports might be overly 

restrictive and could unnecessarily 

burden the public. In the subsequent 

Vehicular Radar R&O, the Commission 

permitted unlicensed operation of fixed 

radars, including FOD detection radars, 

in the 76–77 GHz band at airport 

locations. It permitted such operation 

on an unlicensed basis under the same 

part 15 rules and with the same 

emission limits that it applied to 

vehicular radars in the band. 

14. Licensed FOD detection radar can 

be traced to an August 10, 2010, petition 

for Rulemaking in which Trex 

Enterprises Corporation (Trex) asked us 

to amend part 90 of the Commission’sr 

rules to permit FOD detection radars to 

operate in the 78–81 GHz band and to 

impose service rules that require each 

airport location to be individually 

licensed to operate FOD detection 

radars. The Commission subsequently 

issued a Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making and Order seeking comment on 

the best way to enable the use FOD 

detection radars. On July 11, 2013, the 

Commission adopted a Report and 

Order that permitted the certification, 

licensing, and use of FOD detection 

radars in the 78–81 GHz band under our 

part 90 rules. In that Report and Order, 

the Commission did not adopt technical 

specifications for FOD detection radars, 

see 78 FR 45072, July 26, 2013. The 

Commission addresses this issue herein. 

Petitions for Reconsideration 

15. Our evaluation of the 76–81 GHz 

band also implicates two outstanding 

petitions for reconsideration. Both 

petitions were filed in response to the 

Vehicular Radar R&O that modified our 

part 15 rules to permit vehicular radar 

technologies and airport-based fixed 

radar applications in the 76–77 GHz 

band. 

16. The first petition concerns the 

scope of fixed infrastructure 

applications in the 76–77 GHz band. In 

the Vehicular Radar R&O, the 

Commission stated that it continues to 

believe that vehicular radars should be 

able to share the band with fixed radars 

operating at the same levels and noted 

that there were no conclusive test 

results indicating that there would be 

incompatibility issues between the two 

types of radars. It nevertheless declined 

to adopt provisions for unlicensed fixed 

radar operations outside of airport 

locations in the 76–77 GHz band, stating 

that no parties had come forward to 

establish a clear demand for fixed radar 

applications beyond such locations. 

Navtech Radar (Navtech) asks that the 

Commission reconsider this decision. 

Navtech claims that evidence suggests 

the band can be more broadly shared 

between vehicular and fixed radars, and 

that there is demand for new fixed radar 

applications that are not permitted 

under the current rules. Numerous 

parties, including representatives of the 

automotive industry, oppose the 

Navtech petition on both substantive 

and procedural grounds. In a 

subsequent ex parte presentation, 

Navtech reiterated its claims. 

17. Second, Honeywell International, 

Inc. (Honeywell) asks that the 

Commission clarify that § 15.253(a) of 

its rules does not prohibit the operation 

of 76–77 GHz band radar devices 

located on aircraft while the aircraft are 

on the ground. Honeywell envisions 

that its radar application will help 

aircraft avoid collisions with other 

aircraft, stationary objects, and service 

vehicles. 

18. Numerous representatives of the 

automotive industry as well as Xsight 

Systems, Inc., filed to oppose the 

Honeywell petition. These parties raised 

procedural arguments—that the issue of 

removing the current prohibition on the 

use of 76–77 GHz frequency range on 

aircraft or satellite was not properly 

raised in the proceeding and is 

otherwise outside the scope of the 

decision—as well as claims that there is 

insufficient evidence that both aircraftmounted and vehicular radars can coexist in the 76–77 GHz band. In 

response, Honeywell claims that the 

issues it raises are within the scope of 

the Commission’s rulemaking 

proceeding, that there is no technical 

reason why aircraft-mounted radar 

cannot operate in the 76–77 GHz band 

while the aircraft is on ground, and that 

there is an urgent and recognized public 

interest need for the anti-collision 

benefits its aircraft-mounted radars can 

provide. 

19. The Commission originally 

adopted rules to allow use of the 76–77 

GHz band, limited to vehicle-mounted 

radars. It recognized concerns raised by 

the Committee on Radio Frequencies 

(CORF) of the National Academies about 

potential interference to radio 

astronomy operations, and prohibited 

the use of 76–77 GHz unlicensed 

devices aboard aircraft and satellites as 

a way to protect the radio astronomy 

services. Any change to the restriction 

on the use of 76–77 GHz unlicensed 

devices aboard aircraft and satellites 

was neither part of the Vehicular Radar 

NPRM nor of the subsequent Vehicular 

Radar R&O. 

Radio Astronomy Service 

20. The radio astronomy service is a 

passive service that receives radio 

waves of cosmic origin to better 

understand our universe. Astronomical 

research above 50 GHz is particularly 

well suited for studies of star formation, 

the properties of the interstellar 

medium, the chemical evolution of the 

Universe, detection of extra-solar 

planets and many other phenomena. 

RAS has a mix of primary and 

secondary allocations that span the 76– 

81 GHz band. RAS installations are 

remotely located to provide interference 

protection from active services. The 

Commission previously concluded that 

there is very negligible risk of potential 

interference to RAS equipment from 

vehicular radars in the 76–77 GHz band. 

The Commission also concluded that 

unlicensed FOD detection equipment 

would not cause harmful interference to 

RAS equipment as both applications 

only operate fixed stations, are limited 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12123 

in number and are not located in close 

proximity. 

Amateur 

21. In addition to the above services, 

the Commission also allows amateur 

radio use within the 76–81 GHz band. 

Generally speaking, amateur operators 

use radio spectrum for private 

recreation, non-commercial exchange of 

messages, wireless experimentation, 

self-training, and emergency 

communication purposes. The amateur 

radio community previously stated that 

the frequencies in the 76–81 GHz range 

(which it identifies as the ‘‘4 mm band’’) 

are well suited for experiments relating 

to short-range high-speed data 

communication. The Commission has 

previously considered compatibility 

issues for amateur operations with 

vehicular radar and FOD detection radar 

operations. In light of concerns about 

interference between amateur 

operations and vehicular radars, the 

Commission imposed (and, more 

recently, maintained) a suspension of 

the amateur-satellite service allocation 

in the 76–77 GHz band. 

Level Probing Radar 

22. An additional permitted operation 

in the 77–81 GHz band is that of level 

probing radars (LPRs) which operate on 

an unlicensed basis under part 15. LPRs 

are used to measure the amount of 

various materials contained in storage 

tanks or vessels or to measure water or 

other material levels in outdoor 

locations. They are typically mounted 

inside storage tanks or on bridges or on 

other elevated structures in outdoor 

locations, and emit radio frequency (RF) 

signals through an antenna aimed 

downwards to the surface of the 

substance to be measured. The 

Commission recently concluded that 

LPR devices would be able to co-exist 

successfully with vehicular radars. It 

based its conclusion on the nature of 

LPR equipment, which is installed in a 

downward-looking position at fixed 

locations, and because the main-beam 

emission limits have been carefully 

calculated to avoid harmful interference 

to other radio services. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

23. The Commission undertakes this 

proceeding to expand the available 

spectrum for radar operations in the 76– 

81 GHz band. Specifically, it proposes 

to add rules for radars in the 76–81 GHz 

band as licensed services under part 95 

of our rules. In doing so, the 

Commission recognizes that the 

millimeter wave bands support 

numerous beneficial services and 

incumbent operations, including 

vehicular radars, radio astronomy, FOD 

detection radars, level probing radars 

and amateur applications, and that this 

frequency band could host other 

additional applications in the future. 

The following discussion addresses the 

compatibility issues among services and 

proposes rules to authorize vehicular 

radars, FOD detection radars, fixed 

infrastructure radars and aircraftmounted radars in the 76–81 GHz band. 

As with other spectrum users, the 

Commission seeks to promote the 

efficient use of these resources by radar 

applications. 

Vehicular Radar 

24. The Commission recognizes that 

the usage of vehicular radar applications 

has continued to grow and evolve since 

the Commission issued the Vehicular 

Radar R&O, and that providing 

expanded access to the 76–81 GHz band 

could help those applications deliver 

important public benefits. Therefore, the 

Commission has set forth, a compressive 

approach for authorizing vehicular 

radars in the 76–81 GHz band while 

maintaining a view to ensuring an 

efficient use of spectrum by radar 

applications. 

25. The Commission’s proposals are 

informed in large part by the Bosch 

petition, which was filed on behalf of 

the ‘‘79 GHz Project’’—an industrybacked group that seeks to make the 77– 

81 GHz frequency range available for 

short-range automotive radar systems on 

a worldwide basis. In its petition, Bosch 

describes the development of shortrange radar (SRR) applications that are 

used for both active and passive 

automotive safety applications. 

According to Bosch, SRR active safety 

applications include ‘‘stop and follow,’’ 

‘‘stop and go,’’ autonomous braking, 

firing of restraint systems and 

pedestrian protection. Passive safety 

applications include obstacle and 

pedestrian avoidance, collision warning, 

lane departure warning, lane change 

aids, blind spot detection, parking aids 

and airbag arming. Collectively, 

collision-warning systems, vehicle 

environmental sensing systems, and 

other SRR applications are referred to as 

a ‘‘safety belt’’ for vehicles. As a 

practical matter, these applications offer 

new and tangible ways to enhance the 

safety of the Nation’s drivers, and to 

meet important automotive safety 

objectives. 

26. The Commission proposes to 

make additional spectrum available for 

vehicular radars to accommodate the 

new SRR applications. As an initial 

matter, Bosch contends that sharing 

studies conducted by the automotive 

industry have concluded that sharing is 

not achievable between the LRR systems 

that are currently deployed in the 76– 

77 GHz band and new high-resolution 

SRR applications, due to foreseeable 

saturating interference from LRRs into 

SRRs (but not vice-versa). Bosch claims 

that in such a co-channel environment, 

the SRRs would be jammed due to the 

lack of frequency separation. Bosch 

further notes that the 76–77 GHz band 

has already been designated for 

vehicular and infrastructure radar 

systems in the United States pursuant to 

§ 15.253, and in Europe pursuant to ECC 

Decision ECC/DEC/(02)01 on Road 

Transport and Traffic Telematic (RTTT) 

systems, and is used for such LRR 

applications as Adaptive Cruise Control 

(ACC) systems, with a maximum 

bandwidth of 1 gigahertz. For these 

reasons, it asserts that a common band 

between the two systems is not feasible, 

and that the Commission should 

identify alternate spectrum for SRR use. 

27. Bosch identifies a 4 gigahertzwide band in the 77–81 GHz range for 

SRR applications. Other automotive 

interests support Bosch’s request. They 

argue that the existing LRR systems 

must be supplemented by a wider 

bandwidth segment of up to 4 gigahertz 

for SRRs to perform effectively. They 

contend that greater bandwidth leads to 

better range separation and object 

discrimination that enables SRRs to 

implement functions such as 

pedestrian/automotive collision 

avoidance, side impact warning, and 

roadwork avoidance. Trex, however, 

urges the Commission to examine 

closely the need for 4 GHz of bandwidth 

for automotive radars in the context of 

ensuing efficient and flexible use of our 

spectrum resources, and asks that in 

addressing Bosch’s request, the 

Commission also ensure that any rules 

that it adopts do not unreasonably 

restrict additional, valuable uses of the 

band. The Commission seeks comment 

on how the FCC can accommodate SRR 

applications while ensuring efficient 

and flexible use of spectrum by radar 

applications. 

28. The Commission finds merit in 

Bosch’s request, and proposes to grant 

SRR applications access to additional 

spectrum apart and distinct from the 

spectrum currently used for LRR. In 

particular, the Commission proposes to 

provide up to 4 gigahertz of bandwidth 

for SRRs so that these radars can gather 

information about objects with a 

sufficient resolution. Moreover, the 

extensive catalogue of enhanced 

features supported by SRR and the 

expectation that their deployment will 

become more widespread suggests that 

the public interest would be served by 

providing SRR with expanded access to 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12124 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the 77–81 GHz band. Given that the LRR 

applications use a narrower bandwidth 

than that used by SRR applications, the 

SRR applications will have a lower 

transmit power density level than that 

for LRR applications and therefore will 

have low likelihood for causing any 

potential interference. The Commission 

seek comment on these observations. 

29. The Commission also believes that 

the spectrum identified by Bosch—the 

77–81 GHz band—is a good fit for 

vehicular radar. At these millimeter 

wave frequencies, radio propagation 

losses increase more rapidly with 

distance than at lower frequencies and 

antennas that can narrowly focus 

transmitted energy are practical and of 

modest size. While the limited range of 

such transmissions might appear to be 

a major disadvantage for many 

applications, it does allow the reuse of 

frequencies within very short distances 

and, thereby enables a higher 

concentration of transmitters to be 

located in a geographic area than is 

possible at lower frequencies. This 

characteristic makes the band especially 

desirable as vehicular radars become 

more common throughout the 

transportation ecosystem. Moreover, 

these frequencies are adjacent to the 76– 

77 GHz band, which has already proven 

to be well suited for LRR applications. 

Because manufacturers can adapt 

equipment already designed to operate 

in the 76–77 GHz band, they will enjoy 

the benefits of expanded radar use at a 

lower cost than if they had to design 

equipment for a different non-adjacent 

band. 

30. As Bosch notes in its petition, 

permitting vehicular radars throughout 

the 76–81 GHz band can also support 

industry efforts to consolidate vehicular 

radar into an internationally 

harmonized frequency band. Materials 

prepared by the 79 GHz project indicate 

that the 77–81 GHz band is already 

available for SRR applications in many 

parts of the world, including Europe, 

Australia, Russia, and Chile, and is in 

progress in many others. Bosch and 

Continental further note that the 2015 

World Radio Communication 

Conference is expected to adopt an 

allocation to support the operation of 

vehicular radars in the 76–81 GHz range 

on a worldwide basis. In response to the 

Bosch petition, several commenters 

contend that global spectrum 

harmonization of LRRs at 76–77 GHz 

and SRRs at 78–81 GHz will reduce 

prices and will encourage deployment 

of automotive radars in lower-cost 

vehicles. Lastly, the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA), in prior matters 

regarding vehicular radars operating in 

the 24 GHz band, encouraged us to 

continue to monitor technology 

advancements in the 77–81 GHz range 

and committed to ‘‘work with the 

Commission to ensure that an adequate 

frequency allocation in the 77–81 GHz 

band is available for the operation of 

vehicular radar systems.’’ 

31. The Commission believes that 

new proposed radar operations will be 

compatible with incumbent operations 

in the 76–81 GHz band. As a general 

matter, the same technical principles 

that already allow successful shared 

operation in the 76–77 GHz band should 

apply in the larger 76–81 GHz range. 

32. In the Vehicular Radar R&O, the 

Commission has already established 

that vehicular radars and RAS are 

compatible in the 76–77 GHz band. In 

that proceeding, it noted that the 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 

sponsored a study documenting 

measurements performed jointly by 

representatives from the radio 

astronomy community and several 

vehicular radar manufacturers in which 

vehicular radar emissions were 

measured in the 77–80 GHz range. Tests 

performed in the study with stationary 

short range vehicular radar systems, 

positioned at distances of 1.7 km and 

26.9 km from the University of 

Arizona’s 12 Meter millimeter wave 

telescope, demonstrated that these 

radars could have a significant impact 

upon radio astronomy observations in 

the 77 to 81 GHz region. The Joint Study 

concludes that a zone of avoidance of 

about 30 to 40 km around a mm-wave 

observatory would be needed, in order 

to keep interference from a single 

vehicle below the threshold defined in 

ITU–R RA.769–2. It further concludes 

that smaller zones of avoidance might 

suffice in areas without direct line of 

sight to the radio telescope and/or by 

taking mitigation factors into account. 

The study acknowledged that mitigation 

factors, such as terrain shielding, 

orientation of the vehicular radar 

transmitter antenna with respect to the 

observatory, or attenuation of the 

vehicular radar transmitter if mounted 

behind the vehicle bumper, were not 

taken into account and would tend to 

reduce the distance at which 

interference could occur. Commenters 

offered mixed views on the interference 

issue; however, none offered specific 

reasons to refute the conclusions in the 

study. The Commission therefore seeks 

comment on the conclusions of the 

study and how the results of the study 

would impact a proposal to adopt 

technical requirements for the entire 

76–81 GHz band similar to the existing 

vehicular radars operating in 76–77 GHz 

band. How can mitigation factors be 

used to reduce interference to radio 

observatories? The Commission invites 

interested parties to comment on the 

potential for such interference. In 

particular, it invites interested parties 

who believe that the NSF study does not 

accurately describe the potential for 

such interference to submit evidence in 

the record sufficient to support their 

arguments. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the potential for 

interference resulting from vehicular 

radars in the 76–77 GHz band is likely 

to be similar to or different from the 

potential for such interference in the 

entire 76–81 GHz band. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the mitigation factors identified in the 

study should be implemented for 

vehicular radars. 

33. The Commission also believes that 

vehicular radar use in the expanded 

frequency range of 77–81 GHz will be 

compatible with FOD detection radars 

and LPR devices in that range. Although 

the Commission discusses proposals to 

expand the use of FOD detection radars 

in detail, it tentatively concludes here 

the same principles that informed our 

conclusion in the Vehicular Radar R&O 

that these uses are compatible in the 76– 

77 GHz band also apply in the 77–81 

GHz band. The Commission believes 

that the limited geographic usage of 

FOD detection radars (i.e. at airports and 

not illuminating public roadways) along 

with the propagation characteristics of 

the millimeter wave band yields 

negligible risk of interference potential 

between vehicular and FOD detection 

radars. In the expanded 76–81 GHz 

frequency range, the Commission 

similarly believes that LPR devices will 

be able to continue to co-exist with 

vehicular radars. LPR equipment is 

installed in a downward-looking 

position at fixed locations and the mainbeam emission limits have been 

carefully calculated to avoid receiving 

or causing harmful interference to other 

radio services. The Commission seeks 

comment on these observations and 

tentative conclusions. 

34. In its petition, Bosch states that it 

expects no interference issues between 

Amateur Radio operation and vehicular 

radar operations at 77–81 GHz. It notes 

that it is unconvinced after several 

meetings with the technical staff of 

ARRL that there is any ‘‘significant 

incompatibility’’ and describes how 

amateur operations in the band ‘‘tend to 

be largely experimental, occurring in 

geographic areas such as mountaintops 

and other rural areas where motor 

vehicle operation is not typical.’’ 

However, the Commission has 

previously recognized evidence of 

potential interference conflicts between 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12125 

the amateur-satellite service and 

vehicular radar systems in the 76–77 

GHz band. Given that similar 

propagation characteristics exist 

throughout the millimeter wave band 

frequencies, there appears to be the 

potential for similar compatibility issues 

to exist between the amateur-satellite 

service and vehicular radar systems 

above 77 GHz. The Commission seeks to 

expand its record on the compatibility 

between amateur and vehicular radar 

services. In particular, are there any 

mitigation strategies for compatibility 

between the two services? Are there any 

additional interference or compatibility 

studies that may exist on the subject? 

The goal is to adopt rules that address 

amateur use, including amateur satellite 

use, within the 76–81 GHz band in a 

comprehensive and consistent manner. 

35. In its proposal, Bosch suggests 

that the Commission support SRR in the 

77–81 GHz band by modifying our 

existing part 15 rules. Because the 

existing vehicular radars are governed 

under our rules for unlicensed devices, 

they may not cause interference to 

licensed services, and must accept 

interference from both licensed and 

unlicensed users. For reasons discussed 

in more detail below, this regulatory 

structure may not be the most 

appropriate fit. Nevertheless, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

proposal. 

36. The Commission is proposing an 

approach by which it would establish 

vehicular radars as a service licensed by 

rule within part 95 of its rules under a 

radiolocation allocation, but also seek 

comment on other options, including 

authorizing an expansion of vehicular 

radars under the current part 15 model. 

The Commission’s approach in 

proposing to migrate vehicular radar 

services from part 15 to part 95 of its 

rules is based on several factors. A 

licensed approach would make the 76– 

81 GHz vehicular radar services 

consistent with other transportationrelated services currently operating 

under parts 90 and 95 of the rules—in 

particular, the 5.9 GHz Dedicated Shortrange Communication (DSRC) services, 

a Department of Transportation 

initiative to integrate communication 

and information technology to advance 

transportation systems. Additionally, 

Bosch, in its petition, states that SRRs 

in the 79 GHz band ‘‘require a certain 

(albeit low) degree of interference 

protection in order to function 

adequately.’’ A unified licensed 

approach for all vehicular radars under 

our part 95 rules can offer a level of 

interference protection that the part 15 

rules cannot provide. While the 

Commission notes that Bosch proposes 

modifying only the existing part 15 

rules to support vehicular radar 

applications, it does not anticipate any 

opposition from Bosch for a licensing 

approach under the part 95 rules. 

Finally, in light of these considerations 

and the ongoing work to adopt an 

international allocation to support the 

operation of vehicular radars in the 76– 

81 GHz range on a worldwide basis, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

licensing by rule, pursuant to part 95, 

the proposed 77–81 GHz vehicular radar 

services the Commission proposed and 

on migrating existing 76–77 GHz 

vehicular radar services to part 95 of the 

s rules. In particular, the Commission 

seeks comment on any benefits or 

drawbacks such an approach would 

provide and whether it would be 

appropriate to continue to authorize 

vehicular radars on an unlicensed basis. 

37. The Commission’s Personal Radio 

Services rules, codified in part 95, 

provide for a variety of personal 

communications, radio signaling, and 

business communications. In addition, 

many of these services are licensed by 

rule—that is, a user is not required to 

obtain an individual license document 

and is instead authorized to operate so 

long as it does so in accordance with the 

applicable service rules. Radio services 

licensed in this manner—such as the 

Family Radio Service and the Wireless 

Medical Telemetry Service—are 

typically designed to support a 

particular type of application (e.g. voice 

communication or telemetry), and its 

users must cooperatively share use of 

the spectrum. The Commission believes 

such an arrangement is a good match for 

vehicular radars—especially because it 

would likely be impractical to 

individually license users (e.g. each 

vehicle owner or driver) and because 

the nature of the millimeter wave band 

makes it possible for LRR and SSR 

vehicular radars to share use of the 

band. Accordingly, the Commission 

proposes to modify part 95 of our rules 

to incorporate the range of frequencies 

available to vehicular radars under a 

new 76–81 GHz Band Radar Service. In 

addition, by making vehicular radars 

authorized as a licensed service, the 

Commission would also promote greater 

regulatory parity with other radar 

applications, including the FOD 

detection radars and other types of 

radars that it discusses in detail in the 

following text, in the band. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

38. Under the proposed rules, the 

Commission would adopt the same 

emission limits as those defined in its 

rules for unlicensed vehicular radars in 

the 76–77 GHz band for the entire 76– 

81 GHz band, and to likewise adopt 

technical specifications that mirror 

those currently provided under the 

Commission’s part 15 rules for the 

newly expanded radar band. The 

Commission does not propose to 

distinguish between SRR and LRR 

operations in our rules, but instead rely 

on the market to determine the 

appropriate portions of the 76–81 GHz 

band for particular types of vehicular 

radar applications. As noted in the 

Bosch petition, as well as the related 

comment record, it already appears that 

there is widespread industry consensus 

on locating new SRR applications above 

77 GHz. The Commission seeks 

comment on the applicability of these 

rules for both SRR and LRR across the 

76–81 GHz band. Commenters that 

advocate different rules should provide 

detailed technical analyses showing 

how their preferred rules will provide 

for both SRR and LRR in the band as 

well as minimize any potential harmful 

interference with other services. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on our proposal not to specify 

specific portions of the band for SRR 

and LRR, but instead to rely on the 

market and the standards process to 

determine the best use of the available 

bandwidth. The Commission is 

proposing to upgrade the allocation 

status of the radiolocation service in the 

77.5–78 GHz band. Currently the radio 

astronomy and space research (space-toEarth) services are allocated on a 

secondary basis in the 77.5–78 GHz 

band. Should the radio astronomy and 

space research services also be upgraded 

to a primary allocation status in the 

77.5–78 GHz band? 

39. To support the expanded 

frequency range for vehicular radar use, 

the Commission proposes to allocate the 

77.5–78 GHz band segment to the 

radiolocation service on a co-primary 

basis for Federal and non-Federal use. 

This would result in a co-primary 

allocation throughout the entire 77–81 

GHz band. The Commission seeks 

comment on this allocation proposal. 

40. Alternatively, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether vehicular 

radars should continue to operate as 

unlicensed devices under the part 15 

rules. And, if so, whether FOD detection 

devices and other radar applications 

should be authorized in a consistent 

manner. Given anticipated extensive use 

of this spectrum, would band sharing 

under an unlicensed approach without 

any assurance of protection from 

harmful interference under the rules? 

What would be the relative benefits and 

disadvantages of unlicensed operation 

compared with the license-by-rule 

approach under part 95 or with the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12126 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

individual station licensing under part 

90? The Commission seeks comment on 

our proposals and these alternatives. 

41. Lastly, the Commission proposes 

to consolidate future vehicular radar use 

into the new 76–81 GHz band as part of 

our effort to ensure spectrally efficient 

use of resources. Currently, vehicular 

radars may operate on an unlicensed 

basis in the 16.2–17.7 GHz, 23.12–29.0 

GHz, 46.7–46.9 GHz, and 76–77 GHz 

bands. Continental, in its comments 

supporting the Bosch petition, notes 

that the use of the 24 GHz band for 

vehicular radars is being phased out in 

Europe and that ‘‘the effect of the 

cessation of the use of that band in 

Europe will strongly affect availability 

of 24 GHz radars in the United States in 

the near term.’’ In addition, the 

Commission’s records indicate no 

certifications in the 16.2–17.7 GHz and 

46.7–46.9 GHz bands, and only three 

certifications in the 23.12–29 GHz band. 

This record suggests that there is little 

or no use of vehicular radars outside the 

24 GHz and 76–77 GHz bands. 

42. The Commission proposes to 

grandfather, for the life of the 

equipment, vehicular radars that are 

already installed or in use in the 22–29 

GHz band range. It may be financially 

burdensome and logistically difficult for 

automobile owners to upgrade existing 

equipment; alternately, discontinuing 

the use of these radars would mean that 

drivers might not be able to repair 

existing equipment or might have to 

forego useful safety features. The 

Commission intends to prohibit the 

certification of new vehicular radars 

that do not operate in the 76–81 GHz 

range, effective 30 days from the date of 

publication of our final rules in the 

Federal Register. However, the 

Commission also believes that the 

ultimate transition of SRR applications 

from 22–29 GHz band to 77–81 GHz is 

best driven by the marketplace. If not, 

the Commission seeks comment as to 

how should the life cycle of SRRs 

operating in the 22–29 GHz band be 

taken into account in facilitating the 

transition of these radars to the 77–81 

GHz band. The Commission also seeks 

comment on what appropriate methods 

of making a determination should be 

considered to set forth reasonable 

periods of time required for market 

place to make the 77–81 GHz band SRR 

readily available. To implement its 

proposal, the Commission intends to 

modify Sections 15.37, 15.252, 15.253, 

and 15.515, as shown in the attached 

rules appendix. In addition, given that 

there appears to be no equipment 

certified to operate in the 16.2–17.7 GHz 

and 46.7–46.9 GHz bands, should the 

Commission instead delete the portions 

of those rules that relate to vehicular 

radars in those bands? 

FOD Detection Radar 

43. As previously mentioned, FOD at 

airports includes any substance, debris, 

or object in a location that can damage 

aircraft or equipment. FOD detection 

radars currently operate under part 15 

and under part 90 of the Commission’s 

rules in the frequency bands 76–77 GHz 

(unlicensed) and 78–81 GHz (licensed) 

respectively. However, the Commission 

only recently authorized and not yet 

established technical rules for licensed 

FOD detection radar operation under 

part 90. 

44. The Commission proposes to 

consolidate the FOD detection radar 

operations in the 76–81 GHz band under 

part 95 on a non-exclusive licensed 

basis. Also, with the introduction of 

specific technical requirements for these 

applications, the burden to facilitate 

coordination for these applications will 

be reduced. This proposal will afford an 

additional one gigahertz of spectrum 

(77–78 GHz), for these important 

applications. By providing a contiguous 

band of spectrum for FOD detection 

radars, the Commission can foster the 

development of technologically 

improved and cost-effective safety 

measures that will benefit both airport 

personnel and the general public. The 

76–81 GHz band is well suited for FOD 

detection radar functions, including 

real-time monitoring of the position and 

shape of the foreign objects debris on 

the runways and taxiways. 

45. As an initial matter, the 

Commission believes that the rationale 

for concluding that increased vehicular 

radar operations can be expanded 

throughout the 76–81 GHz band and 

such operations can co-exist with FOD 

detection radars is broadly applicable. 

In other words, there is good reason to 

conclude that, if vehicular radars can 

co-exist with FOD detection radars in 

76–77 GHz band, then both vehicular 

radars and FOD detection radars 

operating under the part 95 rules will be 

able to operate successfully throughout 

the 76–81 GHz band. Furthermore, the 

Commission believes that our proposal 

will not increase the interference 

potential to any other authorized 

services operating in the band. The 

services that the Commission proposes 

to reallocate to the 76–81 GHz band 

typically employ highly directional 

antennas both to detect vehicles or 

objects in a particular area and to 

compensate for the relatively high 

propagation losses over short distances 

at these frequencies. The narrow beams 

utilized by the FOD detection radars, 

the geographic location of operations, 

and the very high path losses in this 

region of the spectrum, should mitigate 

any potential interference. The location 

of FOD detection radars should prevent 

them from illuminating public roads, 

and should further reduce any 

likelihood of interference to vehicular 

radars while enabling airports to 

improve debris detection on the 

runways. 

46. Our proposal would result in all 

radar applications operating in the 76– 

81 GHz range—including vehicular 

radars and mobile and fixed radars used 

at airport only for FOD detection and for 

monitoring aircraft and airport service 

vehicles—being governed by a single 

new subpart in part 95. This approach 

will promote spectrum efficiency and 

maximize the shared use of our 

spectrum resource, while also providing 

a comprehensive and consistent set of 

rules and policies to govern each of the 

different types of radar applications. In 

the case of FOD detection radars, it 

reduces the application and licensing 

burdens that will be associated with 

operation in the 78–81 GHz band under 

the part 90 model, and it offers the 

simplicity of operation under a singular 

licensing model. Also, the limited 

geographic use area and limited number 

of FOD detection radars alleviates any 

burdens associated with the sharing of 

spectrum. Thus, the Commission 

believes that the benefits in the unified 

licensing of FOD detection radars under 

part 95 outweigh any burdens. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposals. 

47. The Commission proposes to 

grandfather, for the life of the 

equipment, FOD detection radars that 

are already installed or in use in the 76– 

81 GHz band range. The Commission 

intends to prohibit the certification of 

new FOD detection radars, operating in 

the 76–81 GHz range, under part 90 of 

our Rules effective April 6, 2015. The 

Commission seeks comment on its 

proposals. 

Fixed Radar 

48. The Commission proposes to 

adopt rules that would permit fixed 

radar infrastructure applications as 

discussed below. Fixed infrastructure 

radars can detect locations of stopped 

vehicles or pedestrians on roads, 

provide obstacle detection capability for 

industrial machinery including port 

cranes, mining trucks and locomotives, 

and provide security monitoring for 

government and public infrastructures. 

As previously mentioned, Navtech filed 

a petition for partial reconsideration 

asking the Commission to reconsider its 

decision that limited the use of fixed 

infrastructure radars in the 76–77 GHz 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12127 

band to airports only. The Commission’s 

proposal largely tracks the issues 

Navtech raised in its petition. 

49. In the Vehicular Radar NPRM, the 

Commission stated that the proposal to 

limit fixed radar operations to specific 

locations such as airports or other 

places where fixed radars would not 

illuminate public roads may be overly 

restrictive and could cause unnecessary 

burdens to the public if implemented. 

The Commission stated that fixed radars 

operating at the same maximum power 

levels as vehicular-mounted radars 

would be even less likely to interfere 

with the RAS and Radiolocation 

services than vehicle-mounted radars 

because the locations where they are 

used would not change. The 

Commission stated that fixed radars 

should be able to co-exist with vehicular 

radars because they both operate with 

the same power level and use antennas 

with narrow beam-widths, thus 

reducing the chances that the signal 

from one radar would be within the 

main lobe of the receive antenna of the 

other. In a worst-case scenario, where 

two radars are aiming directly at each 

other, fixed radar should have no more 

impact on vehicular radar then that by 

another radar located on a stationary 

vehicle. The Commission continues to 

believe this is the case. 

50. The Commission’s decision in the 

Vehicular Radar R&O to restrict the use 

of fixed infrastructure radar operation to 

airports was based on the fact that no 

parties had come forward to establish a 

clear demand for fixed radar 

applications beyond airport locations in 

the band and there were no conclusive 

data indicating that there would be 

compatibility between the vehicular and 

fixed radar types. The Commission 

observes that Navtech’s petition for 

partial reconsideration demonstrates 

that that there is demand for fixed 

infrastructure radars beyond airport 

locations. In its petition, Navtech 

describes current and future 

applications of fixed infrastructure 

radars. Examples of such current use 

includes monitoring tunnels or bridges 

for stopped vehicles, providing collision 

warning system for ship-to-shore cranes, 

and providing train detection for 

automatic control functions. Moreover, 

in April 2014, Mantissa Ltd. stated that 

it supported further proceedings 

consistent with the Navtech petition 

because it is interested in deploying 

fixed radar technologies in the United 

States for security applications. 

51. In the Vehicular Radar R&O, the 

Commission stated that it continued to 

believe that vehicular radars should be 

able to share the band with fixed radars 

operating at the same level and thinks 

those observations continue to be 

sound. At that time, the Commission 

noted that there were also no existing 

reports or studies that indicated 

incompatibility between the two types 

of radars. The Commission is unaware 

of any report or study that indicates 

incompatibility between the two types 

of radars, but the it recognizes that the 

record on this matter may still be 

evolving. The limited record that is 

available on this subject does not have 

the support of all interested parties in 

the matter. In the most recent comments 

received by the Commission in response 

to fixed infrastructure radars, the 

automotive industry opposes the use of 

these radars citing interference with 

vehicular radars. The automotive 

industry cites an ongoing study known 

as MOSARIM (More Safety for All by 

Radar Interference Mitigation), which 

suggested that vehicular radars and 

fixed infrastructure radars are 

incompatible due to the interference 

issues. Navtech, on the other hand, 

refutes the study and asserts that it was 

unfairly designed to favor the 

automotive industry. The Commission 

continues to believe that shared use by 

vehicular radars and fixed radars best 

promotes the public interest. 

52. The Commission seeks to update 

the record and is especially interested in 

whether there are interference studies or 

reports indicating compatibility or lack 

thereof between vehicular and fixed 

radars in the 76–77 GHz band. As 

mentioned before, the Commission 

continues to believe that where two 

radars are aiming directly at each other, 

fixed radar should have no more impact 

on a vehicular radar then that from a 

radar located on a stationary vehicle. 

The Commission seeks comment on its 

conclusion and is particularly interested 

in the arguments as to why or why not 

a fixed radar would be more interfering 

than a vehicular radar located on a 

stopped vehicle. 

53. While the Commission seeks 

broad comment on allowing the fixed 

infrastructure radar use within the 76– 

81 GHz range, it also asks commenters 

to address whether fixed infrastructure 

radars should be limited to the 76–77 

GHz band. Because fixed infrastructure 

radars are intended to detect obstacles 

that are relatively large (e.g. pedestrians, 

vehicles, ships), a bandwidth of 1 

gigahertz or less would appear to be 

sufficient for these fixed radars to 

identify the type and presence of such 

obstacles. For these reasons, the 

Commission is proposing to limit 

available bandwidth for fixed radars to 

1 gigahertz and restricting operation to 

the 76–77 GHz band. Alternatively, the 

Commission seeks comment on other 

approaches for accommodating fixed 

radars. Such approaches could include 

permitting fixed infrastructure radars to 

operate in a different one gigahertz 

frequency range between 77–81 GHz 

band, or allowing them in the entire 76– 

81 GHz band but with limited 

bandwidth usage of 1 gigahertz or less 

for any given operation. Our goal here 

is to seek efficient use of the spectrum, 

harmonize global use of the spectrum, 

and facilitate development of 

technologies that serve public interest 

and convenience. 

Aircraft-Mounted Radar 

54. The Commission also seeks 

comment on expanding the use of radar 

in the 76–77 GHz band to provide for 

aircraft-mounted radars used only on 

the ground. This application, also 

referred to by Honeywell as ‘‘wingtip 

radar,’’ is used while aircraft are on the 

ground to prevent and or mitigate the 

severity of aircraft wing collisions while 

planes are moving between gates and 

runways. This matter tracks the issues 

Honeywell first raised in its petition for 

reconsideration in ET Docket No. 10–28. 

55. The Commission believes that 

wingtip radar technologies can provide 

important public benefits. Aircraft 

wingtip collisions, which account for 

approximately 25 percent of all aircraft 

ground accidents, involve substantial 

costs, both in terms of repairs to aircraft 

and ground facilities and in lost time for 

passengers due to flight delays and 

cancellations. Honeywell asserts that 

mitigating the risk of wingtip collisions 

can reduce these costs and improve 

safety for both aviation personnel and 

the travelling public. The use of wingtip 

radar also appears to support National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

safety recommendations regarding the 

use of anti-collision aids on aircraft. 

56. The Commission seeks to develop 

a full record on the compatibility of 

aircraft-mounted radar used only on the 

ground with the other applications in 

the 76–81 GHz band. At the time, 

Honeywell filed its petition, many 

automotive radar supporters expressed 

concern about the potential for 

interference. However, because the 

Commission expects that wingtip radars 

will be used in the same locations as 

FOD detection radars (that is, on airport 

property and, in the case of aircraftmounted radars, only during taxi and 

other ground activities), and because the 

Commission has already tentatively 

concluded that FOD detection radars 

and automotive radars can successfully 

co-exist, it also tentatively concludes 

that aircraft-mounted radars should 

likewise be compatible with vehicular 

radars. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12128 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

57. As an initial matter, the 

Commission notes that there are 

functional differences between the FOD 

detection radar and wingtip radar 

applications that may promote 

compatibility between the two 

operations: wingtip radars can be useful 

during times of aircraft movement, such 

as taxiing between runways and ramp 

areas and while being pushed out of 

gates, while FOD detection appear to 

have high value in runway 

environments and before takeoff and 

landing. Therefore, it may be possible to 

create time and space separation 

between the FOD detection radar and 

wingtip radar application uses to reduce 

the potential for interference. In 

addition, the nature of the millimeter 

wave bands, as the Commission 

discussed supra, allows for extensive 

frequency reuse and can accommodate 

many discrete users. In response to 

Honeywell’s petition, Xsight Systems— 

a manufacturer of FOD detection 

products—stated that it was ‘‘in the 

process of setting up a meeting with 

Honeywell to . . . investigate whether a 

potential for interference exists between 

Xsight’s system and equipment that 

would operate under Honeywell’s 

proposal.’’ The Commission seeks 

further information about the results of 

such discussions, as well as updated 

information about the status of wingtip 

radar product development. 

58. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it would be 

feasible to employ an automatic shut-off 

mechanism for wingtip radars that 

would prevent radar operation any time 

the aircraft is not on the ground. Are 

there existing aircraft components (such 

as altimeters) that could be used in 

conjunction with such a system, and if 

so, how easily could wingtip radar be 

integrated with such devices? Could 

such an automated system be easily 

deployable on all types of aircraft (e.g. 

commercial and personal)? The 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

it should adopt such an automatic shutoff mechanism, if such a mechanism is 

feasible, to protect the radio astronomy 

service from harmful interference that 

could be caused by inadvertent 

operation of a wingtip radar system 

while an aircraft is in flight. For this 

reason, the Commission proposes to 

distinguish wingtip radars from 

vehicular radars in our rules, as aircraft 

should not be considered as vehicles for 

purposes of radar use in the 76–81 GHz 

band. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on any compatibility issues 

with respect to other existing and 

proposed radar uses in the band, as well 

as to amateur radio users. 

59. While the Commission seeks 

broad comment on allowing wingtip 

radar use within the 76–81 GHz range, 

it notes that the wingtip radar may only 

require bandwidth of one gigahertz or 

less to detect obstacles in its path. For 

this reason, the Commission proposes to 

allow wingtip radars to operate with a 

bandwidth of 1 gigahertz in the 76–77 

GHz band. Alternatively, and similar to 

the fixed radar proposals discussed 

above, the Commission seeks comment 

on other ways the it could accommodate 

wingtip radars. Such approaches could 

include permitting wingtip radars to 

operate in a different one gigahertz 

frequency range between 77–81 GHz 

band, or allowing them in the entire 76– 

81 GHz band but with limited 

bandwidth usage of one Gigahertz or 

less over any portion of the band. Our 

overall objective is to promote efficient 

use of the spectrum and facilitate 

development of technologies that will 

improve airport operations and provide 

important benefits to both airport 

personnel and the general public. 

Amateur Radio Use 

60. In conjunction with our efforts to 

develop a comprehensive policy for use 

of the 76–81 GHz band, the Commission 

seeks comment on how it should 

structure future amateur 4 mm band 

use. As background, the Commission 

decided to temporarily restrict amateur 

station access to the 76–77 GHz band in 

1998 to ensure against potential 

interference to what were then newly 

developing vehicular radar systems. The 

Commission observed that amateur 

station transmissions in the 76–77 GHz 

were not significant at the time, 

reasoned that its action would not have 

an immediate impact on amateur 

operators, and stated that it planned to 

revisit the issue later. In 2004, the 

Commission extended the amateursatellite allocation suspension, citing 

interference issues and suggesting that it 

would be useful to consider the 

development of technical sharing 

criteria for the band. Bosch, in its 

petition, does not seek to alter the 

current 76–77 GHz arrangement. 

61. Based on our proposals for new 

vehicular and other radars in the 77–81 

GHz band, the Commission proposes to 

adopt a comprehensive approach for 

amateur radio use on these frequencies. 

Given the continuing lack of technical 

sharing criteria or any other evidence of 

compatibility, should the Commission 

extend the 76–77 GHz amateur 

suspension to the entire 76–81 GHz 

band? If so, should the Commission 

modify the current amateur suspension 

of use of the 76–77 GHz band by 

removing all amateur allocations from 

the 76–81 GHz band? Alternately, 

would it be possible to lift our 

suspension of the amateur service and 

conduct both amateur and vehicular 

radar operations in the entire 76–81 

GHz band? The Commission tentatively 

concludes that there is no apparent 

technical reason to treat the 76–77 GHz 

and the 77–81 GHz bands differently. 

Commenters who believe that the 

Commission should continue to 

distinguish between the two bands 

should explain the reasons for doing so. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether there are other approaches that 

would achieve compatibility between 

the amateur and radiolocation services 

within the 76–81 GHz band that the 

Commission has not discussed above. 

62. Bosch, in its petition, states that 

it ‘‘is unconvinced, after several 

meetings with technical staff of ARRL, 

the national association for Amateur 

Radio, that there is any significant 

incompatibility between Amateur Radio 

and SRR operation at 79 GHz.’’ It says 

the nature of amateur use of this 

spectrum—largely experimental and 

occurring on mountaintops and 

locations where motor vehicle operation 

is not typical—will provide sufficient 

geographic separation to prevent 

interference from amateur users to new 

vehicular radar operations above 77 

GHz. However, Bosch also notes that 

European regulators previously 

determined ‘‘that the use of SRR within 

the band 77–81 may be incompatible 

with the Radio Amateur Service,’’ but 

also concluded that amateur users could 

be accommodated in the 75.5–76 GHz 

band (which is not currently available 

in the U.S.). The Commission seeks 

comment on these points. Additionally, 

to help better inform its decision, the 

Commission seeks to develop a record 

on the types of amateur use, and the 

extent of such use, that is currently 

undertaken in the amateur 4 mm band. 

63. To the extent that commenters 

believe that amateur operators can 

continue to use the millimeter band, the 

Commission seeks comment on what 

additional rule modifications it would 

have to adopt to realize successful 

shared use of the entire band. For 

example, our existing service rules 

would permit amateur operators to 

transmit with significantly higher power 

than other proposed operations. Would 

adopting the same emission limits for 

amateur operations as the Commission 

proposed for other services in this band 

reduce the potential for mutual 

interference? Are there any additional 

conforming edits to the part 97 amateur 

radio service rules that the Commission 

would have to implement? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12129 

64. If, instead, the Commission were 

to remove all amateur allocations from 

the 76–81 GHz range, it seeks comment 

on alternate spectrum that it might be 

able to make available in this general 

region. Bosch recommends an amateur 

allocation at 75.5–76 GHz, arguing that 

such an allocation would permit reaccommodation of any displaced 

Amateur Radio operators as the result of 

aggregate noise from SRRs in the 79 GHz 

band, and harmonize the United States 

Amateur allocation with that in ITU 

Region 1 and in other areas of the world. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

allocating the 75.5–76 GHz band to the 

amateur service if the Commission were 

to remove the amateur allocation, 

including amateur satellite, in the 76–81 

GHz band. 

Service and Technical Rules 

65. The Commission set forth 

proposed rules that would license 

vehicular and FOD detection radars in 

the 76–81 GHz band and aircraftmounted and fixed infrastructure radars 

in the 76–77 GHz band as licensed 

services under part 95 of our rules. The 

Commission also proposes to add a 

primary allocation for radiolocation in 

the 77.5–78 GHz band. The Commission 

proposes technical rules that would be 

appropriate for a part 95 licensed-byrule approach. 

66. In general, the proposed technical 

rules are consistent with those already 

set forth for existing vehicular radar and 

FOD detection radars under part 15 of 

our rules, including that the average and 

peak emission limits for vehicular 

radars in the 76–81 GHz band not to 

exceed 88 mW/cm2 and 279 mW/cm2

respectively, measured at a distance of 

3 meters from the exterior surface of the 

radiating structure. However, as 

discussed, the existing part 15 use is on 

a non-interference basis and may not be 

the best fit for the types of safety related 

applications that the Commission 

envisions being deployed in the 76–81 

GHz range. Under our draft rules, users 

would operate on a licensed basis fully 

supported by a primary radiolocation 

allocation throughout the 76–81 GHz 

range. Authorizing these radars under 

part 95 of our rules will permit licenseby-rule operation pursuant to section 

307(e) of the Communications Act (Act). 

Under this approach, these devices may 

operate on a shared, non-exclusive basis 

with respect to each other and without 

the need for these radar systems to be 

individually licensed. By doing this, the 

Commission can provide for a greater 

range of radar uses while still allowing 

for an easy transition of existing 

equipment to part 95 operation. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposed rules. To the extent 

commenters support either regulatory 

approach, such as unlicensed operation 

under part 15, they should identify any 

rules that need to be modified to 

support the different types of radar 

applications the Commission discuss 

herein. 

67. Because the existing part 95 rules 

do not specify rules for vehicular, FOD 

detection, aircraft-mounted and fixed 

infrastructure radar operations, the 

Commission propose to create a new 

subpart of part 95, titled the 76–81 GHz 

radar service, that will accommodate all 

authorized radar types within the band, 

but that will not otherwise distinguish 

among the different radar types. Our 

proposed service rules are intended to 

facilitate the industry in developing the 

various radar types in their authorized 

specific frequency ranges. For example, 

in the case of vehicular radars, the 

Commission leaves it up to the 

automotive industry to optimize the use 

of the 76–81 GHz frequency band and 

develop the SRR and LRR vehicular 

radar application within the band. 

Alternately, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether distinctive or 

differentiating rules for the different 

radars would be appropriate and if so, 

what those rules should be. 

68. To fully implement our proposal 

to accommodate radars under part 95, 

the Commission also proposes to make 

additional modifications to parts 1, 2, 

15, and 90 of our rules. All of our 

proposed rule modifications are shown 

in this NPRM. The Commission seeks 

comment on all of these proposals, and 

invites commenters to identify any 

additional rules that the Commission 

would need to update to accomplish our 

objectives. 

Reconsideration Order 

69. As part of our comprehensive look 

at shared use of the 76–81 GHz band, 

the Commission has incorporated 

matters that were first raised in 

pleadings filed in ET Docket Nos. 10–28 

and 11–90—namely Honeywell 

Aircraft’s Petition relating to aircraftmounted radar applications and 

Navtech’s Fixed Radar Petition. 

Although the Commission believes that 

there is merit in considering the issues 

raised by Honeywell and Navtech in the 

context of the Vehicular Radar NPRM, 

the Commission concludes that the 

parties underlying petitions in the 

respective dockets should be denied. 

Honeywell Petition 

70. As background, Honeywell first 

submitted a letter to the Office of 

Engineering and Technology seeking 

clarification of the rules adopted in the 

Vehicular Radar R&O, but later refiled 

with the Commission’s Secretary asking 

that it the Commission treat the letter as 

a petition for reconsideration. On 

October 31, 2012, the Commission 

issued a Public Notice treating it as 

such. 

71. Numerous representatives of the 

automotive industry as well as Xsight 

Systems, Inc., filed to oppose the 

Honeywell petition. These parties raised 

procedural arguments—that the issue of 

removing the current prohibition on the 

use of 76–77 GHz frequency range on 

aircraft or satellite was not properly 

raised in the proceeding and is 

otherwise outside the scope of the 

decision—as well as claims that there is 

insufficient evidence that both aircraftmounted and vehicular radars can coexist in the 76–77 GHz band. In 

response, Honeywell claims that the 

issues it raises are within the scope of 

the Commission’s rulemaking 

proceeding, that there is no technical 

reason why aircraft-mounted radar 

cannot operate in the 76–77 GHz band 

while the aircraft is on ground, and that 

there is an urgent and recognized public 

interest need for the anti-collision 

benefits its aircraft-mounted radars can 

provide. 

72. The Commission deny 

Honeywell’s petition. Section 1.429(b) 

of the Commission’s rules provide three 

ways in which a petition for 

reconsideration can be granted, and 

none of these have been met. Honeywell 

has not shown that its petition relies on 

facts regarding fixed radar use which 

had not previously been presented to 

the Commission, nor does it show that 

its petition relies on facts that relate to 

events that changed since Honeywell 

had the last opportunity to present its 

facts regarding fixed radar use. Indeed, 

Honeywell did not previously 

participate in the proceeding before 

filing its letter. Moreover, it does not 

serve the public interest to consider 

Honeywell’s facts and arguments via 

reconsideration of the existing dockets. 

The Commission agrees with the 

commenters who opposed the petition 

that there may be technical and policy 

considerations associated with aircraftmounted radar applications that parties 

could not have reasonably anticipated 

nor had an opportunity to address. Any 

public interest associated with the 

consideration of Honeywell’s arguments 

will be fully captured and considered 

within the new docket that the 

Commission initiates with this 

rulemaking By doing so, it can ensure 

that another aspect of the public interest 

is served—that is, that all interested 

parties have ample notice and comment 

opportunities with respect to the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12130 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1 See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, has been amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

(SBREFA) Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 

857 (1996). 

2 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

3 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

4 On July 25, 2000, Air France Flight 4590 

crashed shortly after take-off from Charles de Gaulle 

Airport outside Paris, France. All one hundred 

passengers and nine crewmembers, plus four 

people on the ground, were killed. The official 

investigation, concluded by France’s Bureau 

Enquetes-Accidents, determined that the 

catastrophic series of events that caused the 

Concorde crash were precipitated when FOD on the 

runway tore a tire, resulting in additional damage 

to the aircraft. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/ 

jan/17/concorde.world. 

5 See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation administration Advisory Circular No. 105/ 

5210–24, http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/ 

media/Advisory_Circular/150_5210_24.pdf 

(hereinafter AC 105/5210–24). 

6 See Aircraft Petition Reply at 4. 

7 See NTSB Mar. 13, 2013 ex parte filing in ET 

Docket No. 10–28 and RM–1190. All newly 

manufactured and newly type-certificated large 

airplanes and other airplane models where the 

wingtips are not easily visible from the cockpit to 

provide a cockpit indication that will help pilots 

determine wingtip clearance and path during taxi. 

The recommendation also requires retrofitting all 

existing airplane models with an anti-collision aid 

where the wingtips are not easily visible from the 

cockpit. 

8 See Fixed Radar Petition at 3–4 

possible use of wingtip radars under our 

rules. 

Navtech Petition 

73. Similarly, the Commission agrees 

with those parties who oppose the 

Navtech pleading as procedurally 

defective. The Commission stated in the 

in the Vehicular Radar R&O that ‘‘no 

parties have come forward to support 

fixed radar applications beyond airport 

locations in this band,’’ and it decided 

not to adopt provisions for unlicensed 

fixed radar use other than those for FOD 

detection applications at airport 

locations. Because Navtech first 

participated in the proceeding when it 

filed its petition well after the decision 

was published, its petition fails to meet 

the timeliness standard of § 1.429(d). 

74. The Commission emphasize that 

our decision does not address whether 

there are substantive merits to these 

claims. Such issues are fully 

incorporated into the proposals the 

Commission makes in conjunction with 

the Vehicular Radar NPRM. 

75. Finally, because the Commission 

is considering several different types of 

radar applications that would share use 

within the millimeter wave bands, and 

because it is proposing a consolidated 

licensing scheme under our part 95 

rules, the Commission concludes that it 

can best promote efficiency and reduce 

administrative burdens by opening a 

new docket, ET Docket No. 15–26. Here, 

the Commission will consider ongoing 

and future matters pertaining to the 

entire 76–81 GHz band in a 

consolidated and comprehensive 

manner. To that end, and in connection 

with its decision to deny the petitions 

for reconsideration discussed above, the 

Commission terminates ET Docket Nos. 

10–28 and 11–90 (pertaining to 

vehicular radar) and WT Docket No. 11– 

202 (addressing FOD detection radar 

applications). The Commission 

concludes that future decisions 

regarding matters that it previously 

considered within those dockets can 

more practically be made within the 

comprehensive ET Docket No. 15–26 

proceeding. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

76. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA),1 the Commission has prepared 

this present Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

small entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Reconsideration Order 

(NPRM). Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines 

specified in the NPRM for comments. 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA).2 In 

addition, the Notice and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register.3

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

77. This Notice responds to petitions 

for rulemaking filed by Robert Bosch, 

LLC (Bosch) requesting modifications to 

§ 15.253 of the rules to extend operating 

frequency for vehicular radar systems 

from 76–77 GHz to the 76–81 GHz band. 

Vehicular radars can determine the 

exact distance and relative speed of 

objects in front of, beside, or behind a 

car to improve the driver’s ability to 

perceive objects under bad visibility 

conditions or objects that are in blind 

spots. Some examples of vehicular radar 

systems include collision warning and 

mitigation systems, blind spot detection 

systems, lane change assist, and parking 

aid systems. The Notice proposes to 

extend the operating frequency for 

unlicensed vehicular radar systems from 

76–77 GHz to 76–81 GHz. These 

modifications to the rules will provide 

more efficient use of spectrum, and 

enable the automotive industries to 

develop enhanced safety measures for 

drivers and the general public. 

78. Airports are challenged with 

managing increasing congestion on the 

ground. These rule modification will 

add to the tools that enhance an 

airport’s ability to determine the 

location of airplanes and airport ground 

vehicles that are operating in taxiways 

and runways. The presence of foreign 

object debris (FOD) in an airport’s air 

operations area (AOA) poses a 

significant threat to the safety of air 

travel. Foreign object debris on taxiways 

and runways has the potential to 

damage aircraft during the critical 

phases of takeoffs and landings, which 

can lead to catastrophic loss of life and 

at the very least increased maintenance 

and operating costs.4 These rule 

modification will help reduce FOD 

hazards through the implementation of 

a FOD management program and the 

effective use of FOD detection and 

removal equipment.5

79. Our rule modifications also 

propose to expand the use of radar in 

the 76–77 GHz band to aircraft-mounted 

radars. This application, also referred to 

as ‘‘wingtip radar’’ and used only while 

aircraft are on the ground, is intended 

to prevent or mitigate the severity of 

aircraft wing collisions while the plane 

is taxiing tarmacs. Mitigating the risk of 

wingtip collisions can reduce costs and 

improve safety for both aviation 

personnel and the travelling public.6

The use of wingtip radar also appears to 

support National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) safety recommendation 

regarding the use of anti-collision aids 

on aircraft.7 Our overall objective is to 

promote efficient use of the spectrum 

and facilitate development of 

technologies that will improve airport 

operations and provide enhance safety 

measures for both airport personnel and 

the general public. 

80. There is new demand for fixed 

infrastructure radar applications beyond 

airport locations. Some of these 

applications are monitoring tunnels or 

bridges for stopped vehicles, providing 

collision warning systems for ship-toshore cranes and providing train 

detection for automatic train control.8 In 

our rule modifications to permit such 

use we seek efficient use of the 

spectrum, harmonize global use of the 

spectrum, and facilitate development of 

technologies that serve public interest 

and convenience. 

B. Legal Basis 

81. This action is authorized under 

sections 1, 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, 

and 337 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 

154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, 337. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12131 

9 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3). 

10 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 11 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

definition of ‘‘small-business concern’’ in the Small 

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

601(3), the statutory definition of a small business 

applies ‘‘unless an agency, after consultation with 

the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration and after opportunity for public 

comment, establishes one or more definitions of 

such term which are appropriate to the activities of 

the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 

Federal Register.’’ 

12 15 U.S.C. 632. 

13 The NAICS Code for this service 334220. See 

13 C.F.R 121/201. See also http://

factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&- 

fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&-ds_

name=EC0731SG2&-_lang=en. 

14 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_

name=EC0700A1&-_skip=4500&-ds_

name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en. 

15 See 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rule Will Apply 

82. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of, the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the rules adopted herein.9 The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ 10 In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act.11 A 

‘‘small business concern’’ is one which: 

(1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA).12

83. Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing. The Census Bureau 

defines this category as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment.’’ 13 The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, which is: all such firms 

having 750 or fewer employees. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2007, there were a total of 939 

establishments in this category that 

operated for part or all of the entire year. 

According to Census bureau data for 

2007, there were a total of 939 firms in 

this category that operated for the entire 

year. Of this total, 912 had fewer than 

500 employees and 17 had more than 

1000 employees.14 Thus, under that size 

standard, the majority of firms can be 

considered small. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

84. Radars operating in the 76–81 GHz 

band are required to be authorized 

under the Commission’s certification 

procedure as a prerequisite to marketing 

and importation, and the NPRM 

proposes no change to that requirement. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

85. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.15

86. The proposals contained in this 

NPRM are deregulatory in nature, which 

we expect will simplify compliance 

requirements for all parties, particularly 

small entities, and permit the 

development of improved radar 

systems. Extending the frequency for 

unlicensed vehicular radar from 76–77 

GHz to 76–81 GHz will enable global 

spectrum harmonization of LRRs at 76– 

77 GHz and SRRs at 77–81 GHz that will 

reduce prices and encourage 

deployment of automotive radars in 

lower-cost vehicles. Consolidating FOD 

detection radars to operate under part 

95 in lieu of current rules will reduce 

unnecessary burdens for the general 

public and will provide increased 

spectrum efficiency. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

87. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

88. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 301, 

302, and 303(f) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

301, 302a, and 303(f), that the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is adopted and 

the Petition for Rulemaking filed by 

Robert Bosch in RM–11666 is granted to 

the extent described herein. 

89. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 

303(e), 303(f), and 405 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 303(e), 

303(f), and 405, the petitions for 

reconsideration filed by Honeywell and 

Navtech in ET Docket Nos. 10–28 and 

11–90 are denied. 

90. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303 

of the Communications Act, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j) and 

303, that ET Docket Nos. 10–28 and 11– 

90 and WT Docket No. 11–202 are 

closed and the proceedings are 

terminated should no petitions for 

reconsideration or applications for 

review be timely filed. 

91. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 

90 and 95 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Radio, Unlicensed services. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 1, 2, 15, 90, and 95 as follows: 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 

151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 

227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452 

and 1455. 

■ 2. Section 1.1307 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1.1307 Actions that may have a 

significant environmental effect, for which 

Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be 

prepared. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Mobile and portable transmitting 

devices that operate in the Commercial 

Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 

20 of this chapter; the Cellular 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12132 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 

22 of this chapter; the Personal 

Communications Services (PCS) 

pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the 

Satellite Communications Services 

pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the 

Miscellaneous Wireless 

Communications Services pursuant to 

part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime 

Services (ship earth stations only) 

pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the 

Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 

4.9 GHz Band Service, or the 3650 MHz 

Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to 

part 90 of this chapter; the Wireless 

Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), the 

Medical Device Radiocommunication 

Service (MedRadio), or the 76–81 GHz 

Band Radar Service pursuant to part 95 

of this chapter are subject to routine 

environmental evaluation for RF 

exposure prior to equipment 

authorization or use, as specified in 

§§ 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter. 

(ii) Unlicensed PCS, unlicensed NII 

and millimeter wave devices are also 

subject to routine environmental 

evaluation for RF exposure prior to 

equipment authorization or use, as 

specified in §§ 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 

15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS 

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 

336, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 4. Section 2.106, the Table of 

Frequency Allocations, is amended by 

revising page 61 to read as follows: 

§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. 

* * * * * 

TABLE OF FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS (EHF) 71–100 GHZ PAGE 61 

International table United States table 

FCC Rule part(s) 

Region 1 table Region 2 table Region 3 table Federal table Non-federal table 

71–74 

FIXED 

FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 

MOBILE 

MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 

71–74 

FIXED 

FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 

MOBILE 

MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 

US389 

Fixed Microwave (101). 

74–76 

FIXED 

FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 

MOBILE 

BROADCASTING 

BROADCASTING-SATELLITE 

Space research (space-to-Earth) 

5.561 

74–76 

FIXED 

FIXED-SATELLITE 

(space-to-Earth) 

MOBILE 

Space research (spaceto-Earth) 

US389 

74–76 

FIXED 

FIXED-SATELLITE 

(space-to-Earth) 

MOBILE 

BROADCASTING 

BROADCASTING-SATELLITE 

Space research (spaceto-Earth) 

US389 

RF Devices (15). 

Fixed Microwave (101). 

76–77.5 

RADIO ASTRONOMY 

RADIOLOCATION 

Amateur 

Amateur-satellite 

Space research (space-to-Earth) 

5.149 

76–77.5 

RADIO ASTRONOMY 

RADIOLOCATION 

Space research (spaceto-Earth) 

US342 

76–77.5 

RADIO ASTRONOMY 

RADIOLOCATION 

Amateur 

Amateur-satellite 

Space research (spaceto-Earth) 

US342 

RF Devices (15). 

Amateur Radio (97). 

77.5–78 

AMATEUR 

AMATEUR-SATELLITE 

Radio astronomy 

Space research (space-to-Earth) 

5.149 

77.5–78 

RADIOLOCATION 

Radio astronomy 

Space research (spaceto-Earth) 

US342 

77.5–78 

AMATEUR 

AMATEUR-SATELLITE 

RADIOLOCATION 

Radio astronomy 

Space research (spaceto-Earth) 

US342 

78–79 

RADIOLOCATION 

Amateur 

Amateur-satellite 

Radio astronomy 

Space research (space-to-Earth) 

5.149 5.560 

78–79 

RADIO ASTRONOMY 

RADIOLOCATION 

Space research (spaceto-Earth) 

5.560 US342 

78–79 

RADIO ASTRONOMY 

RADIOLOCATION 

Amateur 

Amateur-satellite 

Space research (spaceto-Earth) 

5.560 US342 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12133 

TABLE OF FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS (EHF) 71–100 GHZ PAGE 61—Continued 

International table United States table 

FCC Rule part(s) 

Region 1 table Region 2 table Region 3 table Federal table Non-federal table 

79–81 

RADIO ASTRONOMY 

RADIOLOCATION 

Amateur 

Amateur-satellite 

Space research (space-to-Earth) 

5.149 

79–81 

RADIO ASTRONOMY 

RADIOLOCATION 

Space research (spaceto-Earth) 

US342 

79–81 

RADIO ASTRONOMY 

RADIOLOCATION 

Amateur 

Amateur-satellite 

Space research (spaceto-Earth) 

US342 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 2.1091 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory 

text and paragraph (c)(2) to read as 

follow: 

§ 2.1091 Radiofrequency radiation 

exposure evaluation: mobile devices 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) Mobile devices that operate in 

the Commercial Mobile Radio Services 

pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the 

Cellular Radiotelephone Service 

pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the 

Personal Communications Services 

pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the 

Satellite Communications Services 

pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the 

Miscellaneous Wireless 

Communications Services pursuant to 

part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime 

Services (ship earth station devices 

only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; 

the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, 

the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband 

Service pursuant to part 90 of this 

chapter; and the 76–81 GHz Radar Band 

Service pursuant to part 95 of this 

chapter are subject to routine 

environmental evaluation for RF 

exposure prior to equipment 

authorization or use if: 

* * * * * 

(2) Unlicensed personal 

communications service devices, 

unlicensed millimeter wave devices and 

unlicensed NII devices authorized 

under §§ 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), 

and 15.407(f) of this chapter are also 

subject to routine environmental 

evaluation for RF exposure prior to 

equipment authorization or use if their 

ERP is 3 watts or more or if they meet 

the definition of a portable device as 

specified in § 2.1093(b) requiring 

evaluation under the provisions of that 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 2.1093 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation 

exposure evaluation: portable devices. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) Portable devices that operate in 

the Cellular Radiotelephone Service 

pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the 

Personal Communications Service (PCS) 

pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the 

Satellite Communications Services 

pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the 

Miscellaneous Wireless 

Communications Services pursuant to 

part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime 

Services (ship earth station devices 

only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; 

the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, 

the 4.9 GHz Band Service, and the 3650 

MHz Wireless Broadband Service 

pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; and 

the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service 

(WMTS), the Medical Device 

Radiocommunication Service 

(MedRadio), and the 76–81 GHz Band 

Radar Service, pursuant to subparts H, 

I, and M of part 95 of this chapter, 

respectively, and unlicensed personal 

communication service, unlicensed NII 

devices and millimeter wave devices 

authorized under §§ 15.255(g), 

15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this 

chapter are subject to routine 

environmental evaluation for RF 

exposure prior to equipment 

authorization or use. 

* * * * * 

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY 

DEVICES 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 15 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 

307, 336, 544a and 549. 

■ 8. Section 15.37 is amended by adding 

paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows: 

§ 15.37 Transition provision for 

compliance with the rules. 

* * * * * 

(i) Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

DATE OF Federal Register 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] the 

certification of UWB vehicular radars 

that operate in the 22–29 GHz band will 

no longer be permitted. Existing 

equipment may continue to operate in 

accordance with their previous 

certification. 

(j) Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

DATE OF Federal Register 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] the 

certification of field disturbance sensors 

that operate in the 16.2–17.7 GHz, 

23.12–29.0 GHz, 46.7–46.9 GHz and 

76.0–77.0 GHz bands will no longer be 

permitted. Existing equipment may 

continue to operate in accordance with 

their previous certification. 

■ 9. Section 15.252 is amended by 

adding introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 15.252 Operation of wideband vehicular 

radar systems within the bands 16.2–17.7 

GHz and 23.12–29.0 GHz. 

Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

DATE OF Federal Register 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] field 

disturbance sensors that operate in the 

16.2–17.7 GHz and 23.12–29.0 GHz 

bands will no longer be certified. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 15.253 is amended by 

adding introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 15.253 Operation within the bands 46.7– 

46.9 GHz and 76.0–77.0 GHz. 

Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

DATE OF Federal Register 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] field 

disturbance sensors and fixed radars 

that operate in the 46.7–46.9 GHz and 

76.0–77.0 GHz bands will no longer be 

certified. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 15.515 is amended by 

adding introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 15.515 Technical requirements for 

vehicular radar systems. 

Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

DATE OF Federal Register 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] UWB 

field disturbance sensors that operate in 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12134 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the 22–29 GHz band will no longer be 

certified. 

* * * * * 

PART 90–PRIVATE LAND MOBILE 

RADIO SERVICES 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 90 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), 

and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 

303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of 

the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 

Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112–96, 126 Stat. 156. 

§ 90.103 [Amended]. 

■ 13. Section 90.103 is amended by 

removing the last row of the table in 

paragraph (b) and removing paragraph 

(c)(30). 

PART 95–PERSONAL RADIO 

SERVICES 

■ 14. The authority citation for part 95 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 

and 307(e). 

■ 15. Section 95.401 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

Subpart D—Citizens Band (CB) Radio 

Service 

§ 95.401 (CB Rule 1) What are the Citizens 

Band Radio Services? 

* * * * * 

(h) The 76–81 GHz Radar Service. The 

rules for this service are contained in 

Subpart M of this part. The 76–81 GHz 

Radar Service applications include, but 

are not limited to, vehicular radars and 

aircraft-mounted radars used for 

collision avoidance and other safety 

applications, as well as fixed radars 

used for foreign object debris detection 

at airports and for other purposes. 

■ 16. Section 95.601 is amended to read 

as follows: 

Subpart E—Technical Regulations 

§ 95.601 Basis and Purpose. 

This section provides the technical 

standards to which each transmitter 

(apparatus that converts electrical 

energy received from a source into RF 

(radio frequency) energy capable of 

being radiated) used or intended to be 

used in a station authorized in any of 

the Personal Radio Services must 

comply. This section also provides 

requirements for obtaining certification 

for such transmitters. The Personal 

Radio Services are the GMRS (General 

Mobile Radio Service)—subpart A, the 

Family Radio Service (FRS)—subpart B, 

the R/C (Radio Control Radio Service)— 

subpart C, the CB (Citizens Band Radio 

Service)—subpart D, the Low Power 

Radio Service (LPRS)—subpart G, the 

Wireless Medical Telemetry Service 

(WMTS)—subpart H, the Medical 

Device Radiocommunication Service 

(MedRadio)—subpart I, the Multi-Use 

Radio Service (MURS)—subpart J, 

Dedicated Short-Range Communications 

Service On-Board Units (DSRCS– 

OBUs)—subpart L, and the 76–81 GHz 

Radar Service—subpart M. 

■ 17. Section 95.603 is amended by 

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 95.603 Certification required. 

* * * * * 

(i) Each 76–81 GHz Radar Service 

transmitter must be certified. 

■ 18. Section 95.605 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 95.605 Certification procedures. 

Any entity may request certification 

for its transmitter when the transmitter 

is used in the GMRS, FRS, R/C, CB, 

218–219 MHz Service, LPRS, MURS, or 

MedRadio Service following the 

procedures in part 2 of this chapter. 

Dedicated Short-Range Communications 

Service On-Board Units (DSRCS–OBUs) 

must be certified in accordance with 

subpart L of this part and subpart J of 

part 2 of this chapter. 76–81 GHz Radar 

Service transmitters must be certified in 

accordance with subpart M of this part 

and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. 

■ 19. Add § 95.624 to read as follows: 

§ 95.624 76–81 GHz Radar Service 

frequencies. 

Transmitters in the 76–81 GHz Radar 

Service may operate within the 76–81 

GHz frequency band. Specific frequency 

and bandwidth limitations are specified 

in subpart M of this part. 

■ 20. Section 95.631 is amended by 

adding paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 95.631 Emission types. 

* * * * * 

(l) The 76–81 GHz Radar Service is 

governed under subpart M of this part. 

■ 21. Section 95.633 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 95.633 Emission bandwidth. 

* * * * * 

(h) The 76–81 GHz Radar Service is 

governed under subpart M of this part. 

■ 22. Section 95.635 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and table 

of paragraph (b) and adding paragraph 

(g) to read as follows: 

§ 95.635 Unwanted radiation. 

* * * * * 

(b) The power of each unwanted 

emission shall be less than TP as 

specified in the applicable paragraphs 

listed in the following table: 

Transmitter Emission type Applicable paragraphs (b) 

GMRS ............................................ A1D, A3E, F1D, G1D, F3E, G3E with filtering ..................................... (1), (3), (7). 

A1D, A3E, F1D, G1D, F3E, G3E without filtering ................................ (5), (6), (7). 

H1D, J1D, R1D, H3E, J3E, R3E .......................................................... (2), (4), (7). 

FRS ................................................ F3E with filtering ................................................................................... (1), (3), (7). 

R/C: 

27 MHz ................................... As specified in § 95.631(b) ................................................................... (1), (3), (7). 

72–76 MHz ............................. As specified in § 95.631(b) ................................................................... (1), (3), (7), (10), (11), (12). 

CB .................................................. A1D, A3E .............................................................................................. (1), (3), (8), (9). 

H1D, J1D, R1D, H3E, J3E, R3E .......................................................... (2), (4), (8), (9). 

A1D, A3E type accepted before September 10, 1976 ......................... (1), (3), (7). 

H1D, J1D, R1D, H3E, J3E, R3E type accepted before September 

10, 1986.

(2), (4), (7). 

LPRS .............................................. As specified in paragraph (c).

MedRadio ....................................... As specified in paragraph (d).

DSRCS–OBU ................................. As specified in paragraph (f) of this section.

76–81 GHz Radar Service ............ As specified in paragraph (g) of this section.

* * * * * 

(g) The 76–81 GHz Radar Service is 

governed under subpart M of this part. 

■ 23. Section 95.637 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 95.637 Modulation standard. 

* * * * * 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12135 

(g) The 76–81 GHz Radar Service is 

governed under subpart M of this part. 

■ 24. Section 95.639 is amended by 

adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 95.639 Maximum transmitter power. 

* * * * * 

(j) The 76–81 GHz Radar Service is 

governed under subpart M of this part. 

■ 25. Add § 95.641 under the 

undesignated center heading TECHNICAL

STANDARDS to read as follows: 

§ 95.641 76–81 GHz Radar Service 

certification. 

Sections 95.643 through 95.655 do not 

apply to certification of vehicular radar 

devices and fixed radar devices 

operating in the 76–81 GHz Band Radar 

Service. These devices must be certified 

in accordance with subpart M of this 

part and subpart J of part 2 of this 

chapter. 

■ 26. Appendix 1 to Subpart E of part 

95—Glossary of Terms is amended by 

adding the definition of ‘‘Field 

disturbance sensor’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

Appendix 1 to Subpart E of Part 95— 

Glossary of Terms 

* * * * * 

Field disturbance sensor. A device 

that establishes a radio frequency field 

in its vicinity and detects changes in 

that field resulting from the movement 

of persons or objects within its range. 

* * * * * 

■ 27. Add Subpart M to part 95 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart M—The 76–81 GHz Band 

Radar Service 

Sec. 

95.1601 Scope. 

95.1603 Permissible communications. 

95.1605 Station identification. 

95.1607 Station inspection. 

95.1609 Authorized locations. 

95.1611 Information to user. 

95.1613 Frequency use policy. 

95.1615 Technical requirements. 

95.1617 RF safety. 

§ 95.1601 Scope. 

This subpart sets out the regulations 

governing the operation of vehicular 

and fixed radars operating within the 

band 76.0–81 GHz. The following uses 

are permitted: 

In the 76–81 GHz band: vehiclemounted field disturbance sensors used 

as vehicular radar systems; and mobile 

and fixed radar systems used at airport 

locations for foreign object debris 

detection on runways and for 

monitoring aircraft and service vehicles 

on taxiways and other airport vehicle 

service areas that have no public vehicle 

access. In the 76–77 GHz band: Fixed 

radars (other than the type described 

above), and radars that are mounted on 

aircraft and that are operated only while 

the aircraft is on the ground. 

§ 95.1603 Permissible communications. 

The transmission of data is permitted 

provided the primary mode of operation 

is as a field disturbance sensor. Voice 

and video transmissions are prohibited. 

§ 95.1605 Station identification. 

A station is not required to transmit 

a station identification announcement. 

§ 95.1607 Station inspection. 

All 76–81 GHz Band Radar Service 

equipment must be made available for 

inspection upon request by an 

authorized FCC representative. 

§ 95.1609 Authorized locations. 

The operation of a 76–81 GHz Band 

Radar Service transmitter under this 

part is authorized anywhere CB station 

operation is permitted under § 95.405 of 

this part. 

§ 95.1611 Information to user. 

The user’s manual or instruction 

manual for an intentional or 

unintentional radiator shall caution the 

user that changes or modifications not 

expressly approved by the party 

responsible for compliance could void 

the user’s authority to operate the 

equipment. In cases where the manual 

is provided only in a form other than 

paper, such as on a computer disk or 

over the Internet, the information 

required by this section may be 

included in the manual in that 

alternative form, provided the user can 

reasonably be expected to have the 

capability to access information in that 

form. 

§ 95.1613 Frequency use policy. 

(a) The frequencies authorized to 76– 

81 GHz Band Radar Service systems by 

this part are available on a shared basis 

only and will not be assigned for the 

exclusive use of any entity. Users 

should select and use frequencies in a 

manner that mitigates the risk of 

potential interference between 

authorized services. 

§ 95.1615 Technical requirements. 

(a) The fundamental radiated 

emission limits within the band 76–81 

GHz provided in this section are 

expressed in terms of Equivalent 

Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) and are 

as follows: 

(1) The maximum power (EIRP) 

within the bands specified in this 

section shall not exceed 50 dBm based 

on measurements employing a power 

averaging detector with a 1 MHz RBW. 

(2) The maximum peak power (EIRP) 

within the bands specified in this 

section shall not exceed 55 dBm based 

on measurements employing a peak 

detector with a 1 MHz RBW. 

(b) The unwanted emissions outside 

the operating band, 76–81 GHz, shall 

consist solely of spurious emissions and 

shall not exceed the following: 

(1) Radiated emissions below 40 GHz 

shall not exceed the field strength as 

shown in the following emission table: 

Frequency (MHz) 

Field strength 

(microvolts/

meter) 

Measurement 

distance 

(meters) 

0.009–0.490 ............................................................................................................................................................. 2400/F(kHz) 300 

0.490–1.705 ............................................................................................................................................................. 24000/F(kHz) 30 

1.705–30.0 ............................................................................................................................................................... 30 30 

30–88 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 100 3 

88–216 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 150 3 

216–960 ................................................................................................................................................................... 200 3 

Above 960 ................................................................................................................................................................ 500 3 

(i) In the emission table in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, the tighter limit 

applies at the band edges. 

(ii) The limits in the table in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section are based 

on the frequency of the unwanted 

emission and not the fundamental 

frequency. However, the level of any 

unwanted emissions shall not exceed 

the level of the fundamental frequency. 

(iii) The emission limits shown in the 

table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section 

are based on measurements employing a 

CISPR quasi-peak detector except for the 

frequency bands 9.0–90.0 kHz, 110.0– 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12136 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

490.0 kHz and above 1000 MHz. 

Radiated emission limits in these three 

bands are based on measurements 

employing an average detector with a 1 

MHz RBW. 

(2) The power density of radiated 

emissions outside the operating band 

above 40.0 GHz shall not exceed the 

following employing an average detector 

with a 1 MHz RBW: 

(i) For radiated emissions between 40 

and 200 GHz from field disturbance 

sensors and radar systems operating in 

the band 76–81 GHz: 600 pW/cm2 at a 

distance of 3 meters from the exterior 

surface of the radiating structure. 

(ii) For radiated emissions above 200 

GHz from field disturbance sensors and 

radar systems operating in the 76–81 

GHz band: 1000 pW/cm2 at a distance 

of 3 meters from the exterior surface of 

the radiating structure. 

(3) For field disturbance sensors and 

radar systems operating in the 76–81 

GHz band, the spectrum shall be 

investigated up to 231.0 GHz. 

(c) Fundamental emissions must be 

contained within the frequency bands 

specified in this section during all 

conditions of operation. Equipment is 

presumed to operate over the 

temperature range ¥20 to +50 degrees 

Celsius with an input voltage variation 

of 85% to 115% of rated input voltage, 

unless justification is presented to 

demonstrate otherwise. 

§ 95.1617 RF safety. 

Regardless of the power density levels 

permitted under this subpart, devices 

operating under the provisions of this 

subpart are subject to the 

radiofrequency radiation exposure 

requirements specified in §§ 1.1307(b), 

2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter, as 

appropriate. Applications for equipment 

authorization of devices operating under 

this section must contain a statement 

confirming compliance with these 

requirements for both fundamental 

emissions and unwanted emissions. 

Technical information showing the 

basis for this statement must be 

submitted to the Commission upon 

request. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04032 Filed 3–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2007–27748] 

Minimum Training Requirements for 

Entry-Level Drivers of Commercial 

Motor Vehicles: Negotiated 

Rulemaking Committee Meetings 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee 

public meetings. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces the 

meeting schedule for the Entry-Level 

Driver Training Advisory Committee 

(ELDTAC), established to complete a 

negotiated rulemaking on Entry-Level 

Driver Training (ELDT) for individuals 

who want to operate Commercial Motor 

Vehicles (CMVs). ELDTAC is a 

negotiated rulemaking committee 

established to develop a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to 

implement section 32304 of the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

(MAP–21) concerning ELDT standards 

for individuals applying for a 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) or 

CDL upgrade. The meetings will be held 

Thursday–Friday, March 19–20, April 

9–10 and 23–24, and May 14–15 and 

28–29, 2015. The meetings are open to 

the public for their entirety. 

DATES: The meetings will be held 

Thursday–Friday, March 19–20, April 

9–10 and 23–24, and May 14–15 and 

28–29, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Eastern Daylight Time (E.T.), on 

Thursdays and 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., E.T., on 

Fridays at various locations in 

Washington, DC, and Arlington, VA. 

Specific locations and an agenda for 

each meeting will be posted in advance 

of the meetings at http://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/eldtac. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Shannon L. Watson, Senior Policy 

Advisor, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

(202) 366–2551, eldtac@dot.gov. 

Services for Individuals With 

Disabilities: For information on facilities 

or services for individuals with 

disabilities or to request special 

assistance at the meeting, contact Eran 

Segev at (617) 494–3174, eran.segev@

dot.gov, one week prior to each meeting. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Entry-Level Driver Training 

Section 32304 of the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP– 

21) (Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 

6, 2012)) requires FMCSA to establish 

new regulations concerning ELDT. 

MAP–21 requires ‘‘that the training 

regulations address knowledge and 

skills for motor vehicle operation, 

specific requirements for hazmat and 

passenger endorsements, create a 

certificate system for meeting 

requirements, and require training 

providers to demonstrate that their 

training meets uniform standards.’’ The 

new requirements would apply to 

individuals seeking a CDL to operate 

CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5. 

On August 19, 2014 (79 FR 49044), 

FMCSA announced that the Agency 

would explore the feasibility of 

conducting a negotiated rulemaking 

concerning entry-level driver training 

for drivers of CMVs. The Agency 

announced the hiring of a convener to 

speak with interested parties about the 

feasibility of conducting an ELDT 

negotiated rulemaking and requested 

public comments by September 18, 

2014. As part of the first step in this 

process, the convener conducted these 

interviews and submitted a report to the 

Agency on November 26, 2014, 

regarding the feasibility of conducting a 

negotiated rulemaking. The convening 

report is available both in the 

rulemaking docket at FMCSA–2007– 

27748 and on the Internet at 

eldtac.fmcsa.dot.gov. 

On December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73273), 

FMCSA announced its intent to 

establish a negotiated rulemaking 

committee to negotiate and develop 

proposed regulations to implement the 

MAP–21 provision concerning ELDT 

based on the recommendations of the 

convener. On February 12, 2015 (80 FR 

7814), FMCSA announced the 

appointment of members to the EntryLevel Driver Training Advisory 

Committee (ELDTAC) established to 

complete a negotiated rulemaking on 

ELDT for individuals who want to 

operate CMVs. 

ELDTAC 

The ELDTAC is established by charter 

in accordance with the Federal 

Advisory committee Act (FACA), 5 

U.S.C., App. 2. Transportation Secretary 

Anthony Foxx signed the ELDTAC 

charter on January 15, 2015, which 

provides up to 2 years for the 

Committee’s duration, in accordance 

with section 14 of FACA. Additionally, 

as the ELDTAC is a negotiated 

rulemaking committee (‘‘Reg Neg’’), it 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS