Federal Communications Commission FCC  15-16
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 15, 90 and 95 of the
Commission’s Rules to Permit Radar Services 
in the 76-81 GHz Band 
Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules
to Permit the Operation of Vehicular Radar 
Services in the 77-78 GHz Band
Amendment of Sections 15.35 and 15.253 of the 
Commission’s Rules Regarding Operation of Radar 
Systems in the 76-77 GHz Band
Amendment of Section 15.253 of the 
Commission’s Rules to Permit Fixed Use of Radar 
in the 76-77 GHz Band
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Permit 
Radiolocation Operations in the 78-81 GHz Band
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ET Docket No. 15-26
RM-11666
ET Docket No. 11-90
RM-11555
ET Docket No. 10-28
WT Docket No. 11-202
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND RECONSIDERATION ORDER
Adopted:  February 3, 2015 Released: February 5, 2015
Comment Date:  (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
Reply Date:  (45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. With this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Reconsideration Order (Notice), we 
propose to authorize radar applications in the 76-81 GHz band.  We seek 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, we further seek 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.  We take this action in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by Robert Bosch, 
LLC (Bosch)
1
and two petitions for reconsideration of our 2012 Vehicular Radar R&O.
2
                                                     
1
Petition for Rulemaking of Robert Bosch LLC, RM-11666, filed May 15, 2012 (Bosch Petition).  
2
Navtech, Petition for Partial Reconsideration, filed Sept. 5, 2012 (filed under the name “Dennis Farrell”) (Fixed 
Radar Petition) and Honeywell, Petition for Partial Reconsideration, filed Oct. 10, 2012 (Aircraft Petition), ET Docket 
Nos. 11-90 and 10-28.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
2
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. In this Notice, we propose rules that will accommodate the commercial development and 
use of various radar technologies in the 76-81 GHz band under Part 95 of our Rules.
3
  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, we seek 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.
III. BACKGROUND
3. 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.
4
  The 77.5-78 GHz band is allocated to the Amateur and Amateur-
Satellite services on a primary basis and to the Radio astronomy and Space research (space-to-Earth) 
services on a secondary basis.
5
  Discussed further below are primary radiolocation services that are 
allocated in the 76-77.5 GHz and 78-81 GHz bands.  
4. These bands are in the region of the radiofrequency spectrum known as “millimeter 
wave” spectrum.
6
  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.
7
  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.
8
                                                     
3
See 47 C.F.R. Part 95, Part 95 – Personal Radio Services.
4
Amateur operations in the 76-77 GHz band are currently suspended.  See 47 C.F.R § 97.303(s).
5
International footnote 5.149 of Section 2.106 of the FCC’s rules, which applies to the 76-86 GHz frequency range, 
urges Administrations “to take all practicable steps to protect the radio astronomy service from harmful interference.”  
See 47 C. F. R. § 2.106.  
6
The term “millimeter wave” derives from the wavelength of radio signals on frequencies between 30 GHz and 
300 GHz, which ranges between 1 and 10 millimeters.
7
See Millimeter Wave Propagation: Spectrum Management Implications, OET Bulletin No. 70 (July 1997).  See also 
Federal Communications Commission Spectrum Policy Task Force, Report of the Unlicensed Devices and 
Experimental Licenses Working Group, November 12, 2002, at 14.  (available at 
http://transition.fcc.gov/sptf/files/E&UWGFinalReport.pdf).
8
See Millimeter Wave Propagation: Spectrum Management Implications, OET Bulletin No. 70 (July 1997).  See also 
Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Use of Radio Frequencies Above 40 GHz for New 
Radio Applications, ET Docket No. 94-124, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 7078, 7082, para. 8 (1994).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
3
5. 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 our rules. 
9
6. Vehicular Radar.  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.
10
    
7. 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)
11
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.
12
  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.
8. Vehicular radar technology has continued to evolve, and industry has developed more 
enhanced and cost-effective 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.
13
  
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.
14
9. Recently, Bosch filed a petition for rulemaking to modify Section 15.253 of the 
Commission’s rules to expand the operation of unlicensed vehicular radar systems from 76-77 GHz to the 
                                                     
9
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.106, 90.103 and 15.253.  The Commission 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.
10
See Amendment of Parts 2, 15, and 97 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Use of Radio Frequencies Above 40 
GHz for New Radio Applications, ET Docket No. 94-124, First Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 4481, 4490, para. 20. (1995) (40 GHz Report and Order).
11
Amendment of Sections 15.35 and 15.253 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Operation of Radar Systems in the 
76-77 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 11-90, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 26 FCC Rcd 8107 (2011) (Vehicular Radar 
NPRM).
12
See Amendment of Sections 15.35 and 15.253 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Operation of Radar Systems in 
the 76-77 GHz Band, Report and Order, ET Dockets No. 11-90 and 10-28, 27 FCC Rcd 7880, 7885, para. 14 (2012)
(Vehicular Radar R&O).  
13
See, e.g., Continental comments in RM-11666, 3-4, Infineon comments in RM-11666 at 3- 4, Delphi comments in 
RM-11666 at and TRW comments in RM-11666 at 3-4.
14
As discussed infra para. 43, some SRR applications currently exist at 24 GHz, but such use is being phased out 
worldwide.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
4
76-81 GHz band to develop SRR applications.
15
  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.
16
    
10. On July 17, 2012, the Commission issued a public notice seeking comment on Bosch’s 
petition.
17
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.  A 
list of these parties is contained in Appendix A.
11. Millimeter Wave Band Radar Operation at Airports.  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.
18
  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.”
19
  Moreover, the direct maintenance 
costs to airlines caused by FOD have been estimated to be one to four billion dollars per year.
20
  The 
Commission 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.
21
12. 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 Sections 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.
22
13. 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.
23
  During the course of this proceeding, Xsight Systems 
                                                     
15
See Bosch Petition at 1.
16
See Bosch Petition at 4 and Continental comments in RM-11666, at 3.
17
Office of Engineering and Technology Petition for Rulemaking Filed, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 8052 (2012).
18
See Advisory Circular No. 150/5210-24, Airport Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Management, Federal Aviation 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 30, 2010, 5 para. 2.2.  FOD varies in size and form and 
includes a wide range of items such as parts fallen from aircraft; misplaced tools, equipment and supplies; rocks and 
pavement fragments; luggage; and wildlife.  Id., para. 2.2(c).  Dark-colored items, which are difficult to detect visually 
against the tarmac, make up almost half of FOD.  Id.
19
Id. at para. 2.1.
20
See Insight SRI Ltd., “The economic cost of FOD to airlines,” at 9 (2008) (available at http://fod-detection.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/12/the-economic-cost-of-fod.PDF).  Indirect costs (delays, plane changes, fuel inefficiencies, 
etc.) are estimated to be another eleven billion dollars.  Id. 
21
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.106, 15.253, and 90.103.
22
Era Systems Corporation Request for Waiver of Sections 2.803, 15.201 and 15.253 of the Commission’s Rules, 
Order, 24 FCC Rcd 12179 (OET 2009). 
23
Era filed its comments in a general proceeding, CB Docket 09-102, in which the Commission was seeking 
comment of the possible revision or elimination of rules as part of the requirements under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA). As discussed infra, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) decided to 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
5
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.
24
14. Subsequently, as part of the Vehicular Radar NPRM discussed above, 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.
25
  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.
26
15. 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 our 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.
27
  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.
28
  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.
29
  In that Report and Order, the Commission did not adopt technical specifications for 
FOD detection radars.
30
  We address this issue herein.
16. Petitions for Reconsideration.  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.
31
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
treat ERA’s comments as a Petition for Rulemaking, and invited comment on starting a rulemaking 
proceeding to consider ERA’s proposals. Office of Engineering and Technology Seeks Comment on Era 
Systems Corporation’s Proposal to Permit Fixed Ground-Traffic Radar at Airports in 76-77 GHz Band, ET 
Docket No. 10-28, Public Notice, DA 10-127 (rel. Jan. 26, 2010).
24
See Xsight Aug. 1, 2011 ex parte filing in ET Docket No. 10-28.
25
See Vehicular Radar NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 8113, para. 16-17.
26
At the time the Vehicular R&O was adopted, there was no clear demand present for fixed operations at any locations 
other than at airports.  Such use was limited to the purposes of detecting foreign object debris on runways and 
monitoring aircraft and service vehicles on taxiways and other airport vehicle service areas that have no public vehicle 
access (e.g., gate areas).  See also infra para. 17.
27
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Radiolocation Operations in the 78-81 GHz Band, WT Docket 
11-202, Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17476 (2011) (78-81 GHz NPRM).  See also Trex 
Request for Waiver of Section 90.103(b) (filed November 3, 2010).
28
Id.  As part of this decision, the Commission granted a request by Trex for a waiver to permit certification and use of 
FOD detection radars in the band, pending the outcome of proceeding.  The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s 
Mobility Division subsequently clarified the technical parameters of the waiver.  See letter dated Aug. 20, 2012 from 
Scot Stone, Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Randall W. Sifers, available at 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022007326.
29
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Radiolocation Operations in the 78-81 GHz band, WT Docket No. 
11-202, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 10423 (2013) (78-81 GHz Trex R&O).
30
Id., 28 FCC Rcd at 10424, para. 7. 
31
See generally Vehicular Radar R&O.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
6
17. The first petition concerns the scope of fixed infrastructure applications in the 76-77 GHz 
band.
32
  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.
33
  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 we 
reconsider this decision.
34
  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.
35
  In a subsequent ex parte
presentation, Navtech reiterated its claims.
36
18. Second, Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell) asks that we clarify that Section 
15.253(a) of our rules does not prohibit the operation of 76-77 GHz band radar devices located on aircraft 
while the aircraft are on the ground.
37
  Honeywell envisions that its radar application will help aircraft 
avoid collisions with other aircraft, stationary objects, and service vehicles.   
19. 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 aircraft-mounted and vehicular radars can co-exist 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.
38
20. The Commission originally adopted rules to allow use of the 76-77 GHz band, limited to 
vehicle-mounted radars.
39
  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 
                                                     
32
Fixed infrastructure applications include antennas mounted on outdoor or indoor fixed structures, e.g., antennas 
mounted on the building or on a telephone pole.  Some of the examples of fixed infrastructure applications are 
detection of locations of stopped vehicles or pedestrians, detection for industrial machinery including port cranes, 
mining trucks and locomotives, and provide security monitoring for government and public infrastructures. 
33
See Vehicular Radar R&O, 27 FCC Rcd at 7887, para. 21.  Many commenters, at that time, overwhelmingly 
opposed the use of fixed radar applications and suggested that the Commission should wait for the results of ongoing 
analyses and studies regarding the issue of interference between vehicular and fixed radar applications.
34
Fixed Radar Petition. 
35
Commenters argued both that Navtech’s Petition for Partial Reconsideration was untimely and that its fixed 
applications could cause interference to vehicular radars.  See, e.g. Autoliv comments in RM-11555 at 2, MBUSA 
comments in RM-11555 at 6 and TMC comments in RM-11555 at 1-2.  
36
See Navtech, Response to Opposition to Petition, ET Docket Nos. 11-90 and 10-28 and RM-11555, filed Dec. 11, 
2012. 
37
Aircraft Petition.  Honeywell requested that a letter it filed on July 25, 2012, seeking clarification on the prohibited 
use of radars on aircraft, be treated as a petition for reconsideration.  The Commission subsequently opted to treat it as 
such. 
38
See Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration by Honeywell, RM-11555, filed Dec. 18, 2012 (Aircraft 
Petition Reply).
39
See 40 GHz Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 4483, para. 3. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
7
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.
40
21. Radio Astronomy Service.  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.
41
  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.
42
  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 in number, and are not located in close proximity.
43
  
22. Amateur.  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.
44
  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.
45
  
23. Level Probing Radar.  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.
46
  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.
47
  The Commission recently 
concluded that LPR devices would be able to co-exist successfully with vehicular radars.
48
  It based its 
                                                     
40
See Vehicular Radar NPRM and Vehicular Radar R&O.
41
See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.
42
See Vehicular Radar R&O, 27 FCC Rcd at 7885, para. 16.
43
See Vehicular Radar R&O, 27 FCC Rcd at 7887, para. 19.
44
See Amendment of Parts 2, 15, and 97 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Use of Radio Frequencies Above 40 
GHz for New Radio Applications, ET Docket No. 94-124, Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15074, 15076-15077, 
para. 6-9 (1998) (Above 40 GHz Third Report & Order). 
45
See 40 GHz Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 4483, para. 3. See also Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s 
Rules to Realign the 76-81 GHz band and the Frequency Range Above 95 GHz Consistent with International 
Allocation Changes, ET Docket No. 03-102, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 3212, 3218, para. 18 (2004) (76-81 GHz 
Realignment R&O).
46
See 47 C. F. R. § 15.256.
47
Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules To Establish Regulations for Tank Level Probing Radars in the 
Frequency Band 77-81 GHz, ET Docket No. 10-23, Report and Order and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 761, 763, para. 4
(2014) (LPR R&O).
48
Id., 29 FCC Rcd at 774, para. 29.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
8
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.
49
IV. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
24. We undertake this proceeding to expand the available spectrum for radar operations in 
the 76-81 GHz band.  Specifically, we propose to add rules for radars in the 76-81 GHz band as licensed 
services under Part 95 of our rules.
50
  In doing so, we recognize 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 aircraft-mounted radars in the 76-81 GHz band.   As with other spectrum users, 
we seek to promote the efficient use of these resources by radar applications.
25. Vehicular Radar. We recognize 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, we set forth, below, 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.
26. Our proposals are informed in large part by the Bosch petition, which was filed on behalf 
of the “79 GHz Project” – an industry-backed group that seeks to make the 77-81 GHz frequency range 
available for short-range automotive radar systems on a worldwide basis.
51
  In its petition, Bosch 
describes the development of short-range radar (SRR) applications that are used for both active and 
passive automotive safety applications.
52
  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.
53
  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. 
27. Many parties associated with the automotive industry filed comments supporting Bosch’s 
assertions regarding the public benefits associated with new SRR vehicular radar applications.
54
  For 
example, Continental describes how numerous SRR features, such as distance warning, collision warning, 
                                                     
49
Id.  
50
While the proposed allocations we are making in this NPRM may enhance safety for some applications, we clarify 
that the allocations we are proposing are not intended to be used for safety services (e.g., per ITU Radio Regulation 
No. 1.59) and thus are not deserving of any higher priority or greater protection than any other radiolocation service, or 
with respect to any other primary allocated services, in the bands we are addressing in this NPRM.
51
See http://www.79ghz.eu/images/documents/Project_Factsheet_79GHz_v1.0.pdf (describing the 79 GHz Project’s 
objectives).
52
See Bosch Petition at 3.
53
Id.
54
See, e.g. Continental comments in RM-11666 at 3, BMW comments in RM-11666 at 1, Delphi comments in RM-
11666 at 2 and TRW comments in RM-11666 at 2. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
9
collision mitigation backup and parking assistance and lane change assistance will serve to reduce
fatalities and minimize personal injuries associated with vehicular accidents.
55
  
28. We propose 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).
56
  Bosch claims that in such a co-
channel environment, the SRRs would be jammed due to the lack of frequency separation.
57
  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 Section 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 we should 
identify alternate spectrum for SRR use.
58
29. Bosch identifies a 4 gigahertz-wide band in the 77-81 GHz range for SRR applications.
59
  
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.
60
  Trex, however, urges us 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, we also ensure that any rules we adopt do not unreasonably 
restrict additional, valuable uses of the band.
61
  We seek comment on how the FCC can accommodate 
SRR applications while ensuring efficient and flexible use of spectrum by radar applications.
30. We find merit in Bosch’s request, and propose to grant SRR applications access to
additional spectrum apart and distinct from the spectrum currently used for LRR.  In particular, we 
propose 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 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.  We seek comment on these observations. 
                                                     
55
See Continental comments para. 2-3, filed Aug. 3, 2012.  See also Strategic Automotive Radar Frequency Allocation 
Group (SARA) Jan. 2, 2012 ex parte filing in RM-11555, and ET Docket No. 10-28 at 3-4.  SARA cites a number of 
studies in an ex parte filing.  According to these studies, up to 74% of all rear-end collisions can be prevented with the 
use of automatic emergency braking and 20% (i.e. 1.2 million) of passenger car collisions can be avoided by the use of 
forward collision radars.  See also National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Evaluation of an Automotive 
Rear-End Collision Avoidance System DOT HS 810 569” (2006) available at 
http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Human+Factors/Warning+systems+(Forward+Collision,+Lane+Departure).
56
See Bosch Petition at 4.
57
Id.
58
Id.
59
Id.
60
See, e.g., Continental comments in RM-11666 at 4, BMW comments in RM-11666 at 1, Delphi comments in RM-
11666 at 2 and TRW comments in RM-11666 at 2. 
61
See Trex comments in RM-11666 at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
10
31. We also believe 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.
62
  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.
63
  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.
32. 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.
64
  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.
65
  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.
66
  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.
67
  Lastly, the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),
68
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.”
69
                                                     
62
See Millimeter Wave Propagation: Spectrum Management Implications, OET Bulletin No. 70 (July 1997).  See also 
Federal Communications Commission Spectrum Policy Task Force, Report of the Unlicensed Devices and 
Experimental Licenses Working Group, November 12, 2002, at 14 (available at  
http://transition.fcc.gov/sptf/files/E&UWGFinalReport.pdf ).
63
See OET Bulletin No. 70.  See also Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Use of 
Radio Frequencies Above 40 GHz for New Radio Applications, ET Docket No. 94-124, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 7078, para. 8 (1994).
64
See Bosch Petition at 8-11.
65
CSA 79 GHz workshop – country specific implementation (available at 
http://www.79ghz.eu/index.php/documents/public-documents/Presentations/79-GHz-Workshop-Tokyo-October-
2013/).  
66
See Bosch Petition at 9 and Continental comments in RM-11666 at 4.  See also Bosch Petition, at Exhibit A 
(reprinting Resolution 654, which was unanimously adopted at WRC-12 and that proposes the allocation of the 77.5-
78 GHz band to the radiolocation service to support vehicular SRR operations). 
67
Continental comments in RM-11666  at 5.  See also Association of Global Automakers comments in RM-11666 at 2 
(stating “[i]nternational harmonization of frequency allocations for short range vehicular radar applications would 
reduce manufacturing costs for such systems, facilitating more widespread use of these life-saving technologies”).
68
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Department of Commerce, is
an Executive Branch agency.  NTIA’s activities include managing the Federal use of spectrum and advising the 
President on telecommunications and information policy issues.  See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/about.
69
See comments of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in ET Docket No.98-
153, at 22 (filed Jan. 15, 2004).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
11
33. We believe 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. 
34. In the Vehicular Radar R&O, the Commission has already established that vehicular 
radars and RAS are compatible in the 76-77 GHz band.
70
  In that proceeding, we 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.
71
  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.
72
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.
73
   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.
74
  Commenters offered mixed views on the interference issue; however, none offered specific 
reasons to refute the conclusions in the study.
75
  We therefore seek 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?  We invite interested parties to 
comment on the potential for such interference.  In particular, we invite 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.  We also seek 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, we seek comment on 
whether the mitigation factors identified in the study should be implemented for vehicular radars.  
35. We also believe 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 we discuss 
proposals to expand the use of FOD detection radars in detail, below, we tentatively conclude 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
76
also apply in the 77-81 GHz band.  We believe that the limited geographic usage 
of FOD detection radars (i.e. at airports and not illuminating public roadways) along with the propagation 
                                                     
70
See Vehicular Radar R&O, 27 FCC Rcd at 7885, para. 15.
71
National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Electronics Division Technical Note No. 219, Measurements of Automotive 
Radar Emissions Received by a Radio Astronomy Observatory (December 8, 2011) (Joint Study).  This Joint Study is 
available at http://www.gb.nrao.edu/electronics/edtn/edtn219.pdf.  See also Letter from Karl B. Nebbia, Associate 
Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to 
Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission (June 11, 2012).  
72
See Joint Study at 16.
73
Id.
74
  See Joint Study at 12.
75
Compare Leggett comments in RM-11666 at 2 (describing how interference could occur) with Continental 
comments in RM-11666 at 5-6 (discussing reasons why interference is unlikely to happen).
76
See Vehicular Radar R&O, 27 FCC Rcd at 7888-7889, para. 26.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
12
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, we similarly believe 
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 main-beam emission limits have been carefully 
calculated to avoid receiving or causing harmful interference to other radio services.
77
  We seek comment 
on these observations and tentative conclusions.
36. In its petition, Bosch states that it expects no interference issues between Amateur Radio 
operation and vehicular radar operations at 77-81 GHz.
78
  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.”
79
  However, the 
Commission has previously recognized evidence of potential interference conflicts between the amateur-
satellite service and vehicular radar systems in the 76-77 GHz band.
80
  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.
81
  We seek to expand our 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?  Our 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.
82
37. In its proposal, Bosch suggests that we support SRR in the 77-81 GHz band by modifying 
our existing Part 15 rules.
83
  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, we seek comment on the proposal.    
38. We are proposing an approach by which we would establish vehicular radars as a service 
licensed by rule within Part 95 of our 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.  
Our approach in proposing to migrate vehicular radar services from Part 15 to Part 95 of our rules is 
based on several factors.  A licensed approach would make the 76-81 GHz vehicular radar services 
consistent with other transportation-related services currently operating under Parts 90 and 95 of our rules 
– in particular, the 5.9 GHz Dedicated Short-range Communication (DSRC) services, a Department of 
Transportation initiative to integrate communication and information technology to advance 
transportation systems.
84
  Additionally, Bosch, in its petition, states that SRRs in the 79 GHz band 
                                                     
77
See LPR R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 774, para. 29. 
78
See Bosch Petition at 28-29.
79
See id.  Bosch supports its view by describing factors such as the attenuation characteristics of the band, the 
downward inclination of SRR antennas on vehicles, the extensive frequency re-use opportunities, the low power used 
by SRRs, and the typical usage of Amateur Radio operators in this band.
80
See 76-81 Realignment GHz R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 3218, para. 18.
81
See also Leggett Sept. 26, 2012 ex parte filing in RM-11666 at 2 (arguing that a large influx of vehicular radars will 
increase interference to amateur radio operations).
82
We discuss these matters in detail in paragraphs 63-66, infra.
83
See Bosch Petition at 5-6.
84
As background, the DSRC model is designed to use wireless links in the 5.9 GHz band (5.850-5.925 GHz) to 
provide for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-roadside infrastructure communications.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
13
“require a certain (albeit low) degree of interference protection in order to function adequately.
85
  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 we note that Bosch proposes modifying only our 
existing Part 15 rules to support vehicular radar applications,
86
we do not anticipate any opposition from 
Bosch for a licensing approach under our Part 95 rules.
87
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,
88
we seek comment on licensing by rule, pursuant to Part 95, the 
proposed 77-81 GHz vehicular radar services we proposed above, and on migrating existing 76-77 GHz 
vehicular radar services to Part 95 of our rules.  In particular, we seek 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.
39. Our 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.  We believe 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, we propose 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.
89
  In addition, by making vehicular radars authorized as a licensed service, we would 
also promote greater regulatory parity with other radar applications, including the FOD detection radars 
and other types of radars that we discuss in detail below, in the band.  We seek comment on this proposal.
40. Under our proposed rules, we would adopt the same emission limits as those defined in 
our 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 our Part 15 rules for the 
newly expanded radar band.
90
  We do 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.  We seek 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, we seek comment on our 
proposal not to specify specific portions of the band for SRR and LRR, but instead to rely on the market 
                                                     
85
Id. at 19. 
86
Id. at 3.
87
See id. at 6, n.9.
88
CSA 79 GHz workshop – country specific implementation at 3 (available at 
http://www.79ghz.eu/index.php/documents/public-documents/Presentations/79-GHz-Workshop-Tokyo-October-
2013/).  See also Bosch Petition at 10 (stating that these efforts are “expected to lead to an international allocation in 
all three ITU regulations which would allow the operation worldwide of automotive SSRs at 79 GHz.”).
89
Under this approach, we would classify vehicular radars as a citizens band radio service and license its use 
accordingly.  See 47 U.S.C. § 307(e)(1) (stating, “the Commission may by rule authorize the operation of radio 
stations without individual licenses in … the citizens band radio service”). 
90
See 47 C.F.R. § 15.253.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
14
and the standards process to determine the best use of the available bandwidth.  We are 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-to-Earth) 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?
41. To support the expanded frequency range for vehicular radar use, we propose 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.  We 
seek comment on this allocation proposal.
42. Alternatively, we seek 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 individual 
station licensing under Part 90?  We seek comment on our proposals and these alternatives.
43. Lastly, we propose 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.”
91
  
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.
44. We propose 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.  We intend 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, we also believe that the ultimate transition of SRR applications from 22-29 GHz 
band to 77-81 GHz is best driven by the marketplace.  If not, we seek 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.  We also seek 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 our proposal, we intend 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 we instead delete the portions of those rules that relate to vehicular radars in those bands?  
45. FOD Detection Radar.  As previously mentioned, FOD at airports includes any 
substance, debris, or object in a location that can damage aircraft or equipment.
92
  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 
                                                     
91
Continental comments in RM-11666 at 5.  See also Draft CEPT Brief on WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.18 (WRC-15), 
CPG PTC(13) 030 Annex 09, Oct. 11, 2013.
92
See supra para. 11. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
15
authorized and not yet established technical rules for licensed FOD detection radar operation under Part 
90.
93
  
46. We propose to consolidate the FOD detection radar operations in the 76-81 GHz band 
under Part 95 on a non-exclusive licensed basis.
94
  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, we 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.
95
47. As an initial matter, we believe 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, we believe that our proposal will not increase the interference 
potential to any other authorized services operating in the band.  The services that we propose 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.
96
  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.
48. 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, we believe that the benefits in the unified licensing of FOD detection radars under Part 
95 outweigh any burdens.  We seek comment on these proposals.
49. We propose 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.  We intend to prohibit the certification of new 
                                                     
93
See 78-81 GHz Trex R&O, 28 FCC Rcd at 10427, para. 11.  The Commission stated that until such technical 
specifications or other rules are adopted, it would evaluate requests for equipment authorization of devices on a case-
by-case basis.  Id.
94
In other words, the spectrum would be shared with the vehicular radar services discussed above under a licensed by 
rule approach in which no individual licensee would hold exclusive rights to use the spectrum.  
95
See Millimeter Wave Propagation: Spectrum Management Implications, OET Bulletin No. 70 (July 1997).  See also 
Federal Communications Commission Spectrum Policy Task Force, Report of the Unlicensed Devices and 
Experimental Licenses Working Group, November 12, 2002, at 14 (available at  
http://transition.fcc.gov/sptf/files/E&UWGFinalReport.pdf ).
96
See LPR R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 774, para. 29.  See also 78-81 GHz NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 17479, para. 10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
16
FOD detection radars, operating in the 76-81 GHz range, under Part 90 of our Rules effective 30 days 
from the date of publication of our final rules in the Federal Register.  We seek comment on our 
proposals.
50. Fixed Radar.  We propose 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 
band to airports only.
97
  Our proposal largely tracks the issues Navtech raised in its petition. 
51. In the Vehicular Radar NPRM, we 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.  We 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.  We 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.
98
  We continue to believe this is the case. 
52. 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.
99
  We observe 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.
100
  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.
101
53. 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 we 
think 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.
102
  We are 
unaware of any report or study that indicates incompatibility between the two types of radars, but we 
recognize that the record on this matter may still be evolving.  The limited record that is available on this 
                                                     
97
See Fixed Radar Petition.
98
See Vehicular Radar NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd 8113-8114, para. 17.
99
See Vehicular Radar R&O, 27 FCC Rcd 7888-7889, para. 26. 
100
See Fixed Radar Petition at 3-4.  See also Mantissa Ltd. Apr. 3, 2014 ex parte filing in ET Docket No. 10-28.
101
See Mantissa Ltd. April 3, 2014 and April 17 ex parte filings in ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90.  Mantissa states, 
among other things, that it anticipates that the updated record will show “the very strong public interest in the use of 
fixed radar sensors for important security applications” as well as “that fixed and vehicle-mounted radar systems can 
co-exist in the 76.0-77.0 GHz band without significant risk of interference.”  Mantissa April 17 ex parte filing.
102
See Vehicular Radar R&O, 27 FCC Rcd 7888-7889, para. 26.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
17
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.
103
  
Navtech, on the other hand, refutes the study and asserts that it was unfairly designed to favor the 
automotive industry.
104
  We continue to believe that shared use by vehicular radars and fixed radars best 
promotes the public interest.
54. We seek to update the record and are 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, we continue 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.
105
  We seek comment on our conclusion and are 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.  
55. While we seek broad comment on allowing the fixed infrastructure radar use within the 
76-81 GHz range, we also ask 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.
106
  For these 
reasons, we are proposing to limit available bandwidth for fixed radars to 1 gigahertz and restricting 
operation to the 76-77 GHz band as set forth in Appendix B.  Alternatively, we seek 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.
56. Aircraft-mounted Radar.  We also seek 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.
107
57. We believe 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.
108
  Honeywell asserts that mitigating the risk of wingtip 
collisions can reduce these costs and improve safety for both aviation personnel and the travelling 
                                                     
103
See Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration by Bosch in ET Docket No. 10-28 and RM-1190, Dec. 5, 2012, at 
4-6. 
104
See Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration by Navtech in ET-Docket No 10-28 and RM-1190, Dec. 
11, 2012, at 2-3.
105
See Vehicular Radar NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd 8113-8114, para. 17.
106
See Fixed Radar Petition at 3.
107
See Aircraft Petition.
108
See Aircraft Petition Reply at 2. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
18
public.
109
  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.
110
58. We seek 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.
111
  
However, because we expect that wingtip radars will be used in the same locations as FOD detection 
radars (that is, on airport property and, in the case of aircraft-mounted radars, only during taxi and other 
ground activities), and because we have already tentatively concluded that FOD detection radars and 
automotive radars can successfully co-exist, we also tentatively conclude that aircraft-mounted radars
should likewise be compatible with vehicular radars.  
59. As an initial matter, we note 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.
112
  In addition, the nature of the millimeter wave bands, as we 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.”
113
  We 
seek further information about the results of such discussions, as well as updated information about the 
status of wingtip radar product development.
114
60. We also seek 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)?  We 
tentatively conclude that we should adopt such an automatic shut-off 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, we propose 
to distinguish wingtip radars from vehicular radars in our rules, as aircraft should not be considered as 
                                                     
109
Id. at 4.
110
See NTSB Mar. 13, 2013 ex parte filing in ET Docket No. 10-28 and RM-1190.  Specifically, NTSB recommends 
that all newly manufactured and newly type-certificated large airplanes and other airplane models where the wingtips 
are not easily visible from the cockpit provide a cockpit indication that will help pilots determine wingtip clearance 
and path during taxi.  The recommendation also encourages retrofitting of all existing airplane models with an anti-
collision aid where the wingtips are not easily visible from the cockpit. 
111
See Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration of Bosch in RM-11666 at 5 and Opposition to Petition for 
Reconsideration in RM-11666 of Mercedes-Benz at 5. 
112
We are not proposing to limit the use of these radars applications to particular airport operation areas, but simply 
suggest that there may be ways to mitigate interference between wingtip and FOD detection radars, to the extent the 
record shows an interference potential.  As both wingtip and FOD detection radars can help aircraft avoid collisions 
with other aircraft, stationary objects, and service vehicles, we expect airport administrations will determine the 
optimal use of these radar applications on their airport properties.
113
See Xsight Mar. 15, 2013 ex parte filing in ET Docket No. 10-28. 
114
Aircraft Petition at 2.  Honeywell, in its petition, described its aircraft radar device as being “in the developmental 
stage” and operating under the authority of the Commission’s experimental licensing rules. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
19
vehicles for purposes of radar use in the 76-81 GHz band.  Finally, we seek comment on any 
compatibility issues with respect to other existing and proposed radar uses in the band, as well as to 
amateur radio users.
61. While we seek broad comment on allowing wingtip radar use within the 76-81 GHz 
range, we note that the wingtip radar may only require bandwidth of one gigahertz or less to detect 
obstacles in its path.  For this reason, we propose to allow wingtip radars to operate with a bandwidth of 1 
gigahertz in the 76-77 GHz band, as set forth in Appendix B.  Alternatively, and similar to the fixed radar 
proposals discussed above, we seek comment on other ways we 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.
62. Amateur radio use.  In conjunction with our efforts to develop a comprehensive policy 
for use of the 76-81 GHz band, we seek comment on how we 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.
115
  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.
116
  In 2004, the Commission extended the 
amateur-satellite allocation suspension, citing interference issues and suggesting that it would be useful to 
consider the development of technical sharing criteria for the band.
117
  Bosch, in its petition, does not seek 
to alter the current 76-77 GHz arrangement.
63. Based on our proposals for new vehicular and other radars in the 77-81 GHz band, we 
propose 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 we extend the 
76-77 GHz amateur suspension to the entire 76-81 GHz band?  If so, should we 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?  We tentatively conclude that 
there is no apparent technical reason to treat the 76-77 GHz and the 77-81 GHz bands differently.  
Commenters who believe that we should continue to distinguish between the two bands should explain 
the reasons for doing so.  We also seek comment on whether there are other approaches that would 
achieve compatibility between the amateur and radiolocation services within the 76-81 GHz band that we 
have not discussed above.
64. 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.”
118
  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.
119
  However, Bosch also notes that 
                                                     
115
See Above 40 GHz Third Report & Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15074, para. 1.
116
See 76-77 GHz Realignment R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 3218 para 18.
117
This restriction was placed on amateurs in a 1998 Commission proceeding and is set forth in Part 97 of the 
Commission’s rules at 47 C.F.R. § 97.303.  
118
See Bosch Petition at 28.
119
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
20
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.).
120
  We seek 
comment on these points.  Additionally, to help us better inform our decision, we seek 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.
65. To the extent that commenters believe that amateur operators can continue to use the 
millimeter band, we seek comment on what additional rule modifications we 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 we 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 we would have to implement?
66. If, instead, we were to remove all amateur allocations from the 76-81 GHz range, we seek 
comment on alternate spectrum that we 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 re-
accommodation 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.
121
  We seek comment on allocating the 75.5-76 GHz band to the amateur service 
if we were to remove the amateur allocation, including amateur satellite, in the 76-81 GHz band.  
67. Service and Technical Rules.  We set forth proposed rules that would license vehicular 
and FOD detection radars in the 76-81 GHz band and aircraft-mounted and fixed infrastructure radars in 
the 76-77 GHz band as licensed services under Part 95 of our rules.  We also propose to add a primary 
allocation for radiolocation in the 77.5-78 GHz band.  We propose technical rules that would be 
appropriate for a Part 95 licensed-by-rule approach.
122
  
68. 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 µW/cm
2
and 279 
µW/cm
2
respectively, measured at a distance of 3 meters from the exterior surface of the radiating 
structure.  However, as discussed above, 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 we envision 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 license-by-rule operation
123
pursuant to Section 307(e) of the Communications Act 
(Act).
124
  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, we can 
provide for a greater range of radar uses while still allowing for an easy transition of existing equipment 
                                                     
120
Id. at 27.  As Bosch notes, the Commission previously deleted an amateur allocation from the band.
121
Id. at 30. 
122
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has been examining a potential reorganization of the Part 95 rules.  See
Review of the Commission’s Part 95 Personal Radio Services Rules, WT Docket No. 10-119, Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 25 FCC Rcd 7651 (2010). The attached appendix 
shows our proposed rule modifications based on the existing Part 95 rules. We intend to adjust our final rules to 
account for any changes to the Part 95 rule structure that may subsequently be adopted.
123
See 47 C.F.R. § 95.401(d).
124
47 U.S.C. § 307(e) (describing the operation of radio stations by rule without individual licenses in certain specified 
radio services).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
21
to Part 95 operation.
125
  We seek 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 we discuss herein.
69. Because the existing Part 95 rules do not specify rules for vehicular, FOD detection, 
aircraft-mounted and fixed infrastructure radar operations, we 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, we leave 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, we seek comment on whether distinctive or 
differentiating rules for the different radars would be appropriate and if so, what those rules should be.  
70. To fully implement our proposal to accommodate radars under Part 95, we also propose 
to make additional modifications to Parts 1, 2, 15, and 90 of our rules.  All of our proposed rule 
modifications are shown in Appendix B of this Notice.  We seek comment on all of these proposals, and 
invite commenters to identify any additional rules that we would need to update to accomplish our 
objectives.
V. RECONSIDERATION ORDER 
71. As part of our comprehensive look at shared use of the 76-81 GHz band, we have 
incorporated matters that were first raised in pleadings filed in ET Dockets 10-28 and 11-90 – namely 
Honeywell Aircraft’s Petition relating to aircraft-mounted radar applications and Navtech’s Fixed Radar 
Petition.  Although we believe that there is merit in considering the issues raised by Honeywell and 
Navtech in the context of the NPRM, we conclude that the parties’ underlying petitions in the respective 
dockets should be denied.
72. Honeywell petition.  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 we treat the letter as a petition for 
reconsideration.  On October 31, 2012, we issued a Public Notice treating it as such.
126
  
73. 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 aircraft-mounted and vehicular radars can co-exist 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.
127
74. We deny Honeywell’s petition.  Section 1.429(b) or our 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 
                                                     
125
As discussed supra, we propose provisions to allow existing 24 GHz band vehicular radar equipment to continue to 
operate.
126
See Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, Public Notice, Report No. 2965 (Rel. Oct. 
31, 2012).
127
See Aircraft Petition Reply.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
22
Honeywell had the last opportunity to present its facts regarding fixed radar use.
128
   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.  
We agree with the commenters who opposed the petition that there may be technical and policy 
considerations associated with aircraft-mounted 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 we initiate with this 
rulemaking 
129
  By doing so, we 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 possible use of 
wingtip radars under our rules.
75. Navtech petition.  Similarly, we agree with those parties who oppose the Navtech 
pleading as procedurally defective.
130
  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 Section 
1.429(d).
131
76. We emphasize that our decision does not address whether there are substantive merits to 
these claims.  Such issues are fully incorporated into the proposals we make in conjunction with the 
NPRM.
77. Finally, because we are considering several different types of radar applications that 
would share use within the millimeter wave bands, and because we are proposing a consolidated licensing 
scheme under our Part 95 rules, we conclude that we can best promote efficiency and reduce 
administrative burdens by opening a new docket, ET Docket 15-26.  Here, we 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 our decision to deny the petitions for reconsideration discussed above, 
we terminate ET Dockets 10-28 and 11-90 (pertaining to vehicular radar) and WT Docket 11-202 
(addressing FOD detection radar applications).  We conclude that future decisions regarding matters that 
we previously considered within those dockets can more practically be made within the comprehensive 
ET Docket No. 15-26 proceeding.
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Ex Parte Rules – Permit-But-Disclose
78. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed 
pursuant to the Commission’s rules.
132
                                                     
128
47 C.F.R. § 1.429(b).
129
See Bosch, Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration, ET Dockets 11-90 and 10-28, at 16. (stating “Honeywell’s 
proposal should be deferred to a separate, later proceeding”).
130
See id. at 7-14.  See also Mercedes, Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration, ET Dockets 11-90 and 10-28, at 
3-5.
131
47 C.F.R. § 1.429(d) (stating that “The petition for reconsideration and any supplement thereto shall be filed within 
30 days from the date of public notice of such action, as that date is defined in §1.4(b).  No supplement to a petition for 
reconsideration filed after expiration of the 30 day period will be considered, except upon leave granted pursuant to a
separate pleading stating the grounds for acceptance of the supplement.”).
132
See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
23
B. Comment Period and Procedures
79. Pursuant to sections 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: (1) the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
? Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
? Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies 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.
? All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary must be 
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12
th
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 must be disposed of before entering the building.
? 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.
? U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12
th
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 e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
80. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),
133
the Commission has 
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on 
small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice.  The IRFA is found in Appendix C.  We 
request written public comment on the analysis. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same 
deadlines as comments filed in response to the Notice, and must have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
                                                     
133
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
24
D. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
81. This document does not contain a proposed information collection(s) subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, Public Law 104-13.  In addition, therefore, it does not contain 
any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
E. Further Information
82. For further information regarding this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, please contact 
Aamer Zain, Spectrum Policy Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12
th
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554, at 202-418-2437 or 
via the Internet at Aamer.Zain@fcc.gov.
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES
83. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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 this 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.
84. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, 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.
85. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, 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.
86.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
APPENDIX A
Comments
1.  Association of Global Automakers
2.  BMW North America
3.  Continental Automotive Systems
4.  Delphi Automotive
5.  Infineon Technologies North America Corp.
6.  Renault SAS
7.  Trex Enterprises Corporation
8.  TRW Automotive
Reply Comments
None
Ex Parte Comments
1.  Nickolaus E. Leggett
2.  Robert Bosch, LLC.
3.  Mantissa Ltd.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
APPENDIX B
Proposed Rules
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 
Parts 1, 2, 15, 90 and 95 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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, 225, 227, 303(r), 309, 1403, 
1404,  1451, and 1452.
2. Section 1.1307 is amended by revising paragraphs 1.1307(b)(2)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
3. § 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental Assessments 
(EAs) must be prepared.
* * * * *
(2)(i) Mobile and portable transmitting 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 (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
4. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
5. Section 2.106 is amended by revising page 61 to read as follows:
§ 2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
1
Table of Frequency Allocations                                                                                                              71-100 GHz (EHF) 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 (space-to-
Earth)
US389
74-76
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-
to-Earth)
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-
SATELLITE
Space research (space-to-
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 (space-to-
Earth)
US342
76-77.5
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-
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 (space-to-
Earth)
US342
77.5-78
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
RADIOLOCATION
Radio astronomy
Space research (space-to-
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 (space-to-
Earth)
5.560  US342
78-79
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-
Earth)
5.560  US342
79-81
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.149
79-81
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Space research (space-to-
Earth)
US342
79-81
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-
Earth)
US342
6. Section 2.1091 is amended by revising the introductory language of paragraph (c)(1) and paragraph (c)(2)
to read as follow: 
§ 2.1091  Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile devices
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
2
* * * * *
(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: 
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(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.
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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 [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION 
] 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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
3
(j) Effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION 
] 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.
* * * * *
10. 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 [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION ]
field disturbance sensors that operate in the 16.2-17.7 GHz and 23.12-29.0 GHz bands will no longer be 
certified.  
* * * * *
11. 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 [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF FEDERAL REGISTER 
PUBLICATION ] 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.  
* * * * *
12. Section 15.515 is amended by adding introductory text to read as follows:
§15.515   Technical requirements for vehicular radar systems.
Effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF FEDERAL REGISTER 
PUBLICATION] UWB field disturbance sensors that operate in the 22-29 GHz band will no longer be 
certified.  
* * * * *
PART 90-PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
13. 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. 
Section 90.103 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (b) by deleting the entry at the end of the 
table, and deleting paragraph (c)(30) to read as follows:
§ 90.103   Radiolocation Service.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
4
RADIOLOCATION SERVICE FREQUENCY TABLE
Frequency or band Class of stations Limitations
* * * * * * * *
33,400-36,000 ……do 12
* * * * *
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).
Subpart D—Citizens Band (CB) Radio Service
15. Section 95.401 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§ 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.
Subpart E?Technical Regulations
16. Section 95.601 is amended to read as follows:
§ 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. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
5
18. Section 95.605 is amended 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.  The 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. Section 95.624 is added 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 introductory text 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 section (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 amending by revising the chart in 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 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
6
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.
* * * * *
(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. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
7
* * * * *
Section 95.641 is added 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.
* * * * *
APPENDIX 1 to SUBPART E of Part 95 – Glossary of Terms is amended to include the following 
definitions in alphabetical order:
* * * * *
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.
*****
25. Subpart M is added to read as follows:
* * * * *
Subpart M?The 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service
§ 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: vehicle-mounted 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 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
8
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 below in the 
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 above, the tighter limit applies at the band edges.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
9
(ii) The limits in this table 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 above table are based on measurements employing a CISPR 
quasi-peak detector except for the frequency bands 9.0-90.0 kHz, 110.0-490.0 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/cm
2
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/cm
2
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.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
1
APPENDIX C
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
134
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 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Notice).  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 Notice for comments.  The Commission will send a copy of this Notice, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
135
  
In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
136
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. This Notice responds to petitions for rulemaking filed by Robert Bosch, LLC (Bosch) 
requesting modifications to Section 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.
3. 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.
137
  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.
138
4. 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 
                                                     
134
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) Pub.  L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
135
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
136
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
137
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
138
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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
2
both aviation personnel and the travelling public.
139
  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.
140
  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.
5. 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-to-shore cranes and providing train detection for automatic train control.
141
  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.
6. 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.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rule Will Apply
7. 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.
142
  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
143
  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
144
  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).
145
8. 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 
                                                     
139
See Aircraft Petition Reply at 4.
140
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
141
See Fixed Radar Petition at 3-4
142
5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
143
5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
144
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.”
145
15 U.S.C. § 632.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-16
3
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.”
146
  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.
147
   Thus, under that size standard, the majority of 
firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
9. 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 NOTICE 
proposes no change to that requirement.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
10. 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.
148
11. The proposals contained in this NOTICE 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 
12. None.
                                                     
146
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
147
See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-
_skip=4500&-ds_name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en
148
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).