Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s 
Rules To Establish Regulations for Tank Level 
Probing Radars in the Frequency Band 
77-81 GHz
Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s 
Rules To Establish Regulations for Level Probing 
Radars and Tank Level Probing Radars in the 
Frequency Bands 5.925-7.250 GHz, 
24.05-29.00 GHz and 75-85 GHz
Ohmart/VEGA Corp., Request for Waiver of
Section 15.252 to Permit Marketing of Level
Probing Radars in the 26 GHz Band
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ET Docket No. 10-23
ET Docket No. 10-27
REPORT AND ORDER and ORDER
Adopted:  January 15, 2014                  Released:  January 15, 2014
By the Commission:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 4
III. REPORT AND ORDER ...................................................................................................................... 13
A. Certification under Section 15.209 ................................................................................................ 17
B. New Section 15.256....................................................................................................................... 21
1. Frequency Bands of Operation................................................................................................ 21
a. 5.925-7.250 GHz frequency band..................................................................................... 22
b. 24.05-29.0 GHz frequency band....................................................................................... 25
c. 75-85 GHz frequency band............................................................................................... 26
2. Technical Requirements .......................................................................................................... 31
a. Radiated Emission Limits ................................................................................................. 33
a. Antenna Requirements...................................................................................................... 41
(i) Antenna Beamwidth ......................................................................................................... 42
(ii) Antenna Side-Lobe Gain................................................................................................... 45
b. Automatic Power Control ................................................................................................. 49
3. Other Requirements................................................................................................................. 50
a. Operational and Marketing Restrictions ........................................................................... 50
a. Equipment Certification.................................................................................................... 57
b. Additional Protection for the Radio Astronomy Service (RAS)....................................... 59
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
2
IV. ORDER ................................................................................................................................................ 65
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................................ 67
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................................... 70
APPENDIX A -  Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX B -  Parties Submitting Comments
APPENDIX C - Antenna Side-Lobe Gain
APPENDIX D - Final Rules
I. INTRODUCTION
1. By this action, we modify Part 15 of our rules for level probing radars (LPRs) 
operating on an unlicensed basis in the 5.925-7.250 GHz, 24.05-29.00 GHz, and 75-85 GHz bands to 
revise our measurement procedures to provide more accurate and repeatable measurement protocols 
for these devices.  LPR devices are low-power radars that measure the level (relative height) of 
various substances in man-made or natural containments.  In open-air environments, LPR devices 
may be used to measure levels of substances such as water basin levels or coal piles.  An LPR device 
that is installed inside an enclosure, which could be filled with liquids or granulates, is commonly 
referred to as a tank level probing radar (TLPR).  LPR (including TLPR) devices can provide accurate 
and reliable target resolution to identify water levels in rivers and dams or critical levels of materials 
such as fuel or sewer-treated waste, reducing overflow and spillage and minimizing exposure of 
maintenance personnel in the case of high risk substances.
1
  
2. LPR devices have operated for years under the general technical standards for 
intentional radiators in Section 15.209 of the Commission’s rules, primarily inside metal or concrete 
tanks which substantially attenuate radio frequency energy from the LPR antenna.
2
  Although we will 
continue to certify LPR under this rule, manufacturers have had a difficult time demonstrating 
compliance with the rule’s low emission limits for certain types of level-measuring applications in 
fiberglass or polyethylene (plastic) tanks or in open air.  Such difficulty occurs because reflections off 
of the surfaces being measured attenuate inconsistently due to devices’ orientation and the material 
being measured, the physical shape of which can change continuously depending on the material and 
circumstances.  Thus, it is difficult to make a measurement that will validly apply to all installations 
of a given LPR device when measuring LPR emissions in situ for certification purposes.  The 
amended rules adopted in this Report and Order would establish a comprehensive and consistent 
approach that would provide simplicity and predictability for authorizing LPRs for level-measuring 
applications in any type of tank or open-air environments, in the following frequency bands:  
5.925-7.250 GHz, 24.05-29.00 GHz, and 75-85 GHz.
3
  Certification of LPR equipment under the new 
rules will require measuring emissions in the main beam of the LPR antenna, while adjusting the 
emission limits in Part 15 for devices so measured to account for the significant attenuation that 
occurs upon reflection of those emissions.  These emission limits will protect any nearby receivers 
from encountering any increase in interfering signal levels.  The new rules will benefit the public and 
industry by improving the accuracy and reliability of these measuring tools, and providing needed 
flexibility and cost savings for LPR device manufacturers which should in turn make them more 
                                                     
1
Over-filling of plant equipment can damage machinery, threaten workers’ safety, and cause environmental 
damage.  Under-filling of equipment such as rock crushers or lubricant reservoirs can result in machinery running 
empty or dry, leading to severe product or machinery damage and collateral worker injury.  
2
47 C.F.R. § 15.209.  This rule section permits any type of unlicensed intentional radiator to operate in any 
frequency band, other than “restricted” bands identified in 47 C.F.R. § 15.205(a), as long as it complies with the 
general radiated emission limit and associated technical provisions.  
3
Consistent with 47 C.F.R. § 15.215(a), the regulations adopted herein in new Section 15.256 “…provide 
alternatives to the general radiated emission limits for intentional radiators operating in specified frequency bands.”  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
3
available to users, without causing harmful interference to authorized services.  To the extent 
practicable, these amended rules harmonize our technical rules for LPR devices with similar 
European standards, thus improving the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers in the global 
economy.  
3. In the Order, we also dismiss as moot a request by VEGA Americas, Inc. (formerly 
Ohmart/VEGA Corporation) (VEGA)
4
to waive the use restrictions in Section 15.252 so that it can 
operate an LPR device in the 26 GHz band.
5
  
II. BACKGROUND
4. Traditionally, measuring the level of various materials is accomplished using a 
variety of mechanical devices such as differential-pressure tools, air bubblers, and displacers. In 
contrast, LPRs take such measurements with technology-based tools that employ radio frequency 
(RF) signals.  More specifically, LPR devices are downward-looking low-power transceivers that can 
operate either inside a tank (or similar enclosure) or in an open-air environment, e.g., mounted under 
a bridge to measure water levels in a basin/river or under a roof structure to measure mounds of 
granulates such as coal.  An LPR device is typically mounted at the top of an enclosure or on a 
support rail and emits RF signals from an antenna aimed downwards at the surface of the substance 
below.  The device measures or calculates the time delay between the transmitted signal and the 
return echo reflected off the surface of the substance being measured to determine the substance’s 
level.  
5. Most LPR devices on the U.S. market currently operate on an unlicensed basis at 6 GHz, 
24 GHz, or 26 GHz under the Section 15.209 general emission limits for intentional radiators.  LPR 
devices operate at different frequency bands according to the type of substance being measured and the 
installation.  For example, LPR devices operating in the 6 GHz frequency range are often used for 
applications where the substance to be measured may have high dust content  or severe foaming 
characteristics; because the dust or foam is made up of relatively large particles, these substances tend to 
scatter a higher frequency signal.  A relatively low frequency, therefore, is necessary to penetrate the 
surface below.  LPR devices operating in the 24-26 GHz frequency range can accommodate a wide 
variety of applications but are less effective on foam, turbulent materials, or substances that tend to 
generate condensation or dust.  LPR devices operating at even higher frequencies, i.e., above 30 GHz in 
the “millimeter wave” spectrum,
6
could be very effective in applications where access is limited because 
they can employ smaller antennas.
7
  Smaller antennas can accommodate existing small connection flanges
more easily, enabling the radar to be installed in tighter spaces and in smaller enclosures than is possible 
with LPR devices operating at lower frequencies.
8
  
6. Existing technology typically uses either traditional pulsed modulation techniques or 
frequency-modulated continuous waves (FMCW), typically producing bandwidths greater than or equal 
to 50 megahertz.  With a pulsed-modulated LPR, short duration pulses are transmitted toward the target, 
and the target distance is calculated using the pulse transit time.  With an FMCW-modulated LPR, a 
continuous frequency-modulated signal is transmitted, and the frequency difference caused by the time 
                                                     
4
See VEGA’s request for waiver, Public Notice DA 10-128, ET Docket No. 10-27 (rel. Jan. 26, 2010).  
5
47 C.F.R. § 15.252.
6
The term “millimeter wave” arises from the fact that the wavelength of radio signals operating on frequencies 
between 30 GHz and 300 GHz ranges from 10 millimeters to 1 millimeter, respectively.  
7
Part 15 rules do not currently permit unlicensed operation above 38.6 GHz, except in certain specific frequency 
bands.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.205(a), 15.253, 15.255 and 15.257.
8
As the frequency increases, the wavelength decreases and antennas operating at higher frequencies in most cases 
are physically smaller than those operating at lower frequencies.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
4
delay between transmission and reception indicates the target distance.  To conserve power, LPR devices 
operate with a low duty cycle:  20 percent or below for FMCW and much lower for pulsed LPR 
emissions.  LPR devices do not communicate with one another, and there is minimal likelihood that two 
or more devices will emit simultaneously within close proximity of one another.
7. To date, the Commission has authorized LPR devices primarily for use in enclosed tanks 
upon demonstration of compliance with Section 15.209 of the rules, which specifies an average 
Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) limit of -41.3 dBm for operations above 960 MHz.
9
  In 
addition, Section 15.35(b) of the rules sets a peak limit at 20 dB above the average limit, e.g., a peak 
EIRP limit of -21.3 dBm.
10
  For pulsed signals, it may be necessary to take into account the limitation of 
the measurement instrumentation to determine the total peak power level, through the use of a pulse 
desensitization correction factor (PDCF).
11
  Therefore, pulsed LPR devices often must reduce their peak 
power output in order to comply with the peak emission limit in Section 15.209 and thus may sacrifice the 
precision and accuracy required by certain applications.  LPR devices using other modulation techniques, 
e.g., FMCW, also need wider bandwidth in certain frequency ranges (e.g., above 40 GHz frequency 
range) to achieve higher measurement precision.  
8. Because some LPR devices need higher power within their main antenna beam and wider 
bandwidth than permitted under Section 15.209 to achieve performance objectives for certain 
level-measuring applications, LPR manufacturers also have considered whether they could operate under 
other Part 15 rules applicable to wideband devices, i.e., those employing a bandwidth greater than 
10 megahertz.  Those rules allow higher peak-to-average power ratios than are permitted by Section 
15.35(b) and specify a power limit in terms of power spectral density rather than total peak power, thus 
eliminating the need to apply a PDCF.
12
  Section 15.250 permits operation in the 5.925-7.250 GHZ band 
but prohibits “fixed outdoor infrastructure.”
13
  Section 15.252 only permits operation of radars mounted in 
terrestrial transportation vehicles in the 16.2-17.7 GHz and 23.12-29.0 GHz bands.
14
  Because of these 
various frequency and operational restrictions, LPR devices currently cannot be certified to operate under 
either of these alternative wideband rules without grant of a waiver.
9. On January 14, 2010, the Commission adopted the Notice and Order in this proceeding.
15
  
The Notice and Order proposed to modify Part 15 of the rules to allow the restricted 77-81 GHz 
                                                     
9
47 C.F.R. § 15.209.  
10
47 C.F.R. § 15.35(b).
11
Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules To Establish Regulations for Tank Level Probing Radars in the 
Frequency Band 77-81 GHz and Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules To Establish Regulations for 
Level Probing Radars and Tank Level Probing Radars in the Frequency Bands 5.925-7.250 GHz, 24.05-29.00 GHz 
and 75-85 GHz, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket 10-23, 27 FCC Rcd 3660, 3666-67, para. 7 
(2012) (FNPRM).  A PDCF is an adjustment factor that must be added to the indicated value of a pulsed emission on 
a spectrum analyzer when the emission bandwidth of the pulse exceeds the resolution bandwidth of the analyzer.
12
Wideband devices are required to comply with a peak limit based on power density in a specific bandwidth, not a 
total peak limit over their entire operating frequency range.  Both Sections 15.250 and 15.252 permit a maximum 
peak emission limit of 0 dBm as measured in a 50-megahertz resolution bandwidth.  47 C.F.R. §§ 15.250 and 
15.252.
13
47 C.F.R. § 15.250.
14
47 C.F.R. § 15.252.
15
See Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules To Establish Regulations for Tank Level Probing Radars in 
the Frequency Band 77-81 GHz, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, ET Docket Nos. 10-23, 06-216 and 
07-96, 25 FCC Rcd 601 (2010) (Notice and Order).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
5
frequency band
16
to be used on an unlicensed basis for the operation of LPR equipment installed inside 
closed storage tanks made of metal, concrete, or other material with similar attenuating characteristics and 
also sought comment on whether to allow TLPR operation on an unlicensed basis in the 75-85 GHz 
band.
17
  The Notice and Order also granted conditional waivers of the restriction in Section 15.205(a) that 
bars intentional radiators in the 77-81 GHz restricted band to Siemens,VEGA, and any other responsible 
party
18
that can meet the waiver conditions specified in that decision.
19
  Under the terms of the waivers, 
these parties could employ TLPR devices in this band if installed inside tanks with high attenuation 
characteristics (e.g., metal and concrete tanks), pending the conclusion of the concurrently initiated 
rulemaking.  
10. Since the adoption of the Notice and Order, the Commission received an additional 
waiver request (disposed herein), as well as some inquiries, regarding outdoor use on additional 
frequencies under existing Part 15 rules.
20
  To address the apparent need for a comprehensive and 
consistent approach to LPR devices, on March 26, 2012, the Commission adopted a Further Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM) in this proceeding, proposing a set of common technical rules for the 
operation of LPRs in any type of tanks (i.e., with low RF attenuation characteristics such as fiberglass, or 
high RF attenuation characteristics such as metal) as well as in open-air environments in the following 
frequency bands: 5.925-7.250 GHz, 24.05-29.00 GHz, and 75-85 GHz.
21
  In the FNPRM, the Commission 
made new proposals that treat LPR and TLPR devices the same with respect to emission limits and 
frequency bands of operation without any additional installation limitations.
22
  That is, a level measuring 
radar that complies with our proposed rules would be able to be used in any application, whether outdoors 
in the open or inside any type of enclosure.
23
  In adopting the FNPRM, the Commission held in abeyance 
                                                     
16
“Restricted” bands are frequency bands where unlicensed devices are not allowed to intentionally radiate energy 
and may only emit spurious emissions.  These bands are usually used by licensed services for safety-of-life 
communications or for radio operations that use very low received levels, e.g., satellite downlinks or by critical and 
sensitive federal services.  The restricted bands are listed in 47 C.F.R. § 15.205(a).  
17
Notice and Order, supra at 606-07, para. 14. 
18
In this context, the “responsible party” is the party responsible for demonstrating that the communications 
equipment at issue complies with the Commission’s technical requirements.  Section 2.909 of the Commission’s 
rules specifies the responsible party under various circumstances.  47 C.F.R. § 2.909.    
19
Notice and Order, supra at 614-15, para. 41.  The Commission has only granted one certification based on the 
waiver terms in this Order to Siemens Milltronics Process Instruments (Siemens), FCC ID No. NJA-LR560, granted 
on Dec. 23, 2010.  There are no pending requests for certification under the terms of this waiver.  Because the rules 
we adopt here are less stringent than the waiver terms, Siemens may continue to operate its device under the waiver 
for the life of the device, or submit a new application to certify the device under the new rules in Section 15.256. 
20
On January 26, 2010, the Commission placed on public notice a request for waiver of Section 15.252(a) of the 
Commission’s rules filed by VEGA to permit certification of LPR devices installed at fixed locations at outdoor 
sites as well as inside storage tanks in the 24.6-27 GHz frequency band.  See Public Notice DA 10-128, ET Docket 
No. 10-27 (rel. Jan. 26, 2010).  (VEGA amended this request on April 26, 2012 to ask only for certification of LPR 
devices that would comply with the FNPRM proposals, pending the adoption of the LPR rules.)  
21
Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules To Establish Regulations for Tank Level Probing Radars in the 
Frequency Band 77-81 GHz and Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules To Establish Regulations for 
Level Probing Radars and Tank Level Probing Radars in the Frequency Bands 5.925-7.250 GHz, 24.05-29.00 GHz 
and 75-85 GHz, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket 10-23, 27 FCC Rcd 3660 (2012) (FNPRM).
22
Id., at 3666-67, para. 15.
23
There is a growing trend towards using plastic or fiberglass tanks.  FNPRM, supra at 3672, n. 65.  These tank 
materials provide very little RF attenuation characteristics and would be equivalent, or nearly so, to operating the 
radar in open air.  See Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Short Range Devices 
(SRD); Level Probing Radar (LPR) Equipment Operating in the frequency bands 6 GHz to 8,5 GHz, 24,05 GHz to 
26,5 GHz, 57 GHz to 64 GHz and 75 GHz to 85 GHz; Part 1: Technical characteristics and test methods, European 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
6
all waiver requests regarding LPR operations pending final action in this rulemaking proceeding.
24
11. The FNPRM’s technical and operational proposals were based in large part on 
measurements and analytical work conducted in support of the European Telecommunications Standards 
Institute (ETSI) LPR Technical Standard for LPR devices.
25
This standard is based on the research, 
modeling and recommendations provided by the Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) within 
the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) in ECC Report 139, 
a study of the co-existence of LPR devices with various authorized services in the 6-8.5 GHz, 
24.05-26.5 GHz, 57-64 GHz, and 75-85 GHz and adjacent frequency bands.
26
12. Fourteen parties filed comments and nine parties filed replies in response to the FNPRM.  
The majority of commenters support the FNPRM proposals.  Some TLPR manufacturers request
variations to the proposed rules, primarily to accommodate TLPR devices inside enclosures with high RF 
attenuation characteristics.
27
  Radio astronomy interests request a distance separation from radio 
astronomy sites and a public database (or list) of LPR installations.
28
  Some commenters propose 
additional technical restrictions on LPR devices.
29
  A list of commenting parties is included in 
Appendix B.
III. REPORT AND ORDER
13. In this Report and Order, we adopt a comprehensive set of technical and operational rules 
for authorizing LPR devices operating on an unlicensed basis in the 5.925-7.250 GHz, 24.05-29.00 GHz, 
and 75-85 GHz in any RF level-measuring application, whether in an open-air environment or inside any 
type of enclosure.  New Section 15.256 will allow for the introduction of more diverse applications of 
LPR in several frequency bands and improve the accuracy and reliability of these level-measuring tools 
beyond what is achievable under Section 15.209.  The new rules will also help to streamline equipment 
development and certification of LPR devices, allowing manufacturers to take advantage of economies of 
scale by marketing the same LPR device for a variety of RF level-measuring applications, as well as 
provide a simplified method for measuring the radiated emissions from these devices.  
14. Our action here addresses a significant obstacle to authorizing LPR devices under our 
current rules, namely, the difficulty of obtaining repeatable and accurate radiated emission measurements.  
Unlike most Part 15 devices that operate with the emitter/transmitter pointing horizontally, LPR devices 
must operate in a downward-pointing position such that their emissions are directed toward the substance 
to be measured located below.  Our current rules are designed for devices with horizontal emitters or 
transmitters, and require measuring radiated emissions at a 3-meter horizontal distance from the radiating 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) European Norm (EN) 302 729-1 V1.1.2 (2011-05), (ETSI LPR 
Technical Standard) at p. 57, Appendix G3.
24
FNPRM, supra at 3664, para. 9.
25
See Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Short Range Devices (SRD); Level 
Probing Radar (LPR) Equipment Operating in the frequency bands 6 GHz to 8,5 GHz, 24,05 GHz to 26,5 GHz, 
57 GHz to 64 GHz and 75 GHz to 85 GHz; Part 1: Technical characteristics and test methods, European 
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) European Norm (EN) 302 729-1 V1.1.2 (2011-05), (ETSI LPR 
Technical Standard).
26
See Impact Of Level Probing Radars Using Ultra-Wideband Technology On Radiocommunications Services, 
ECC Report 139 (Feb. 2010).
27
Comments of Emerson, Krohne and Siemens.
28
Comments of NRAO and CORF.
29
Comments of Delphi, EIBASS and O3b.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
7
source, with the radiating source pointed directly at the measurement antenna (boresighted),
30
while 
varying the measurement antenna height from 1 meter to 4 meters to obtain worst-case emissions.
31
  This 
compliance measurement practice does not yield repeatable results when LPR emissions are measured in 
situ, i.e., with the radar pointing down toward a representative substance.
32
  This difficulty arises because 
the current measurement procedures are optimized for directly measuring device emissions,
33
whereas in 
situ measurements for LPRs would essentially only measure reflected emissions, which can vary 
erratically, depending on the nature of the surface at the precise moment(s) of measurement.
34
  To obtain 
repeatable and accurate emission test results, manufacturers can measure LPR emissions directly in the 
main beam of the antenna for certification compliance purposes.  However, when so measured, the 
general emission limit in Section 15.209 constrains LPR emissions to such a low level that the device 
cannot be used for most high-precision, high-accuracy applications, such as measuring volatile liquids 
inside non-corrosive fiberglass tanks or water level in rivers, for which LPR devices need higher power 
than a main-beam measurement permits under our current rules to achieve the necessary precision in 
these applications.  The Part 15 rules that permit higher power for similar wideband devices, such as 
Sections 15.250 and 15.252, contain frequency and operational restrictions which preclude the 
certification of LPR devices absent a waiver, which some LPR manufacturers have sought.
35
15. Due to the normal operating condition of an LPR where it radiates in a downward 
direction, potential victims of interference from LPRs are unlikely to be located in the main beam and 
subject to the maximum radiated power from the device.  Rather, it is the reflected emissions from 
LPRs - which will be lower than the main-beam emissions - that present the greatest potential for harmful 
interference.
36
  Because of this, and the difficulty in measuring reflected emissions discussed above, we 
are amending Part 15 to add new Section 15.256 to increase the (main-beam) emissions limit for LPRs to 
a level that will still ensure that the reflected emissions remain within the maximum permitted level.  This 
will allow LPR devices to achieve better accuracy in certain applications while not increasing the 
potential of causing harmful interference to other devices.  We also are requiring that all spurious or 
                                                     
30
Antenna boresight is the axis of maximum gain (maximum radiated power)) of a directional antenna.  FNPRM,
supra at 3665, para. 11 and n. 31.
31
FNPRM, supra at 3666, para. 14. 
32
47 C.F.R, § 15.31(d) requires that “[f]ield strength measurements shall be made, to the extent possible, on an open 
field site.”  However, the rules also allow these devices to be measured in situ, “[i]n the case of equipment for which 
measurements can be performed only at the installation site,” with the device tested in its normal operating position 
in an actual installation.  47 C.F.R. § 15.31(d).  For LPRs, testing in situ would position the antenna pointed down 
toward a representative substance, instead of pointing directly at the measurement antenna.  Thus, the measurement 
antenna would only capture any emission that is reflected off of the representative substance or the ground surface.
33
Measurement of direct emissions requires the antenna of the device under test be pointed directly at the 
measurement antenna (boresighted).  Because the LPR device is typically installed in a downward position, 
measuring the LPR emissions in situ would not have the LPR device pointed directly at the measurement antenna.  
34
This is because the patterns of reflected emissions tend to vary based on the irregularity of the surface of the 
material below, and are therefore difficult to measure consistently, propagation losses in the higher frequency bands 
are significant, and it is not always practical to create a test bed that is representative of all of the substances that an 
LPR will measure, making it difficult to determine the worst-case reflectivity factor.  In addition, the current 
measurement procedure does not consider any potential emissions that may radiate from the top of an LPR device.
35
47 C.F.R. §§ 15.250 and 15.252.  See supra para. 8.
36
All radio signals attenuate as they travel in space away from the transmitter.  Free-space propagation loss is a 
function of both the distance traveled and the frequency of the signal.  Reflected waves are lower in amplitude than 
direct waves because of the additional losses they experience (through absorption, scattering, etc.) in addition to the 
distance traveled. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
8
unwanted emissions from LPR devices not exceed the general emission limits in Section 15.209.
37
  
Measuring a main beam emission limit rather than measuring reflected emissions will make certification 
measurements simpler, repeatable and more reliable, and allow certified LPR devices to be used either in 
tanks or in open-air environments without increasing interference to any authorized services.  LPRs will 
have the higher power and bandwidth needed without manufacturers having to request waivers of 
operational restrictions in Sections 15.250 and 15.252 for similar wideband devices as they have in the 
past.  To further protect authorized services operating in the same and adjacent frequency bands, we will 
(1) require the LPR antenna to be dedicated or integrated as part of the transmitter and installed in a 
downward position; (2) limit installations of LPR devices to fixed locations; and (3) prohibit hand-held 
applications of LPR and the marketing of LPR devices to residential consumers.
38
  The final rules are set 
forth in Appendix D.
16. We will continue to permit certification of LPR devices under the provisions of Section 
15.209 of our rules as unlicensed intentional radiators.  Certification of LPRs under Section 15.209 
provides an alternative for those manufacturers who may not need higher power or who want to operate in 
frequency bands that are not covered by the new LPR rules.  We are modifying Section 15.31 of the rules 
to provide compliance testing guidance for those manufacturers who choose to certify LPR under Section 
15.209.  
A. Certification under Section 15.209
17. In the FNPRM, the Commission observed that some TLPR devices have been certified 
under Section 15.209 of our rules.
39
  The Measurement, Control & Automation Association (MCAA) 
requests that we continue to provide an option to certify LPR under the much lower general emission 
limits of Section 15.209.  MCAA states that because some LPR devices need to use wider bandwidth to 
achieve precision measurements, it requests that LPRs be allowed to operate in any frequency range that 
does not contain a restricted band as permitted by Section 15.209.
40
  MCAA is concerned about the 6 GHz 
frequency range because the proposed LPR rules would allow operation only in the 5.925-7.250 GHz 
band, whereas under Section 15.209 any unlicensed device could operate from 5.460-7.250 GHz.  MCAA 
also asserts that many of the metal and concrete tanks come with an existing opening for an LPR antenna, 
but the opening is often too small to accommodate an antenna big enough to meet the antenna 
specifications as proposed in the FNPRM.
41
18. We will continue to certify LPRs under Section 15.209.  Although the new LPR rules are 
intended to simplify measurement procedures and permit certification of LPR devices that could be used 
both in any type of tank and outdoors in specific frequency bands, including the restricted band 
75-85 GHz, we recognize that the new rules’ frequency and technical requirements may limit options for 
some applications.  LPR certified under Section 15.209 may operate in any non-restricted band at much 
lower emission limits than permitted under the new LPR rule and, except as discussed below, would 
demonstrate compliance by measuring their worst-case emissions in the main beam of the antenna; peak 
emissions for pulsed LPRs may be reduced further because the rules require that peak power output use a 
                                                     
37
The measurement procedure for unwanted emissions would also utilize elevation and azimuth measurement scans 
to determine the location at which these unwanted emissions are maximized; it is possible that the source of the 
worst-case unwanted emissions from a device may be its control circuitry and/or RF leakage from its enclosure, 
rather than the device's transmitter circuitry and antenna.
38
A “dedicated” antenna is an integrated antenna that is part of the main transmitter unit and cannot be replaced with 
another antenna with different gain characteristics.
39
FNPRM, supra at 3674, para. 36.
40
MCAA comments at 3. This is presumably due to the fact that some LPR designs take advantage of higher power 
to provide higher precision whereas some other designs take advantage of wider bandwidth to achieve such results.
41
MCAA comments at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
9
pulse desensitization correction factor (PDCF).
42
  We observe that legacy LPR operations certified under 
Section 15.209 have primarily operated in enclosed tanks with high attenuation levels and have not 
caused harmful interference over the years, but manufacturers have had difficulty in demonstrating 
compliance with Section 15.209 for other types of applications (e.g., open-air operation).
43
  
19. While TLPRs are currently receiving certification under Section 15.209 using in situ 
measurement procedures,
44
we will provide specific measurement guidelines for certifying LPRs that are 
intended for installation inside enclosed tanks made of metal or concrete to promote consistency and 
repeatability.
45
  Some manufacturers who have operated LPRs inside metallic and concrete tanks for 
many years request that, for these uses, they continue to be permitted to demonstrate compliance with the 
Section 15.209 general emission limits by measuring radiated emissions outside a representative test tank 
with the LPR installed inside, as they have in the past.
46
  These parties point out that a tank wall made of 
metal or concrete provides a substantial RF shield, and they request that LPRs intended for this type of 
application not be subject to any further restriction on antenna beamwidth or main-beam emission limits, 
as long as emissions measured at 3 meters outside of the tank meet the general emission limit as currently 
required by Section 15.209.
47
  
20. We find that there is good reason for providing specific measurement procedures that 
allow more flexibility for certifying, under Section 15.209, LPRs intended for installation inside 
enclosures made of metal or concrete.  At the same time, the rules will continue to permit manufacturers 
to demonstrate compliance with the Section 15.209 general emission limits as they have in the past, by 
measuring radiated emissions outside a representative enclosure with the LPR installed inside.  As we 
observed in the Notice and Order, TLPR emissions outside of enclosed tanks with very high RF 
attenuation characteristics, e.g., steel or concrete, will likely be minimal when considering the enclosure’s 
attenuation coefficient in addition to the absorption characteristics of the target material (liquid or solid), 
and thus, any reflected signal will be mostly contained within the tank.
48
  Because metal and concrete 
                                                     
42
Besides the very low emission limit (i.e., -41.3 dBm EIRP), operation under the provisions of Section 15.209 
requires compliance with the 20-dB peak-to-average ratio requirement and the pulse operation restrictions of Section 
15.35(b) and (c), inter alia; however, it allows intentional emissions in any non-restricted frequencies, including the 
5.460-7.250 GHz band.  See supra n. 2.
43
We also note that those TLPR devices now operating under waiver may continue to do so provided they continue 
to meet the terms of their respective waivers. See, e.g., Krohne model BM702 operating at 8.5-9.9 GHz at 
http://www.krohne.com/html/dlc/MA_BM702_e_72.pdf.  Krohne TLPR operation inside steel tanks in this band is 
pursuant to a waiver of the 9-9.2 GHz and 9.3-9.5 GHz restricted bands of Section 15.205(a) issued in 2001 on 
delegated authority by the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology, with concurrence of the National 
Telecommunication Information Administration (NTIA).  
44
In accordance with 47 C.F.R. § 2.947(a)(3), “any measurement procedure acceptable to the Commission may be 
used to prepare data”.
45
The Commission’s Laboratory will establish measurement guidelines for LPR and TLPR devices following the 
adoption of this Report and Order. 
46
Comments of Krohne at 2, Emerson at 2 and Siemens at 2.
47
Krohne states that the RF environment around a tank with high RF attenuation characteristics is unique and 
deserves to be considered separately from other LPR applications.  Krohne comments at 4.  Krohne does specify that 
its recommendations and requests are only for metallic tanks.  Krohne comments at fn. 2.  Emerson states that 
metallic tanks effectively shield radio frequency; therefore Emerson argues that the emission limit of Section 15.209 
is easily complied with, even if the radar by itself would not pass the proposed rules for LPR.  Emerson comments at 
2.  MCAA requests that we not specify a restriction on the antenna beamwidth for LPR intended to be installed 
inside tanks made of metal or concrete that would provide enough attenuation to eliminate the effects of the 
beamwidth exterior to the tank.  MCAA comments at 2-3.
48
Notice and Order at 605, para. 11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
10
enclosures provide substantial RF attenuation, the power in the main beam of the antenna installed within 
such tanks can be increased beyond the limits required for unenclosed devices, thus permitting better 
measurement performance in LPR applications
49
(e.g., higher power may permit the LPR to better focus 
and receive accurate echoes from the substance to be measured below the LPR), but the potential for 
harmful interference is significantly diminished because the signal can be substantially attenuated by the 
enclosure itself.  We also note that this addresses MCAA’s concerns regarding the difficulties of 
accommodating some antennas in existing openings of some metal and concrete tanks.  Because other 
materials do not provide the same attenuation,
50
we limit these measurement procedures to LPR devices 
intended to be used only in completely enclosed metal or concrete tanks.
51
  We are modifying Section 
15.31 of the rules to provide compliance testing guidance for those manufacturers who choose to certify 
LPR under Section 15.209.  The final rules are found in Appendix D.
B. New Section 15.256
1. Frequency Bands of Operation
21. As discussed above, most LPR devices on the U.S. market currently operate on an 
unlicensed basis in frequencies around 6 GHz, 24 GHz, or 26 GHz under the general emission limits of 
Section 15.209 of the Commission’s rules.  These operating frequency ranges are chosen by the different 
LPR manufacturers to accommodate various level-measuring applications.
52
  As we proposed in the 
FNPRM, we will allow LPR devices certified under new technical rules we adopt herein to operate both 
in any type of enclosure and in open air, in the following frequency bands:  5.925-7.250 GHz,
53
24.05-29.00 GHz,
54
and 75-85 GHz.
55
  As discussed below, the new rules address the specific spectrum 
                                                     
49
As an example of improved performance, the use of higher power may permit the LPR to better focus and receive 
accurate echoes from the substance to be measured below the LPR.
50
ETSI found that a tank made of concrete provides approximately 35 dB attenuation around 20 GHz, whereas a 
tank made of fiberglass or polyethylene (plastic) provides less than 5 dB in the same frequency range.  See 
Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Short Range Devices (SRD); Level Probing 
Radar (LPR) Equipment Operating in the frequency bands 6 GHz to 8,5 GHz, 24,05 GHz to 26,5 GHz, 57 GHz to 
64 GHz and 75 GHz to 85 GHz; Part 1: Technical characteristics and test methods, European Telecommunications 
Standards Institute (ETSI) European Norm (EN) 302 729-1 V1.1.2 (2011-05), (ETSI LPR Technical Standard) at p. 
57, Annex G. ETSI has adopted a specific standard for TLPR devices inside high-attenuation tanks.  See 
Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Short Range Devices (SRD); Equipment for 
Detection and Movement; Tanks Level Probing Radar (TLPR) operating in the frequency bands 5,8 GHz, 10 GHz, 
25 GHz, 61 GHz and 77 GHz; Part 1: Technical characteristics and test methods, European Telecommunications 
Standards Institute (ETSI) European Norm (EN) 302 372-1 V1.2.1 (02-2011) (ETSI TLPR Technical Standard).  
The FNPRM did not propose the emission levels in the ETSI TLPR Technical Standard; rather, its proposals follow 
the ETSI LPR Technical Standard in order to provide one set of comprehensive requirements for all LPRs, including 
TLPRs.
51
The Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology Laboratory will publish guidance for LPR 
measurements for devices designed for use inside metallic and concrete enclosures.  
52
See supra para. 5.
53
The Commission currently authorizes LPR devices operating near 6 GHz under Section 15.209 in this frequency 
band.  See, e.g., Siemens VEGA model Sitrans LR300IQ300, FCC ID No. NJA-1Q300; Endress+Hauser model 
FMR5X, FCC ID No. LCGFMR5XC. 
54
The Commission currently authorizes LPR devices operating in the 24-26 GHz frequency range under Section 
15.209 in this frequency band.  See e.g., VEGA model VEGAPULS40, FCC ID No. MOIPULS40; Siemens model 
Sitrans LR400, FCC ID No. NJA-LR400; Endress+Hauser model FMR240, FCC ID No. LCGFMR2. 
55
We note that these frequencies are slightly different than those adopted by ETSI and also that in the U.S. there are 
several “restricted” bands in some portions of the ETSI LPR lower frequency range.  For instance, ETSI /ECC 
permits LPR devices in the 6-8.5 GHz frequency range, but in the U.S., the 7.25-7.75 GHz and 8.025-8.5 GHz bands 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
11
needs and restrictions in the U.S., and to the extent practicable, harmonize our technical rules for LPR 
devices with similar European standards.
56
a. 5.925-7.250 GHz frequency band
22. The Commission authorizes unlicensed wideband transmitter operation within the 
5.925-7.250 GHz band under Section 15.250 of its rules.
57
  LPR devices seeking higher power and wider 
bandwidths than provided therein in order to improve their performance cannot be authorized under this 
rule absent a waiver of certain usage restrictions in the rule.  In this band, licensed users include 
non-Federal fixed, fixed satellite, and mobile services from 5.925 GHz to 7.125 GHz; and Federal fixed 
and space research services (deep space & Earth-to-space) from 7.125 GHz to 7.250 GHz.
58
  Part 15 
transmitters operating in this band are prohibited from being used in toys or operating on board an aircraft 
or satellite.  They cannot utilize fixed outdoor infrastructure, including outdoor-mounted transmit 
antennas, to establish a wide area communications network.
59
  The Commission observed in the FNPRM 
that it would consider LPR operation in the 5.925-7.250 GHz band, including permitting limited fixed 
outdoor installations, consistent with the intent underlying the usage restrictions in Section 15.250, 
because in this regard, LPRs are single, i.e., relatively isolated, transmitters whose individual operations 
outdoors would not result in the establishment of a local area network of transmitters.
60
  
23. Sutron, an LPR manufacturer with products intended for waterway-level measurement, 
requests that the LPR rules allow operation in the 5.650-7.250 GHz band, a band slightly wider than what 
was proposed in the FNPRM (i.e., 5.925-7.250 GHz).  Sutron states that this wider frequency band would 
provide a usable bandwidth of 1.6 gigahertz instead of 1.3 gigahertz, which would enable its products to 
achieve the specific performance goals required by some of its customers.  Sutron notes that the requested 
additional bandwidth does not include any restricted bands listed in Section 15.205(a) of the rules.
61
  
Krohne America Inc. (Krohne) supports Sutron but only for TLPRs inside metal tanks and suggests 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
are restricted, where the Federal Government operates critical and sensitive services such as fixed microwave, fixed 
satellite, and meteorological satellite services.  47 C.F.R. § 2.106.  
56
ETSI permits TLPR and LPR devices to operate in several frequency bands that we did not propose in the 
FNPRM.  For example, ETSI permits operation of TLPR devices inside tanks made of steel or concrete or other 
material of comparable RF attenuation in the 4.5-7 GHz and 8.5-10.6 GHz bands and LPR (including TLPR) 
devices in the 57-64 GHz band.  See ETSI TLPR Technical Standard at p. 20; ETSI LPR Technical Standard at 
p. 24.  We took a different approach in the FNPRM by proposing that each authorized band be available for both 
LPR and TLPR applications.  
57
47 C.F.R. § 15.250.
58
47 C.F.R. § 2.106.
59
47 C.F.R. § 15.250(c).  This rule prohibits fixed outdoor infrastructure to avoid the establishment of wide-area 
networks of devices seeking to operate under this section.  See Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules 
Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems, Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, ET Docket No. 98-153, 19 FCC Rcd 24558, 24571, para. 27 (2004) (WideBand Order).
60
FNPRM, supra at 3664, n.23 and 3668, para. 20.  No commenter disputes the Commission’s conclusion that LPRs 
will not operate as local area networks of transmitters.  While there may be multiple LPRs installed at a single site, 
each device would be pointed at and computing readings from its particular target (coal or gravel piles, waterways at 
a specific location, etc.) to perform the level measurement and would not be communicating with the other LPRs at 
the same site. We note that EIBASS disputes as unfounded the Commission’s observation at para. 20 of the 
FNPRM that it would not expect dense deployment of transmitters at an individual site (EIBASS comments at 2).  
However, given the absence of networking and the manner of operation of LPR devices, there is no reason to believe 
such proliferation would occur, and EIBASS provides no concrete suggestion otherwise.
61
See Sutron comments at 3. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
12
extending the 5925-7250 MHz band to 5460-7250 MHz band.
62
  MCAA in reply comments states that the 
proposed bandwidth at 5925-7250 MHz is acceptable to the industry as long as Section 15.209 
certification on in-tank units remains available.
63
  
24. We decline to expand the frequency band for LPR devices under the new rules at this 
time.  First, the technical and operational requirements that we are adopting under the new rules are based 
on analytical work that encompasses frequencies from 6.0-8.5 GHz for LPR operations;
64
therefore, we 
find that compatibility of these limits with authorized services below 6 GHz has not been studied.
65
  
Neither Sutron nor any other commenter provided technical analyses or studies to support compatibility 
of LPR operating at the proposed higher emission limit with incumbent operations below 5.925 GHz.  
Although Sutron argues that greater bandwidth would yield greater level measurement resolution,
66
neither it nor any other party indicated with any specificity, much less demonstrated, how permitting a 
higher resolution than that which can be attained under the rules we are adopting herein would further the 
public interest.  We conclude that, without further analyses, it would be imprudent to permit a wider 
bandwidth than what we proposed in the FNPRM and to expose incumbent services unnecessarily to 
additional radio noise.  Further, the Commission and the NTIA are involved in active discussions relating 
to the 5.850-5.925 GHz bands.
67
  Pending the outcome of these activities, we find that LPR devices 
should be confined to the 5.925-7.250 GHz band when operating at the higher emission limit we are 
adopting herein for LPR devices.  Manufacturers requiring wider bandwidth than permitted under new 
Section 15.256 may seek authorization, as we discussed above, by demonstrating compliance under 
Section 15.209.
b. 24.05-29.0 GHz frequency band
25. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed to permit LPR operation in the 24.05-29.00 
GHz band to provide expanded flexibility for optimizing LPR applications and to enhance global 
marketing opportunities by more closely harmonizing with ETSI in this frequency range.  Currently, the 
Commission authorizes unlicensed wideband operation in the 23.12-29.0 GHz band under Section 15.252 
                                                     
62
Krohne comments at 3-5 and n. 2. 
63
MCAA reply comments at 3.
64
The analysis conducted by the ECC to support the ETSI Technical Standard for LPR devices calculate main-beam 
emission limits.
65
Incumbent services (fixed satellites, mobile and fixed services) between 5.925 GHz and 6 GHz in the U.S. are the 
same as those above 6 GHz (up to 6.425 GHz).  Incumbent services below 5.925 GHz are different than those above 
5.925 GHz, and ECC’s analysis would not pertain to the protection of those services.  See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.
66
Technically, either wider bandwidth or higher power, or both, would provide higher level-measurement accuracy 
and resolution, depending on the design of the LPR.  Sutron’s equipment design appears to need wider bandwidth.
67
Section 6406(b)(1) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Tax Relief Act) requires the 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information (i.e., the NTIA Administrator), in 
consultation with the Department of Defense (DoD) and other impacted agencies, to conduct a study evaluating 
known and proposed spectrum-sharing technologies and the risk to federal users if the FCC allows Unlicensed-
National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices to operate in the 5.350-5.470 MHz and 5850-5.925 GHz bands.  
See Pub. Law No. 112-96, § 6406(b)(1), 126 Stat. 156 at 231 (Feb. 22, 2012).  NTIA published the results of its 
initial study in a report (NTIA 5 GHz Report) on both these bands on January 25, 2013.  See Department of 
Commerce, “Evaluation of the 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz Bands Pursuant to Section 6406(b) of the 
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,” available at 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_5_ghz_report_01-25-2013.pdf.  The Tax Relief Act also 
requires the Commission to begin a proceeding to modify 47 C.F.R. Part 15 to allow unlicensed U-NII devices to 
operate in the 5.35-5.47 GHz band no later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Act.  See Revision of 
Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 
5 GHz Band, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 13-49, 28 FCC Rcd 8864 (2013).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
13
of its rules.
68
  LPR devices seeking higher power and wider bandwidths to improve their performance 
cannot be authorized under this rule absent a waiver of certain usage restrictions in the rule.  While some 
LPRs currently operate in this band, their utility is limited by the restrictions of Section 15.252.  This 
band is shared between Federal and non-Federal services.  Authorized licensed operations include 
radiolocation, Earth exploration satellite service (EESS) (active), amateur, fixed, inter-satellite, 
radionavigation, radiolocation satellite (Earth-to-space), fixed satellite (Earth-to-space), mobile, standard 
frequency and time signal satellite (Earth-to-space), space research (space-to-Earth), and EESS 
(space-to-Earth) services.  Unlicensed transmitters operating in the 23.12-29.0 GHz band subject to this 
rule must be mounted on vehicles and cannot be used in aviation applications.
69
  Finally, in the FNPRM, 
the Commission observed that the proposed frequency band is wider than that which ETSI has adopted;
70
however, it believed that the risk of interference to incumbent authorized services from LPR devices will 
be no greater than it is from Part 15 vehicular radars currently operating in this band because LPR devices 
operate in a fixed downward-looking position, and because there have been no interference complaints 
related to the operation of these Part 15 radars, which unlike LPRs do not always operate in a downward 
position.
71
  There were no comments related to our proposals in this band, and for the reasons stated 
above, we will allow LPRs to operate within the 24.05-29 GHz frequency band at the radiated emission 
limits under new Section 15.256.
c. 75-85 GHz frequency band
26. Apart from a handful of specified frequency bands, spectrum above 38.6 GHz, including 
most of the 75-85 GHz band,
72
is designated as “restricted” in Section 15.205 of the rules.
73
  Unless 
expressly permitted by rule or waiver, unlicensed devices are not allowed to intentionally radiate energy 
into a restricted band, in order to protect sensitive radio services from harmful interference.
74
  The 
Commission has permitted unlicensed operation within specific frequency bands above 38.6 GHz, i.e.,
46.7-46.9 GHz, 57-64 GHz, 76-77 GHz, and 92-95 GHz.
75
27. The 75-85 GHz band is shared between Federal and non-Federal services.  Authorized 
operations in this band currently include radio astronomy, fixed/mobile/fixed satellite, mobile satellite,
broadcast and broadcast satellite, radiolocation, space research (space-to-Earth), amateur and amateur 
satellite services.
76
  In addition, unlicensed vehicular radars are currently permitted to operate in the 
76-77 GHz band.
77
  In the FNPRM, the Commission observed that the services in this band typically 
                                                     
68
47 C.F.R. § 15.252.
69
Unlicensed devices authorized in this band under the general limits of 47 C.F.R. § 15.209 are not subject to these 
restrictions, except that they may not operate at all in the 23.6-24.0 GHz restricted band (see 47 C.F.R. § 15.205).
70
The ETSI LPR standard specifies LPR operation in the 24.05-26.5 GHz band.  
71
FNPRM, supra at 3668, para. 21.
72
The Commission opened the 76-77 GHz band to unlicensed vehicular radars in 1995 in 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, 
First Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket 94-124, 11 FCC Rcd 4481 (1996).  
73
47 C.F.R. § 15.205(a).  
74
See Revision of the Rules Regarding Operation of Radio Frequency Devices Without an Individual License, First 
Report and Order, GEN Docket 87-389, 4 FCC Rcd 3493 (1989).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 15.205(a).
75
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.253, 15.255 and 15.257.  The 57-64 GHz band is open to most types of unlicensed 
operations, while the 46.7-46.9 GHz and 76-77 GHz bands are limited to unlicensed vehicular radars, and operation 
within the 92-95 GHz band is limited to indoor applications.  
76
47 C.F.R. § 2.106.  
77
47 C.F.R. § 15.253.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
14
employ highly directional antennas to overcome the relatively higher propagation loss that occurs at these 
frequencies.
78
  The Commission stated its belief that LPR operation in the 75-85 GHz band would not 
adversely affect incumbent authorized users, because this band is currently sparsely used and the 
propagation losses are significant at these frequencies, making harmful interference unlikely beyond a 
short distance from the LPR device.
79
  
28. CORF notes that RAS has primary allocations at 76-77.5 GHz and 78-85 GHz and does 
not oppose sharing these bands with LPRs provided the Commission adopts certain protections designed 
to ensure that RAS can operate in the interference-free environment that the service requires for picking 
up extremely weak signals.
80
  
29. Delphi Automotive (Delphi) reminds us that the European Union (EU) has authorized the 
entire 77-81 GHz band for short-range vehicle radar applications and urges us to take automotive radar 
into account when considering TLPR/LPR operations in this band.
81
  We observe that the Commission 
has authorized vehicular radar operation, including Foreign Object Debris (FOD) detection fixed radar 
operations at airports, in the 76-77 GHz band under its Part 15 unlicensed rules;
82
and a rulemaking 
petition is now pending asking that we permit unlicensed vehicular radars to operate in the 77-81 GHz 
band as well.
83
  We further note that the Commission has modified Section 90.103 of the rules to permit 
the certification, licensing and use of FOD detection radars in the 78-81 GHz band.
84
We find that FOD 
radars and LPR devices would most likely not operate in the same geographical location, because the 
FOD radars are only authorized to operate at airports whereas LPR typically operate in industrial or 
remote areas.  However, as discussed above, even if they were co-located, at these frequencies, the 
potential for harmful interference to FOD radars from LPR is extremely unlikely, given the substantial 
free-space propagation losses and the extremely narrow beamwidths of the FOD radar.
85
  As for spectrum 
sharing between vehicular radars and LPR, we believe that LPR devices will be able to co-exist 
successfully with vehicular radars because the LPR is installed in a downward-looking position at fixed 
locations and the main-beam emission limits have been carefully calculated to avoid harmful interference 
to other radio services.  We further find that the extreme propagation losses of radio signals at these 
                                                     
78
FNPRM, supra at 3669, para. 23.  There is approximately 58 dB of free space attenuation at 3 meters for a 6 GHz 
signal and 80 dB of free space attenuation at 3 meters for an 80 GHz signal.  Free space path loss (FSPL) is 
calculated according to the formula FSPL = 20 log F(GHz) + 20 log D(m) + 32.5, with frequency F in GHz and 
distance D in meters.  FNPRM, supra at 3669, n.51.
79
See FNPRM, supra at 3669, para. 23 and n.55 (observing that the wavelength of an LPR device operating at 
75 GHz is 4 millimeters, and the free space path loss at this frequency is approximately 79.5 dB at a distance of 
3 meters (i.e., 750 wavelengths away) from the transmitter).  
80
CORF comments at 1-3.  
81
Delphi comments at 3. 
82
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, and Amendment of Section 15.253 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Fixed Use of Radar 
in the 76-77 GHz Band, ET Docket Nos. 11-90 and 10-28, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 7880 (2012).  
83
See Petition for Rulemaking filed by Robert Bosch, LLC. Filed on April 16, 2012 in Amendment of Part 15 of the 
Commission’s Rules to Permit the Operation of Vehicular Radar Systems in the 77-81 GHz, RM-11666, 
DA 12-1139.
84
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Radiolocation Operations in the 78-81 GHz Band, and Request 
by the Trex Enterprises Corporation for Waiver of Section 90.103(b) of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 
11-202, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 10423 (2013) (Part 90 FOD Order).
85
A FOD radar operating in the 78-81 GHz band under Part 90 of the rules typically has a 1 degree (elevation) x 0.4 
degree (azimuth) antenna beamwidth.  See Part 90 FOD Order at para. 11, n. 37.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
15
frequencies would mitigate any potential harmful interference beyond a very short distance from the LPR 
device, as noted above.  
30. Accordingly, we will allow LPR to operate within the 75-85 GHz frequency band, at the 
radiated emission limits specified in new Section 15.256 discussed below.  To permit LPR operation in 
the 75-85 GHz band, we also modify Section 15.205 of the rules to remove the prohibition on intentional 
emissions in this band for LPR devices authorized under the new rules.
86
  
2. Technical Requirements
31. To maintain the existing interference protection criteria to authorized services in the  
frequency bands covered by new Section 15.256 for LPR operations, the FNPRM invited comment on 
establishing requirements for the following interdependent parameters: main-beam radiated emission 
limits,
87
antenna beamwidth,
88
and antenna side-lobe gain.
89
Main-beam emissions must be measured 
with the LPR antennas “boresighted” to produce the maximum realizable antenna coupling.
90
  The 
main-beam emission limits we adopt will allow an LPR device to operate at higher peak levels than 
Part 15 currently permits
91
but would continue to provide the same level of interference protection to 
authorized services as any other Part 15 device operating under the general emission limits,
92
provided 
that the LPR antenna always maintains a downward position and utilizes a relatively narrow beamwidth.
93
  
Because the LPR is always pointing downward and direct emissions from the LPR antenna are focused by 
a narrow beamwidth toward the substance being measured, it is unlikely that emissions reflected from this 
material or from the ground surface would cause interference to a potential victim receiver located at any 
height relative to the LPR due to the significant attenuation of the reflected signal.
32. The technical and operational requirements proposed in the FNPRM and discussed below
are based on analytical work performed by the ECC in support of the ETSI Technical Standard for LPR 
devices.
94
  This standard specifies compliance measurements based on main-beam emission limits.  To 
                                                     
86
47 C.F.R. § 15.205.
87
FNPRM, supra at 3669-72, paras. 24-28.
88
Id. at 3672, para. 29.
89
Id. at 3672, para. 30.
90
Antenna boresight is the axis of maximum gain (maximum radiated power) of a directional antenna.  The LPR 
transmitter antenna would be pointed directly at the measurement antenna, which would receive and measure the 
maximum radiated power.
91
Sections 15.209 and 15.35(b) impose a total peak limit of -21.3 dBm for operation of Part 15 devices above 
960 MHz.  47 C.F.R. §§ 15.209 and 15.35(b).  Sections 15.250 and 15.252 impose a peak limit of 0 dBm in a 
50-megahertz bandwidth for Part 15 devices operating in the 5.925-7.250 GHz, 16.2-17.7 GHz and 
23.12-29.00 GHz frequency bands.  47 C.F.R. §§ 15.250 and 15.252.  The ECC LPR peak emission limits are 
+7 dBm for LPR devices operating in the 5.925-7.250 GHz band, +26 dBm for LPR devices operating in the 
24.05-29.00 GHz band and +34 dBm for LPR devices operating in the 75-85 GHz band, as measured in a 
50-megahertz resolution bandwidth.  The limits differ for each frequency band because the modeling took into 
account the frequency-dependent propagation loss characteristics in each band.
92
The Part 15 rules specify an average emission limit of -41.3 dBm from Part 15 devices operating above 960 MHz, 
as the minimum protection to authorized services.  The ECC modeling provides for an equivalent main-beam 
average emission limit of -33 dBm in the 5.925-7.250 GHz band, -14 dBm for LPR devices operating in the 
24.05-29.00 GHz band, and -3 dBm for LPR devices operating in the 75-85 GHz band, as measured in a 
1-megahertz resolution bandwidth.  The limits again differ for each frequency band because the modeling took into 
account the frequency-dependent propagation loss characteristics in each band.
93
“Beamwidth” refers to the angle between the half-power points (i.e., the -3 dB points) of the main lobe of an 
antenna, when referenced to the maximum power of the main lobe.  Beamwidth is usually expressed in degrees.
94
See supra para. 11; FNPRM, supra at 3667, para. 16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
16
determine the maximum allowable radiated emission limits for LPR devices operating in each authorized 
frequency band, the ECC studied the interference potential of an LPR by taking into account reflected 
emissions within a hemispherical boundary around the LPR device.  The ECC assumed a worst-case 
material reflectivity coefficient and determined the main-beam emission level that correlates to the 
appropriate reflected emission level.  We find that the analytical work of ETSI/ECC provides a reliable 
correlation between main-beam emissions and emissions at 3 meters from the LPR that is sufficiently 
conservative to conclude that the use of a main-beam emission limit rather than limits based on reflected 
emissions will not create a greater interference potential, thus providing strong support for the approach 
we are taking here.  Moreover, a main-beam emission limit would represent a more realistic evaluation of 
interference potential and permit higher power, thus increasing the accuracy and utility of LPRs.  At the 
same time, it will simplify compliance measurements of LPR emissions, because emissions from the LPR 
would be measured directly in the main beam of the antenna where maximum emissions are found, thus 
avoiding the measurement of reflected emissions that can be highly variable due to the variable 
site-related factors involved with in situ testing.
95
Under this approach, certification measurements will 
be simpler, repeatable and more reliable.  Accordingly, we amend the rules to require that LPR radiated 
emissions be measured in the main beam of the LPR antenna.
96
  We note that no party opposes the use of 
main-beam emission measurement or the general measurement principles in the FNPRM proposed rules.
97
  
a. Radiated Emission Limits
33. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed radiated emission limits that are listed in 
Table 1 below.
98
  These limits are based on the results of the ECC’s mathematical modeling and 
supported by measurement data,
99
which show that if the LPR complies with the main-beam (boresight) 
emission limits specified in the second and third columns of Table 1, all emissions, including antenna 
back-lobe and side-lobe emissions and worst-case reflections from the target material, will also comply 
with the existing average emission limit specified in Section 15.209 for devices operating above 
960 MHz, shown in the table’s fourth column.
100
  The main-beam emission limits vary with frequency 
bands because the mathematical model accounts for the frequency-dependent propagation loss 
                                                     
95
ECC Report 139 at p. 2 and p. 11.  
96
The Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) will publish guidance for LPR measurements 
for devices designed to operate under new Section 15.256.  
97
With respect to the measurement principles proposed in the FNPRM, we are clarifying step (6) of proposed 
Section 15.256(j) in the FNPRM as follows: “…(6) compliance measurements for minimum emission bandwidth of 
frequency-agile LPR devices shall be performed with any related frequency sweep, step, or hop function activated.”  
This provision is intended to apply only to minimum bandwidth measurements, and not to other measurements such 
as power level measurements, as originally requested by the LPR industry (see MCAA Notes on Rulemaking filed 
Jan 31 2011).  This provision is necessary for minimum emission bandwidth measurements because it is very 
difficult to get accurate emission bandwidth measurements if the frequencies are not properly activated while doing 
such measurements.  The clarified provision is found in Appendix B, Section 15.256(l)(6).
98
FNPRM, supra at 3670, para. 24. 
99
ECC Report 139 at Annex 4.  
100
FNPRM, supra at 3670, para. 24. We note that the ETSI equivalent average reflected emission level in the 
5.925-7.250 GHz band (used to derive the average and peak main-beam limits) – which we are adopting here for 
those who seek certification of LPR devices under the provisions of new Section 15.256  – is more stringent than 
the -41.3 dBm EIRP limit that applies to certification under Section 15.209; for Section 15.256 certifications, we 
nevertheless employ the stricter limit to harmonize with Europe on the derived main-beam limits for this frequency 
range.  We note also that in our rules, the limits at these frequencies for some UWB devices are also more stringent 
than Section 15.209.  See e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.510(c)(4) and 15.515(d). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
17
characteristics associated with each band.
101
  The Commission stated that because the emission limits for 
main-beam emissions were derived by mathematically correlating the reflected emissions from an LPR 
with the existing Part 15 average emission limit for devices operating above 960 MHz, it expected that the 
LPR main-beam emission limits would maintain the existing level of interference protection to incumbent 
radio services.
102
  The Commission further noted that harmonization of its emission limits with the ETSI 
limits is desirable because it could serve to expand global marketing opportunities for U.S. 
manufacturers.
103
  
Table 1 – LPR Emission Limits
Frequency 
Band
(GHz)
Average Emission 
Limit (EIRP in 
dBm/MHz) as 
measured boresight 
(main beam) (Note 2)
Peak Emission Limit 
(EIRP in dBm 
measured in 50 MHz) 
as measured boresight 
(main beam) (Note 2)
Equivalent Average 
Reflected Emissions if 
measured in situ (EIRP 
in dBm/MHz) (Note 3)
5.925-7.250 -33 +7 -55
24.05-29.00 -14 +26 -41.3
75-85 -3 +34 -41.3
Notes:   1. Minimum bandwidth at the -10 dB points is 50 megahertz.
2All emission limits defined herein are based on boresight measurements (i.e., measurements 
performed within the main beam of an LPR antenna).
3. Equivalent reflected emissions include antenna back-lobe and side-lobe emissions and 
worst-case reflections from material being measured.
34. We are adopting distinct radiated emission limits for LPR devices operating in each of 
the frequency bands, as set forth in Table 1 above.  As discussed above, the emission limits for 
main-beam emissions were derived by mathematically correlating the reflected emissions from an LPR 
with the existing Part 15 average emission limit at -41.3 dBm EIRP for devices operating above 960 MHz 
–or lower levels (at -55 dBm EIRP for frequencies below 8.5 GHz).
104
  The LPR main-beam emission 
limits therefore would maintain the existing level of interference protection to incumbent radio services.  
                                                     
101
Higher frequencies have more associated propagation losses.  For example, there are approximately 58 dB of free 
space path loss at 3 meters for a 6 GHz signal versus 80 dB for an 80 GHz signal.
102
ETSI/ECC calculated through mathematical modeling the amount of main-beam emissions of a 
downward-pointing antenna that would limit reflected emissions to 500?V/m at a distance of 3 meters from the 
source, which is equivalent to an EIRP level of -41.3 dBm (this is the same as the Part 15 existing average emission 
limit.)  Its mathematical modeling took into account reflected emissions in the vertical plane above the LPR device–
as in the case of an open-air LPR installation over water–as well as reflected emissions in the horizontal plane 
around the LPR device with a worst-case scenario of material reflectivity coefficient.  ETSI/ECC determined that 
because the LPR is always pointing downward, only reflected emissions would be seen by a potential victim 
receiver of an authorized radio service located overhead (e.g., a satellite receiver) or horizontally relative to the LPR 
transmitting source.
103
FNPRM, supra at 3670, para. 24. 
104
In order to derive the main-beam emission limit for each of the LPR operating frequency bands, ECC modeling 
uses -41.3 dBm EIRP (the same level as the general emission limit in Section 15.209 of the Commission’s rules) as 
equivalent reflected emission levels for frequencies higher than 8.5 GHz.  For frequencies below 8.5 GHz, ECC 
modeling uses the lower value of -55 dBm EIRP to account for lesser propagation losses and different incumbent 
services.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
18
As the Commission tentatively concluded in the FNPRM, the LPR emission limits for each of the 
specified operating frequency bands as measured in the main beam of the LPR antenna will adequately 
protect against harmful interference to incumbent authorized services in any of the proposed frequency 
bands, based on several factors.
105
  First, LPR devices will be required to utilize downward-focused 
narrow-beam transmit antennas, which are also needed to optimize level-measuring performance; 
therefore, the only LPR emissions likely to be incident on an incumbent receiver within proximity will be 
reflected from the target material and thus significantly attenuated.  Second, the LPR emission limits are 
consistent with the results expected from application of the existing limits in radiated in situ
measurements and therefore will maintain the existing level of protection afforded to incumbent 
authorized services under existing rules and their attendant measurement procedures.
106
  Third, as the 
operating frequency increases, the propagation path loss also increases as a result of the increased 
attenuating effects on radio waves from intervening objects and atmospheric conditions, and we account 
for this by varying the permitted radiated emission limit for each frequency band.  None of the 
commenters took issue with any of these factors or with the conclusion that the proposed limits will 
provide adequate protection against harmful interference.  Moreover, our adoption of several operational 
restrictions, discussed below, in addition to these emission limits, provides further assurance that 
authorized services will not be subject to harmful interference. 
35. The Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum (EIBASS) 
argue that, for LPRs operating in the 6 GHz frequency range, an increase from the existing peak EIRP 
of -21.3 dBm allowed in Sections 15.209 and 15.35(b)
107
to the proposed +7 dBm would be a potential 
co-channel interference threat to TV Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) service in the 6.425-6.525 GHz 
and 6.875-7.125 GHz frequency bands.
108
  EIBASS contends that, while the 6.425-6.525 GHz TV BAS 
operations are mobile only, the primary use of the 6.875-7.125 GHz TV BAS band is for fixed, 
point-to-point links, including studio-to-transmitters link (STL) paths that demand the highest level of 
interference protection.
109
  EIBASS is also concerned about allowing LPRs to operate outdoors in these 
bands despite the restriction against “fixed outdoor infrastructure” for 6 GHz wideband devices operating 
under Section 15.250(c).
110
  EIBASS states that there is no basis for the Commission to assume that only 
one high-power outdoor LPR device would be employed at a particular site.
111
  In reply, MCAA argues 
that TV BAS STL links are installed high off the ground and use highly directional receive antennas, 
making received interference from LPRs highly unlikely.  It further contends that no 6 GHz authorized 
users – including those operating TV BAS STLs -- have received interference from Part 15 devices 
operating under Section 15.250 and using the same general modulation techniques as LPR devices.
112
36. We agree with MCAA that because STL links are installed high off the ground with
highly directional receive antennas, received interference from LPRs that point downward toward the 
measured substance is highly unlikely.  We do not believe that EIBASS is correct in comparing LPR 
                                                     
105
FNPRM, supra at 3671, para. 26.
106
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.250(d)(1), 15.252(b)(1) & (2), 15.509(d), 15.510(d)(3), 15.511(c), 15.513(d), 15.515(d), 
15.517(c), and 15.519(c).
107
47 C.F.R. §§ 15.209 and 15.35(b).
108
EIBASS comments at para. 1.
109
Id.  
110
Id., at para. 3.  Section 47 C.F.R. § 15.250(c) prohibits fixed outdoor infrastructure to avoid the establishment of 
wide-area networks of devices seeking to operate under this section.  See Wide-Band Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24558, 
24571, para 27 (2004).
111
Id.  
112
MCAA reply comments at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
19
devices to other unlicensed narrowband Part 15 devices that operate under Sections 15.209 and 15.35(b) 
of our rules because LPR devices are wideband devices that are more similar to unlicensed devices 
operating under Section 15.250 of the rules.
113
  While it is true that the proposed main-beam peak 
emission limit for LPR is 7 dB higher than the peak emission limit in Section 15.250, i.e., 0 dBm peak 
EIRP,
114
with the LPR antenna pointing down toward the substance being measured, only reflected
emissions (which typically are already attenuated from the direct emission levels) would be expected.
115
  
Because of reflection losses, LPR emission levels are therefore lower than other unlicensed wideband 
devices operating in the same frequency range.  Further, because STL antennas are also directional in 
nature, there are additional antenna losses in the potential STL victim receive antenna, unless the LPR 
emissions are in the STL antenna main beam, which is a highly unlikely circumstance.  We further note 
that the number used to derive the LPR equivalent main-beam emission limit at 6 GHz is actually 14 dB 
lower (at -55 dBm EIRP) than the average emission limit in Section 15.250 (at -41.3 dBm EIRP)
116
for 
Part 15 devices operating in the same bands as STLs.
117
  Therefore, in the 6 GHz frequency range, the 
proposed main-beam emission limit is constraining any potential reflected emissions from an LPR to a 
level lower than the existing interference protection level for authorized services from unlicensed devices, 
resulting in a 14 dB additional interference protection margin for authorized services as compared to that 
provided by other Part 15 devices.  Furthermore, as MCAA observes, there has not been any case of 
harmful interference to STL links from other Part 15 devices that currently operate in the same frequency 
band (devices that do not even have the interference-avoiding characteristic of being pointed 
downward).
118
  We further note that LPR devices are not by their nature used to establish local or wide 
area networks
119
because LPRs are designed to measure the level of a substance at a single, circumscribed 
                                                     
113
47 C.F.R. § 15.250.  This section covers unlicensed wideband devices operating within the 5.925-7.250 GHz 
band with operating bandwidths at least 50 MHz.  LPR devices typically have bandwidths exceeding 50 MHz.  The 
Commission has recognized that the peak emission limit specified in 47 C.F.R. § 15.35(b) was established based on 
the operation of narrowband transmission systems and may unfairly penalize some wideband operations, effectively 
prohibiting the operation of these devices, and has stated that this existing limit on the total peak power level is not 
well suited to measure the operation of, or represent the interference potential of, transmitters that employ extremely 
wide bandwidths.  See Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission 
Systems, Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 98-153, 19 FCC 
Rcd 24566, 24558, para. 17 (2004) (UWB Second Order and Second MO&O).
114
47 C.F.R. § 15.250(d)(3).
115
Due to the operating nature of LPR devices, their emissions sustain several losses before they can reach a 
potential victim receiver.  An LPR antenna is typically mounted at least 3 meters above the material it is intended to 
measure, pointing down toward that material.  Free-space path loss (FSPL) from the LPR antenna to the measured 
material in the 5.925-7.250 GHz band is approximately 58 dB.  Worst-case reflection losses calculated by 
ETSI/ECC studies add another 22 dB.  Therefore, peak reflected emissions that could reach a potential STL victim 
receiver in this receiver’s antenna main beam would be attenuated by 80 dB, from the proposed +7dBm peak EIRP 
to -73 dBm peak EIRP.  
116
The -41.3 dBm EIRP average emission limit in Section 15.250 is the same as the general emission limit in 
Section 15.209.  47 C.F.R. §§ 15.250 and 15.209.  This limit is generally used as interference protection criteria for 
authorized radio services from unlicensed operations. 
117
See Table 1, fourth column, above.  ETSI/ECC calculations for LPR main-beam emission limits in the 6 GHz 
frequency range are based on maintaining a -55 dBm EIRP reflected emission level within a 3-meter hemispheral 
boundary around the LPR antenna. See Impact Of Level Probing Radars Using Ultra-Wideband Technology On 
Radiocommunications Services, ECC Report 139, at 19-20 (Feb. 2010). 
118
See, e.g., Zebra Technologies Corporation Model UWT1100, FCC Identifier XWX-UWT1100; TDC Acquisition 
Holdings, Inc. Model PLUS-0309, FCC Identifier NUF-PLUS-0309; Ubisense Ltd. Model UbiTagV2.3, FCC 
Identifier SEAMOD23.
119
The basis of the prohibition of outdoor fixed structure in Section 15.250(c) is to prevent devices operating in the 
5.925-7.250 GHz band to establish wide-area networks.  47 C.F.R. § 15.250(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
20
site (e.g., a pile of coal or gravel, or water in a tank or under a bridge).  
37. Aggregate emissions of LPR devices.  CORF notes that there are important Earth 
Exploration-Satellite Service (EESS) passive observations made in the primary allocated bands at 22.21-
22.5 GHz and 23.6-24.0 GHz, and urges us to consider aggregate emission limits for LPRs to avoid the 
impact of interference from multiple LPR devices on EESS activities in these bands.
120
O3b Limited 
(O3b) is also concerned about potential interference to its non-geosynchronous orbit (non-GSO) satellites 
operating in the 26 GHz band from aggregate operation of LPRs raising the noise floor.  O3b requests that 
we require LPR to adhere to Section 15.5 non-interference rules.
121
38. We observe that in calculating the LPR main-beam emission limits, the ECC Report 139 
did take into account the co-existence between LPRs and EESS operating in the EESS allocated 
frequencies.  ECC simulations show that in the most critical scenarios, there are wide margins of safety 
against harmful interference to EESS, even when using a very conservative number for the possible future 
growth of LPR devices in the long-term.  CORF did not dispute these ECC analyses.
122
  We therefore find 
that there would be minimal or no effect on EESS or non-GSO satellite services from LPRs operating in 
the 24-26 GHz frequency range, and thus we do not adopt aggregate emission limits for LPR in these 
bands.  We also observe that LPR, as all unlicensed devices operating under Part 15 of the Commission 
rules, are subject to the non-interference rules in Section 15.5.  
39. Unwanted (harmonic and spurious) emissions of LPR devices.  In the FNPRM, the 
Commission proposed that LPR unwanted emissions for LPRs operating in any of the specified operating 
frequency bands be suppressed to below -41.3 dBm EIRP.
123
  Hach, a manufacturer for LPRs operating in 
the 26 GHz frequency range, states that establishing a limit for harmonic emissions at an average power 
spectral density of 20 dB below the fundamental emissions would bring our rules in line with ETSI and 
help manufacturers take advantage of economies of scale.
124
  In reply, MCAA contends that a 20-dB 
difference between harmonic and fundamental emission limits would relax the limits for LPRs operating 
in the 26-GHz band, such as the Hach equipment, as well as for LPRs operating in the 80-GHz range, but 
would subject those LPRs operating in the 6-GHz frequency range to more stringent standards.
125
  
Although MCAA states that it does not oppose the Hach proposal, it asserts that the proposal needs 
further study.
126
40. We note that similar Part 15 equipment operating under Section 15.250 in the 
5.925-7.250 GHz band and under Section 15.252 in the 23.12-29 GHz band are subject to unwanted 
                                                     
120
CORF comments at 4.
121
O3b reply comments at 2.  See also 47 C.F.R. § 15.5.  Under these rules, all unlicensed devices operating under 
Part 15 are subject to the condition that they not cause harmful interference and that they cease operation if they do 
cause such interference.
122
ECC Report 139, at 35-38.  ECC noted that although the data from ETSI Technical Report 102 601 regarding 
LPR market growth up to 2015 indicate a maximum expected LPR density per km
2
of 0.00238, ECC decided to use 
a very conservative figure of 0.005 in calculating the interference scenario for worst-case vertical LPR emissions in 
ECC Report 139, and a good interference safety margin was still found.
123
FNPRM, supra at 3667, para.16.  This means that for LPRs operating in the 26 GHz range at the maximum 
average emission limit of -14 dBm EIRP must suppress their unwanted emissions by 27.3 dB.
124
Hach comments at  8; Hach reply comments at 2.
125
MCAA reply comments at 3-4.  Using a 20-dB difference, the unwanted emission limit would be -53 dBm EIRP 
for LPRs operating in the 6 GHz range, -34 dBm EIRP for LPRs operating in the 26 GHz range, and -23 dBm EIRP 
for LPRs operating in the 80 GHz range.  The Commission has proposed to limit all LPR unwanted emissions to less 
than -41.3 dBm EIRP, the same as the general emission limit in Section 15.209 of the rules.  47 C.F.R. § 15.209.
126
MCAA reply comments at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
21
emission limits that are much more stringent than what we proposed for LPR devices,
127
because we 
expect that LPRs will have a low interference potential as they operate in a fixed downward position.  
However, we do not believe that LPR unwanted emissions should be allowed to be as high as -34 dBm 
EIRP as Hach requests for LPRs operating in the 26 GHz frequency range, because as we discussed above
our goal is to maintain the existing interference protection criteria (i.e., the Part 15 general limit of less 
than -41.3 dBm EIRP) to authorized services from LPR’ unwanted emissions.
128
  Further, the same 
principle of establishing an unwanted emissions limit at 20 dB below the fundamental limit would allow 
unwanted emissions from LPRs operating in the 80 GHz range to be as high as -23 dBm EIRP.
129
  We 
find that the -41.3 dBm EIRP general emission limit of Section 15.209 is appropriate so as to constrain 
any LPR unwanted emissions to the existing level of interference protection for incumbent users of the
spectrum and Hach has not presented evidence that this is an inappropriately strict level for Part 15 
devices in general or for LPRs in particular.  We therefore deny Hach’s request for LPR unwanted 
emissions to be 20 dB below the fundamental emissions. 
a. Antenna Requirements
41. An antenna converts electrical signals traveling along a transmission line into 
electromagnetic energy that is radiated into the environment.  Antennas such as those used in LPR 
devices are directional, in that the energy being transmitted is concentrated into one direction.  If the gain 
characteristics of the antenna are plotted, a pattern is formed that consists of a single main lobe in the 
direction in which the majority of the energy is transmitted.  In addition to the main lobe, there are 
multiple side lobes in undesired directions.  The magnitude of the main lobe is called the gain of the 
antenna, and is compared to the magnitude of an isotropic antenna that transmits energy equally in every 
direction.  Because an antenna can only focus energy, but cannot create additional energy, a higher gain 
(more energy) in the main lobe of the antenna can be realized only when the beamwidth of the main lobe 
is narrowed, accordingly reducing the gain in the side lobes (lessening the energy in other directions).  In 
other words, the beamwidth, main-beam gain, and side-lobe gain of the antenna are all interdependent.  
Since we are specifying a maximum antenna beamwidth, for any given antenna, there is necessarily a 
minimum antenna gain that corresponds to the maximum beamwidth and a corresponding maximum 
side-lobe gain as well.
(i) Antenna Beamwidth
42. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed an antenna beamwidth no greater than 
12 degrees for frequencies below 57 GHz and no greater than 8 degrees in the 75-85 GHz bands.
130
  
Because the main source of the scattering of LPR emissions is the interaction with the surface being 
measured, the proposed maximum antenna beamwidth for LPRs was restricted to limit emission 
                                                     
127
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.250(d)(1) and Section 15.252(b)(2).  For example, Part 15 devices operating in the 
5.925-7.250 GHz band under Section 15.250 must suppress unwanted emissions to less than the following EIRP 
levels: -75.3 dBm in the 960-1610 MHz band, -63.3 dBm in the 1610-1990 MHz band, -61.3 dBm in the 
1990-3100 MHz band, - 51.3 dBm in the 3100-5925 MHz band, -51.3 dBm in the 7250-10600 MHz band, 
and -61.3 dBm above 10600 MHz.  All of these levels are at least 10 dB more stringent than what we are proposing 
for LPR unwanted emissions.
128
For LPRs operating in the 24.05-29 GHz band, the fundamental emission limit proposed in the FNPRM and 
adopted herein is -14 dBm EIRP. Thus, with Hach’s proposal for a 20-dB difference, the unwanted emissions would 
only be suppressed to less than -34 dBm EIRP, which is higher than the Part 15 interference criteria 
of -41.3 dBm EIRP.
129
For LPRs operating in the 75-85 GHz band, the fundamental emission limit proposed in the FNPRM and adopted 
herein is  -3 dBm EIRP.  Thus, with Hach’s proposal for a 20-dB difference, the unwanted emissions would only be 
suppressed to less than -23 dBm EIRP, which is higher than the Part 15 interference protection criteria 
of -41.3 dBm EIRP.
130
FNPRM, supra at 3672, para. 29; ECC Report 139 at p. 3.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
22
scattering in order to control the interference potential of LPRs to other radio services.
131
  The 
Commission also observed that maintaining a narrow antenna beamwidth could enhance LPR 
performance because a narrower beam reduces false echoes from objects other than the desired target 
material.
132
  
43. In its comments, Sutron requests that the proposed antenna beamwidth of 12 degrees be 
changed to permit an antenna beamwidth of 35 degrees, which is 23 degrees wider.
133
  Sutron states that 
because a narrower beamwidth would result in a physically larger antenna, the size of a 6 GHz antenna 
with a 12 degrees beamwidth would be 10x12 inches for the aperture opening and a length of 28 inches.  
It contends that such an antenna in an open outdoor environment will increase the cost to support the 
antenna structure in windy conditions or under heavy snow loading.  Sutron states that it has performed 
an actual antenna test to show that the horizontal emissions of its LPR device are less than the equivalent 
proposed horizontal emission level for LPRs operating in this frequency band
134
and argues that the 
horizontal emissions it measured are too low to constitute a threat to spectrum incumbents.
135
  
44. We are adopting our proposed antenna beamwidth limitations of no greater than 
12 degrees for frequencies below 57 GHz and no greater than 8 degrees in the 75-85 GHz bands.  First, 
the antenna beamwidth limits proposed in the FNPRM were designed to be consistent with the proposed 
main-beam emission limits, which in turn were based on ETSI standards.
136
  As noted above, 
harmonization of our emission limits with the ETSI limits serves to expand global marketing 
opportunities for U.S. manufacturers.  We conclude that any benefits that might result from Sutron’s 
proposed beamwidth limits would be outweighed by the potential benefits of harmonization with 
European standards.  Moreover, we note that a wider main beam could result in greater reflected 
emissions, and increase the potential for harmful interference to other spectrum users.  We further observe 
that other waterways level-measuring LPR manufacturers such as Hach state in their comments that their 
devices use planar antennas which have outer dimensions much smaller than a horn antenna, are less 
obtrusive and less susceptible to vandalism and can still meet the proposed rule for antenna beamwidth.
137
  
In addition, we do not find Sutron’s argument about wind/snow effects on the LPR antenna compelling, 
because this problem could be addressed by judiciously choosing an installation location that would 
shield the LPR antenna from weather conditions.  Accordingly, we deny Sutron’s request to increase the 
antenna beamwidth limit to 35 degrees.  
(ii) Antenna Side-Lobe Gain
45. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed a fixed side-lobe gain limit of -10 dBi for off-
axis angles greater than 60 degrees.
138
  The Commission also sought comment on the necessity of 
establishing limits on the gain of the antenna in the side lobe region and off-axis angles.
139
                                                     
131
ETSI LPR Standard at Section 7.4.1, p. 29.
132
FNPRM, supra at 3672, para. 29.
133
A wider antenna beamwidth would allow more emission scattering horizontally. 
134
For the 5.925-7.250 GHz band, the expected equivalent horizontal emissions, which include antenna back-lobe 
and side-lobe emissions and worst-case reflections from the material being measured, is -55 dBm EIRP.  ECC 
Report 139 at p. 3, ETSI LPR Technical Standard at p. 26, FNPRM, supra at para. 24.
135
Sutron comments at 2-3.
136
FNPRM, supra at 3672, para. 29.  See also ECC Report 139 at p. 11, ETSI LPR Technical Standard at p. 29. 
137
Hach comments at 6.
138
FNPRM, supra at 3672, para. 30.
139
Id.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
23
46. Delphi, a mobile electronics and vehicle radar manufacturer, takes issue with the proposed 
fixed side lobe gain limit.  It contends that an inefficient antenna could allow side lobe emissions to exceed 
the intended general emission limit (i.e., -41.3 dBm EIRP in 75-85 GHz band, the same as the general 
15.209 emission limit) and yet still comply with the proposed fixed -10 dBi gain.
140
  Delphi recommends 
that we specify antenna side lobe emission limits and require that these emissions be verified by 
measuring the ratio of main lobe gain to side lobe gain or tested at the system level if it is determined that 
side lobe emission levels can be accurately measured.
141
47. In reply, MCAA argues that Delphi’s analysis using 10% antenna efficiency is 
unrealistic.  MCAA contends that for a given beamwidth, and holding all other properties constant, the 
gain of an antenna (as a numeric value) is directly proportional to its efficiency.
142
MCAA further 
observes that, in the 77-81 GHz band that Europe has authorized for short-range automotive radar 
applications, radio wave propagation is subject to both high free-space attenuation
143
and high attenuation 
from terrain and ground clutter.
144
  MCAA states however that it has no objection to the Commission’s 
measuring the side-lobe gain as part of the certification, so long as the measurement ascertains gain, 
rather than side-lobe emissions.
145
48. We agree with Delphi that, in some cases, an LPR operating at the maximum main-beam 
power as proposed in the FNPRM could have side-lobe emissions that exceed the -41.3 dBm EIRP 
interference protection criteria in Section 15.209, depending on the efficiency of the antenna used and the 
power at which the LPR is operated.  The Commission noted in the FNPRM that it did not intend any 
rule revisions adopted in this proceeding to permit the gain of any LPR side lobe to exceed the EIRP limit 
in Section 15.209.
146
  Therefore, we will modify the side-lobe gain limits from those proposed in the 
FNPRM.
147
  We note that antenna side-lobe gains correlate to main-beam gains; as the antenna 
main-beam gain varies, the side-lobe gain also varies.  Therefore, to ensure that LPRs provide the same 
interference protection to authorized radio services as other Part 15 devices (i.e., maintain the 
general -41.3 dBm EIRP limit from Section 15.209 on horizontal transmissions from LPRs), we adopt a 
side-lobe gain limits relative to the main-lobe gain,
148
as shown in Table 3 below.  The calculations for 
these limits are found in Appendix C.
                                                     
140
Delphi calculates that for an LPR operating in the 75-85 GHz band with the required 8 degrees maximum 
beamwidth, a 10% efficient antenna could allow a resulting side lobe emission of -32 dBm EIRP, which would be 
10 dB above the intended general emission limit of -41.3 dBm EIRP, while still complying with the required fixed 
antenna side lobe gain of -10 dBi.  
141
Delphi comments at 2.
142
MCAA states that by redoing Delphi’s calculation, but with a more realistic low-value antenna efficiency of 
60%, its calculations instead yield a side lobe emission of just 1.5 dB above the emission limit of -41.3 dBm EIRP.  
143
There is approximately 80 dB of free space attenuation at 3 meters for an 80 GHz signal.  See FNPRM, 27 FCC 
Rcd at 3669 n.51.
144
MCAA reply comments at 6.
145
Id.
146
FNPRM, supra at 3670, para. 25.
147
ECC Report 139 at p. 12.  We note that although ECC uses the fixed -10 dBi antenna side lobe gain as an initial 
reference value in the simulations in ECC Report 139, it states that the eventual ETSI harmonized standard for LPRs
may establish a different value for side-lobe gain based on further practical measurement results.
148
If an antenna has a low main-beam gain because of losses due to inefficiency and the input power to the antenna 
is increased to compensate for the loss and to attain the maximum main beam EIRP, the specified side-lobe EIRP 
gain limit relative to the main beam gain has been calculated to ensure that side-lobe power is always suppressed to 
less than the general emission limit of Section 15.209 (i.e., less than -41.3 dBm EIRP), even if the main beam gain is 
increased up to the maximum main-beam limit.  See infra Appendix C.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
24
Table 3 – Side Lobe Gain Limit Relative to Main Beam Gain Limit
Frequency Range
(GHz)
Antenna Side Lobe Gain Limit
Relative to Main Beam Gain
(dB)
5.925-7.250 -22
24.05-29.00 -27
75-85 -38
b. Automatic Power Control
49. In the FNPRM, the Commission noted that as a consequence of its proposed main-beam 
emission limits, all reflected emissions from the LPR device will be kept at or below the Section 15.209 
general emission limits, and thus it did not to propose to adopt automatic power control (APC) 
requirements for LPR devices.  The Commission sought technical analyses from parties advocating a 
requirement for APC to show the inadequacy of the emission limit in Section 15.209.
149
  No party 
provided comments on APC.  Accordingly, we do not adopt APC requirements for LPR devices.
3. Other Requirements
b. Operational and Marketing Restrictions
50. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed, for LPR devices authorized under the higher 
emission limits in the new rule, that the antenna of an LPR device be dedicated or integrated as part of the 
transmitter and professionally installed in a downward position; to limit installations of LPR devices to 
fixed locations; to prohibit hand-held applications of LPR devices; and to prohibit the marketing of LPR 
devices to residential consumers.  It stated that these restrictions are intended to protect incumbent 
authorized services operating in the same and adjacent frequency bands from potential harmful 
interference from LPRs.
150
  As we discuss below, we will require the antenna of an LPR device to be 
dedicated or integrated as part of the transmitter; limit installations of LPR devices to fixed locations; 
prohibit hand-held applications of LPR devices; and prohibit the marketing of LPR devices to residential 
consumers.  A requirement for professional installation appears unnecessary as we are requiring LPRs to 
be installed in a downward position and LPRs would not function correctly if they are not pointed down 
toward the substance to be measured.  Accordingly, we are not adopting a requirement for professional 
installation.
51. CORF specifically supports the proposals that the LPR antenna be dedicated or integrated 
as part of the transmitter and professionally installed in a downward position; to limit installations of LPR 
devices to fixed locations; to prohibit hand-held applications of LPR devices; and to prohibit the 
marketing of LPR devices to residential consumers.
151
  EIBASS argues that the proposed requirement for 
“professional installation” is meaningless unless there is a requirement for LPRs operating at 6.6 GHz 
under the higher emission limits to produce upon FCC request a record showing the qualifications of the 
person making the installation and when the installation took place.
152
  EIBASS also recommends that 
LPRs operating in the 6 GHz frequency range include a built-in circuit that would not allow the LPR to 
                                                     
149
FNPRM, supra at 3672, para. 31.
150
Id., at 3673, para. 34. 
151
CORF comments at 4; see also NRAO reply comments at 2.
152
EIBASS comments at para. 7. EIBASS recommends that to meet such qualifications, the “professional” installer 
of LPRs should be a person holding certification from either the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) at the 
broadcast engineer level or higher, or the National Association of Radio and Television Engineers (NARTE) as an 
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) engineer, or be registered as a Professional Engineer (PE). Id., at para. 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
25
transmit if the transmitting antenna is not within + 10 degrees of straight downwards.
153
  
52. We conclude that the LPR antenna must be dedicated or integrated as part of the 
transmitter.  We do so because, as we explain above, antennas used in LPR devices must satisfy the  
requirements for main-beam radiated emissions, beamwidth and side-lobe gain, which are interdependent, 
to demonstrate compliance with new Section 15.256.  By requiring a dedicated or integrated antenna as 
part of the transmitter, we will ensure that the LPR when operated will meet the emission limits necessary 
to protect authorized users.  We also conclude that there is no need to adopt a rule to require professional 
installation of LPR.  We observe that the Commission has not adopted a specific definition for 
“professional installation” in any of our rules for unlicensed devices but has rather left it to be assessed on 
a case-by-case basis as a certification grant condition.
154
  Here, LPR devices are commercial products 
intended to measure industrial types of materials such as coal, gravel, sand piles or waterways such as 
rivers or dams, and the rules we adopt herein prohibit their marketing to residential consumers.  We also 
find that the installation of these devices is relatively simple, and because they are commercial products, 
they will typically be handled by people with product knowledge, unlike many Part 15 devices that have 
consumer-oriented applications.  Further, we are prohibiting the marketing of LPR devices to residential 
consumers.  We therefore find that the operational and marketing restrictions placed on LPR devices are 
sufficient to avoid harmful interference to authorized radio services without imposing the requirement for 
professional installation on LPR devices.  We also observe that by its operating nature, an LPR device 
must be directed toward the substance being measured; the device would not operate correctly if there are 
too many false echoes caused by reflections from various neighboring physical objects.  Thus, installation 
errors or unintentional misuse of the product will require correction to operate effectively and would need 
no additional hardware or software safeguard.  We are also requiring in the rules adopted herein that 
LPRs be installed in a downward position.  However, we find that additionally requiring built-in circuits 
to prevent transmission in case of installation errors as recommended by EIBASS an unnecessary cost 
without correlating benefits.  
53. EIBASS also states that while some LPRs appear large enough to make hand-held or 
mobile applications unlikely, others are clearly small enough to be operated as a non-fixed device, and 
violation of the hand-held restriction in the LPR rules could cause interference to a TV station’s 
studio-to-transmitter links (STL).
155
  EIBASS therefore recommends that LPRs operating in the 6 GHz 
frequency range include a built-in circuit to ensure that the LPR is stationary (i.e., it would detect motion 
if the LPR device is used in a hand-held fashion).
156
  
54. We conclude that LPR devices should only be operated when installed in fixed locations, 
and thus we will prohibit hand-held and mobile applications to prevent interference to authorized services 
in the same or adjacent frequency bands.  The record supports this conclusion.  YSI Incorporated (YSI) 
urges us to confirm that “fixed” also means temporary fixed installations, to allow users the flexibility to 
operate an LPR at different locations to meet diverse measurement needs, without requiring it to remain 
permanently at a specific fixed location.
157
  We clarify that an LPR may be temporarily affixed to a 
structure, so long as it operates only when at a fixed location as required by the rules.  We are prohibiting 
hand-held applications since these could increase the potential for harmful interference to authorized 
radio services; they could easily be moved, operated while in motion, or operated when not pointed 
straight downward.  The same concerns apply to operating an LPR while it is moving (e.g., while being 
transported inside a tanker truck), and the rules will prohibit such use.  Because we believe that misuse of 
                                                     
153
Id., at para. 4. 
154
See e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.203, 15.231, 15.247 and 15.711. 
155
EIBASS comments at para 5.
156
Id., at para. 4.
157
YSI comments at 3-4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
26
an LPR will render it ineffective and thus is quite unlikely to be pursued or to occur, we find that 
requiring built-in circuits to detect motion as recommended by EIBASS is an unnecessary cost without 
sufficient correlating benefits.
158
55. EIBASS also argues that the Commission lacks jurisdiction when it comes to the 
advertisement of Part 15 devices that are already approved, and submits that the Commission’s authority 
ends after a device has obtained certification.  EIBASS contends that even if the manufacturer of the 
Part 15 device complies with the marketing requirement and sells only to industrial users, the 
manufacturer has no control over second-tier distributors.  EIBASS is therefore concerned about 
expanded commercial use that does not comply with the marketing restrictions for LPR.
159
  
56. We disagree with EIBASS’ assertion that the Commission lacks authority to prohibit
marketing of LPR devices to certain types of customers or for certain types of applications.  We note that 
Congress granted the Commission authority to regulate the marketing, offering for sale, sale or use of RF 
devices in Section 302 of the Communications Act,
160
and the Commission implemented that authority in 
Section 2.803 of its rules.
161
Further, as an unlicensed Part 15 device, an LPR is subject to the provisions 
of Section 15.5 of the rules, which require the user of a transmitter that causes interference to authorized 
radio communications to stop operating the transmitter or correct the problem causing the interference.
162
  
The Commission has the authority to investigate Part 2 and Part 15 violations and take action accordingly,
including imposing fines and penalties through its Enforcement Bureau’s actions.
163
  Therefore, the rules 
provide several safeguards against the improper use of an LPR (e.g., using it for hand-held applications), 
that could result in harmful interference to authorized spectrum services.   
a. Equipment Certification
57. In the FNPRM, we proposed to permit Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs) 
to certify LPR devices operating under the proposed rules.
164
  We noted that the FNPRM proposals 
specify direct measurement of emissions within the main beam of the LPR antenna and are consistent 
with compliance measurement methodologies currently used by TCBs with other types of unlicensed 
                                                     
158
EIBASS contends that the FNPRM cost-benefit analysis fails to consider the costs to incumbent TV BAS 
licensees in tracking down harmful interference caused by unlicensed high power LPRs.  However, EIBASS 
concedes that tracking down interference from a stationary, continuously radiating IX source is far easier than trying 
to locate interference from a mobile or intermittently transmitting device.  EIBASS comments at para. 11.  We do 
not anticipate that BAS licensees will incur costs to investigate interference from LPR because, as we discuss above, 
we do not anticipate that LPRs will cause harmful interference to BAS.  
159
Id. at para. 9-10.
160
47 U.S.C. § 302a.  Section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, states that the Commission 
may, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, make reasonable regulations governing the 
interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting RF energy by radiation, 
conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to radio communications.  47 U.S.C. § 
302a(a).  It further states that no person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home 
electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated under this 
section.  This provision of the law is intended to prevent devices that could cause harmful interference to radio 
communications from reaching the marketplace or being operated.  47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).
161
47 C.F.R. § 2.803.  
162
47 C.F.R. § 15.5.
163
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 501-503, 510. 
164
FNPRM, supra at 3672-3673, para. 35.  TCBs are accredited third-party product certification bodies authorized to 
issue a grant of certification for certain products in lieu of a traditional grant issued by the Commission.  47 C.F.R. 
§§ 2.1031-2.1060. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
27
transmitters.
165
  We continue to hold this view, and we will allow LPR equipment certification by TCBs in 
addition to the Commission.  We note that no comment was received on this proposal.  
58. In the FNPRM, the Commission recognized that, currently, a certified TLPR device could 
be approved to operate under other conditions, e.g., outdoor installations in open-air environments, in an 
enclosure with low RF attenuation characteristics, or with higher power.  To allow previously-certified 
devices to take advantage of any changes proposed in the FNPRM and adopted in this Order, the 
Commission proposed to allow the responsible party to file for a permissive change
166
in accordance with 
the existing rules and practices, provided that: (1) the LPR device operates only within the frequency 
bands authorized by rules proposed herein; (2) measurement data taken in accordance with the 
measurement procedure proposed above is provided to demonstrate compliance with the new emission 
limits specified in these proposed rules; and (3) operational changes to the device are being implemented 
by software upgrade without any hardware change.
167
  We continue to believe that these provisions are 
appropriate because, consistent with our existing practice, they minimize additional certification burdens 
on applicants without causing an increased potential for harmful interference to authorized services.  We 
will implement the above changes in our equipment certification guidelines for LPRs.  We also note that 
no comment was received on this proposal.  
b. Additional Protection for the Radio Astronomy Service (RAS)
59. Distance Separation and Height Restrictions.  As noted above,
168
CORF notes that RAS 
has primary allocations at 76-77.5 GHz and 78-85 GHz and does not oppose sharing these bands with 
LPRs provided the Commission adopts certain protections designed to ensure that RAS can operate in the 
interference-free environment that the service requires for picking up extremely weak signals.
169
  More 
specifically, CORF and NRAO request that these protections include exclusion zones around RAS 
                                                     
165
Id.  In the Notice and Order, we instead proposed to require that TLPR devices designed to operate in the 
77-81 GHz band be certified by the Commission's Laboratory rather than by TCBs.  We noted that, because a 
standard test procedure for LPR devices had not yet been devised for use at these frequencies at that time, this 
requirement would give the Commission time to develop appropriate measurement guidelines for devices intended 
for operation in this frequency band.  Notice and Order, supra at 610, para. 24.  In the FNRPM, however, the 
Commission observed that the new proposals made in the FNPRM would facilitate the direct measurement of LPR 
emissions within the main beam of the antenna and were consistent with compliance measurement methodologies 
used with other types of unlicensed transmitters.  FNPRM, supra at 3674,  para. 35.  Accordingly, the Commission 
proposed to permit TCBs to certify LPR devices for the proposed operations in the 77-81 GHz band.  Id.
166
47 C.F.R. § 2.1043 defines three classes of permissive changes that may be made without obtaining a new grant 
of equipment authorization and labeling a device with a new FCC identification number.  The three classes of 
permissive changes are: (1) Class I, which includes those modifications in the equipment that do not degrade the 
characteristics reported by the manufacturer and accepted by the Commission when certification is granted; (2) 
Class II, which includes those modifications that degrade the performance characteristics as reported to the 
Commission at the time of the initial certification; and (3) Class III, which includes modifications to the software of 
a software defined radio transmitter that change the frequency range, modulation type, or maximum output power 
(either radiated or conducted) outside the parameters previously approved or that change the circumstances under 
which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules.  47 C.F.R. § 2.1043(b).  No filing is required 
with the Commission or a TCB for a Class I permissive change.  Class II and III permissive changes require an 
abbreviated filing with the Commission or a TCB and an acknowledgement that the changes are acceptable before 
the changed equipment can be marketed but do not require a complete application for certification or new FCC 
identification number.  Class III permissive changes are not permitted on a device that has had a Class II permissive 
change.  See also, Knowledge Data Base (KDB) No. 178919 at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=33013&switch=P.
167
FNPRM, supra at 3674, para. 36.
168
See para. 28, supra.
169
CORF comments at 1-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
28
stations, restrictions on the height of LPR antennas, requirements for antenna installation, a restriction of 
operations to fixed installations only, and the deployment of a publicly accessible database of all LPR 
installations.  CORF and NRAO state that the ECC Report 139 recommends a geographical region in 
which LPRs cannot be installed within 4 km from RAS locations and a limit of 15 meters above ground 
level on LPR antenna height within 40 km of these locations.
170
  They request that the Commission 
require the same distance separation and height restrictions to protect RAS stations, particularly in the 
6650-6675.2 MHz
171
(part of the 5.925-7.250GHz band) and 75-85 GHz bands.
172
  MCAA, which 
represents the LPR industry, agrees with the separation distance and height restrictions to protect RAS 
sites.
173
  
60. The Commission did not propose these restrictions in the FNPRM because interference to 
RAS observatories from downward-looking LPRs is unlikely.  First, the ETSI/ECC distance and antenna 
height limitation requirements are based on the RAS operating environment in Europe where RAS sites 
are typically found in urban areas; this is a different environment than in the United States, where RAS 
receivers are commonly located in remote or rural areas, not the industrial areas where LPRs are likely to 
be found.  Second, in the FNRPM, the Commission proposed radiated emission limits for LPRs, designed
to ensure that, at 3 meters from the LPR, the reflected emission level is less than the existing general limit 
of -41.3 dBm EIRP of Section 15.209, which is the limit currently applicable to Part 15 devices, such as 
computers and video monitors, which are likely being used inside a RAS site, apparently without harm.  
Third, RAS receivers discriminate against off-beam signals and are pointed skyward, discriminating 
against reflected signals that would be reflected from the side or below.  Even in the case of LPRs 
installed over waterways in remote areas, because the radio astronomy observatories typically have 
control over access to a distance of one kilometer from the telescopes to provide protection from 
interference caused by uncontrolled RFI sources,
174
the potential for interference caused by LPRs at that 
distance (one kilometer) would be infinitesimal, when also taking into account the variability in 
propagation characteristics due to terrain, weather and other factors.
175
  Given these factors and the 
additional operational and marketing restrictions on LPR devices that we are adopting herein (e.g., 
integrated antennas, downward operation, prohibition on marketing to consumers), we do not find that it 
is necessary to also prohibit LPRs by rule to avoid operating in the line of sight of RAS stations as NRAO 
requested.
176
  While the MCAA does not oppose the restrictions proposed by CORF and NRAO, MCAA 
represents only a segment of current LPR users of the band and does not necessarily anticipate future 
uses.  Accordingly, we are denying CORF and NRAO’s requests for separation distances from radio 
astronomy observatories and for a limitation on LPR antenna height within certain distances of the line of 
sight of RAS stations.  
                                                     
170
CORF comments at 6, NRAO comments at 3.  CORF comments are mostly concerned with the 75-85 GHz band.
171
Although the radio astronomy service (RAS) has no allocation in the 6650-6675.2 MHz band, NRAO observes 
that footnote US 342 to the Table of Frequency Allocations states that “all practicable steps shall be taken to protect 
the radio astronomy service from harmful interference.”  NRAO comments at 2.  
172
With respect to the specific bands mentioned for operation of LPR, radio astronomy has primary spectrum 
allocations over the entirety of the region 76-85 GHz, except at 77.5-78 GHz where it is secondary.  Id.
173
MCAA comments at 3-4, MCAA reply comments at 5.
174
See Amendment of Parts 2, 15 and 97 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit the Use of Radio Frequencies Above 
40 GHz for New Radio Applications, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 94-124, 
15 FCC Rcd 10515, 10517-18, para. 8 and n.15 (2000).
175
At d= 1000 m and f = 76.50 GHz, free-space path loss is approximately 130 dB.  See also Amendment of Sections 
15.35 and 15.253 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Operation of Radar Systems in the 76-77 GHz Band and 
Amendment of Section 15.253 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Fixed Use of Radar in the 76-77 GHz Band, 
Report and Order, ET Docket Nos. 11-90 and 10-28, 27 FCC Rcd 7880, 7885, para. 15 (2012).
176
NRAO comments at 3.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
29
61. LPR Installation Database.  CORF and NRAO request that we implement a publicly 
available LPR installation database so that RAS operators can readily identify sources of interference to 
their stations should interference occur.
177
  They point out that the Commission required LPR 
manufacturers to maintain such information and make it available to the Commission upon request when 
we granted waivers to TLPR manufacturers to operate in the 77-81 GHz band.
178
  NRAO recognizes the 
likely diversity of LPR vendors, installers and providers but continues to request that given the limited 
number of RAS sites, only installations within 40 km of RAS sites need to be identified by sending an
email or a letter to the Spectrum Management Office at the National Science Foundation (NSF).
179
  
MCAA and Krohne strongly oppose these requests for a database of LPR installation sites.  Krohne states 
that its customers, especially governmental users, need to protect their sensitive operational data, which 
often include the location of tanks and storage facilities.  Krohne also rejects NRAO’s suggestion to just 
receive a letter or an email of new location installations, citing the cost burden, as well as the same type of 
confidentiality concerns that it raised with respect to the proposal for a public database.  MCAA states 
that many installations are performed by third-party companies, so the manufacturers have no reliable 
mechanism for maintaining location data. 
62. We decline to require a publicly available LPR installation database or to require 
manufacturers to maintain lists of LPR installation sites.  We note that it is customary for the Commission 
to proceed in a very cautious manner in a waiver proceeding by imposing specific conditions on 
operations that typically involve new technology products or new applications of existing technologies 
and with which the Commission may have little or no prior experience regulating.  In the case of the 
waiver grant for TLPR devices operating in the 77-81 GHz band, we required manufacturers to maintain a 
list of LPR installation sites as an additional safeguard to permitting LPR operations in a restricted band, 
even though we expected that TLPR devices would not be operating in close proximity to radio 
astronomy sites and thus not likely to cause harmful interference to them.
180
  As we discuss above in the 
Report and Order, we are adopting new rules based on ETSI/ECC’s analysis which derived the limits for 
LPR main-beam emissions by mathematically correlating them with reflected emissions from an LPR; the 
resulting values are the same as the existing Part 15 average emission limit.
181
  The LPR main-beam 
emission limits therefore would maintain the existing level of interference protection to incumbent radio 
services, including RAS sites -- a level that has already proven to be adequate.  We find that NRAO’s 
recommendation that the NSF be notified of each LPR installation site is an unnecessary cost without 
countervailing benefits, and agree with the LPR industry that this could give rise to confidentiality issues.  
We conclude that the downward-looking operation of LPRs at such emission limits, when combined with 
the various operating/marketing restrictions, is extremely unlikely to cause harmful interference to radio 
astronomy telescopes, thereby making a database or list of LPR installation sites, or notification to 
authorized users unnecessary.  Further, we find that our decision not to require a publicly available 
database addresses the LPR industry’s concern over potential security risks from the disclosure of LPR 
locations.
63. Cost Benefit Analysis.  In the FNPRM, the Commission provided an analysis on the 
potential costs of the proposed LPR regulation versus its potential benefits.
182
  The Commission stated 
that, because LPR devices need higher power and wider bandwidth than that which is permitted under the 
existing Part 15 rules to fully achieve the potential of this measuring technology, the proposed rules 
                                                     
177
CORF comments at 4-5; NRAO comments at 3.
178
Notice and Order, supra at 614, para. 38.
179
NRAO reply comments at 2.
180
Notice and Order, supra at 614, para. 38.
181
See supra para. 33, note 102.
182
FNPRM, supra at 3674-75, para. 37.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
30
would tender a necessary remedy for LPR devices to operate at the power levels and in the appropriate 
frequency bands required to deliver the needed accuracy for diverse applications, thereby promoting the 
expanded development and use of this technology to the benefit of businesses, consumers, and the 
economy.  The Commission tentatively concluded that the proposed higher power levels in the proposed
frequency bands would further the development of better and improved level-measuring tools, but these 
changes would not increase the potential for interference to authorized users beyond what is permitted 
under the current rules.  The Commission also considered how the proposed rules would help to simplify 
equipment development and certification of LPR devices, as well as provide a simplified method for 
measuring the radiated emissions from these devices.
183
  
64. Except for a comment from EIBASS, none of the commenters took issue with any of 
these factors or with our tentative conclusion.  As we discussed above,
184
EIBASS argues that the FNPRM
cost-benefit analysis fails to consider the costs to incumbent TV BAS licensees in the 6 GHZ frequency 
range in tracking down harmful interference caused by unlicensed high power LPRs.
185
We do not 
anticipate, however, that BAS licensees will incur costs to investigate interference from LPR; we do not 
find that LPRs will cause harmful interference to BAS or any other licensed user in any of the adopted 
frequency bands for LPR operation, as discussed at length, above.
186
  We conclude that the rules adopted 
herein will provide significant benefits to LPR manufacturers and users with no apparent cost to any 
party.  
IV. ORDER
65. In this Order, we are dismissing a waiver request from VEGA to operate LPR devices in 
the 24.6-27 GHz frequency band under Section 15.252 as moot.  The Commission previously held this 
request in abeyance pending final action in this rulemaking proceeding because this waiver raises issues 
that are, in part, similar to those raised in the FNPRM.
187
  
66. VEGA requested a waiver of Section 15.252(a) to operate LPR devices in the 
24.6-27 GHz frequency band under this section as a fixed structure, either in tanks or in open air.
188
  
Section 15.252(a) permits the use of field disturbance sensors within the frequency bands 16.2-17.7 GHz 
and 23.12-29.0 GHz but requires them to be mounted in terrestrial transportation vehicles, whereas 
VEGA’s LPR devices would only be installed at fixed locations.
189
  The waiver request also proposed an 
emission method of measurement that does not take into account boresight emissions.  After the release of 
the FNPRM, VEGA amended this waiver request on June 6, 2012 for permission to market its 6 GHz and 
26 GHz LPRs that would comply with the proposed rules.
190
Because the rules we adopt in this Report 
and Order will enable VEGA to operate LPR devices in the 24.6-27 GHz frequency band without a 
                                                     
183
Id.
184
See supra at para. 54, note 158. 
185
However, EIBASS concedes that tracking down interference from a stationary, continuously radiating IX source 
is far easier than trying to locate interference from a mobile or intermittently transmitting device.  EIBASS 
comments at para. 11.
186
See e.g., supra at paras. 15, 34 and 36.
187
FNPRM, supra at 3664, para. 9.
188
See Ohmart/VEGA Corporation Request for Waiver of Section 15.252 to Permit the Marketing of Level Probing 
Radars in the 26 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 10-27; see also supra n. 20.  After the adoption of the FNPRM, 
Ohmart/VEGA amended this waiver on April 26, 2012, to request immediate operation under the FNPRM’s
proposed rules pending the conclusion of this rulemaking.  Id.
189
47 C.F.R. § 15.252(a). 
190
Ohmart/VEGA Corporation Request for Waiver of Section 15.252 to Permit the Marketing of Level Probing 
Radars in the 26 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 10-27; see also supra n. 20.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
31
waiver of the usage restrictions in Section 15.252(a), VEGA will be able to apply for LPR certification 
under new Section 15.256 for both in tank and open air applications.  Accordingly, we dismiss VEGA’s 
waiver request as moot. 
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
67. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 603, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the changes adopted in this 
document.  The FRFA is set forth in Appendix A.  
68. Paperwork Reduction Analysis.  This document contains no new or modified information 
collection requirements 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).
69. Congressional Review Act.  The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in 
a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
70. IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), and 
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302a, 303(e), 
303(f), 303(g), and 303(r), this Report and Oder is hereby ADOPTED and Part 15 of the Commission’s 
Rules ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix D, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register.
71. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to authority in Section 1.3 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.3, and Sections 4(i), 302, and 303(e), of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 302, and 303(e), the Request for Waiver filed by 
VEGA Americas, Inc. (formerly Ohmart/VEGA Corporation) filed on December 3, 2009, IS 
DISMISSED, consistent with the terms of this Order.  This action is effective upon release of this Order.
72. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including 
the Final 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 14-2 
32
APPENDIX A
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
1
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in ET 
Docket No. 10-23.
2
  The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the FNPRM, 
including comment on the IRFA.  This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to 
the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
2. In this Report and Order, we modify our rules to provide a set of new technical and 
operational rules to govern the operation of level probing radar (LPR) devices installed both in open-air 
environments and inside storage tanks (TLPR applications) in the following frequency bands:  
5.925-7.250 GHz, 24.05-29.00 GHz, and 75-85 GHz.  To permit LPR operation in the 75-85 GHz band, 
we also modify the existing Section 15.205 of the rules to remove the prohibition on intentional emissions 
in this band.  The amended rules will allow devices with accurate and reliable target resolution to identify 
water levels in rivers and dams or critical levels of materials such as fuel or sewer-treated waste, reducing 
overflow and spillage and minimizing exposure of maintenance personnel in the case of high risk 
substances.  The amended rules would also, to the extent practicable, harmonize our technical rules for 
LPR devices with similar European standards and would improve the competitiveness of U.S. 
manufacturers in the global economy, leading to potential cost savings for small businesses, all without 
causing harmful interference to authorized spectrum users in the affected frequency bands.  
B. Statement of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 
3. There were no public comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies 
proposed in the IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
4. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond 
to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and to 
provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.  The 
Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply
5. 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 proposed rules, if adopted.
3
  The RFA defines the 
term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and 
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996), and the
Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public Law No. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504 (2010).
2
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in ET Docket No. 10-23 (In the Matter of Amendment of Part 15 of the 
Commission’s Rules To Establish Regulations for Tank Level Probing Radars in the Frequency Band 77-81 GHz 
and Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules To Establish Regulations for Level Probing Radars and Tank 
Level Probing Radars in the Frequency Bands 5.925-7.250 GHz, 24.05-29.00 GHz and 75-85 GHz), 27 FCC Rcd. 
3660 (2012) (FNPRM).
3
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
33
“small business concern” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.
4
  Under the Small Business Act, a 
“small business concern” is one that:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its 
field of operations; and (3) meets may additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
5
6. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our 
action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore 
describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards that encompass 
entities that could be directly affected by the proposals under consideration.
6
  As of 2009, small 
businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to the SBA.
7
  
Additionally, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
8
  Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 
1,621,315 small organizations.
9
  Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally 
as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.”
10
  Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the United States.
11
  We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761
entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”
12
  Thus, we estimate that most governmental 
jurisdictions are small.
7. The adopted rules pertain to manufacturers of unlicensed communications devices.  The 
appropriate small business size standard is that which the SBA has established for radio and television 
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturing.  The Census Bureau defines this 
category as follows:  “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio 
and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.  Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, 
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
                                                     
4
Id. § 601(3).
5
Id. § 632.
6
See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)–(6).
7
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” available at
http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24 (last visited Aug. 31, 2012).
8
5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
9
INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC &DESK REFERENCE (2010).
10
5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
11
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427 (2007).
12
The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the 
population in each such organization. There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in 2007. If we assume 
that county, municipal, township, and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental 
organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less, the total of these organizations is 52,095. If we make the same 
population assumption about special districts, specifically that they are likely to have a population of 50,000 or less, 
and also assume that special districts are different from county, municipal, township, and school districts, in 2007 
there were 37,381 such special districts.  Therefore, there are a total of 89,476 local government organizations.  As a 
basis of estimating how many of these 89,476 local government organizations were small, in 2011, we note that 
there were a total of 715 cities and towns (incorporated places and minor civil divisions) with populations over 
50,000.  CITY AND TOWNS TOTALS: VINTAGE 2011 – U.S. Census Bureau, available at 
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html.  If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that meet 
or exceed the 50,000 population threshold, we conclude that approximately 88,761 are small.  U.S. CENSUS 
BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011, Tables 427, 426 (Data cited therein are 
from 2007).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
34
broadcasting equipment.”
13
  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for firms in this 
category, which is:  all such firms having 750 or fewer employees.
14
  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.  Of this total, 784 had less than 500 employees and 155 had more than 100 employees.
15
  Thus, 
under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Record keeping and Other Compliance Requirements 
for Small Entities
8. Unlicensed devices operating in the 5.925-7.250 GHz and 24.05-29.00 GHz band are 
already required to be authorized under the Commission's certification procedure as a prerequisite to 
marketing and importation, and the Report and Order makes no change to that requirement.  See 47 
C.F.R. §§ 15.101, 15.201, 15.250, and 15.252.  Currently, the 75-85 GHz band is a restricted band in 
which unlicensed device may not only transmit spurious (unintentional) emissions.  The Report and Order 
modifies the existing Section 15.205, 47 C.F.R. § 15.205, of the rules to remove the prohibition on 
intentional emissions in this band and adopt the same certification procedures for level probing radars 
operating in this band as for the other above-listed frequency bands.  The technical requirements adopted 
in this Report and Order, as discussed below, do not impose significant burden and will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that are, or may be, subject to the 
requirements of the rules in the item. 
F. Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant 
Alternatives Considered
9. 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.
16
10. In this Report and Order, we modify our rules to provide a set of new technical and 
operational rules to govern the operation of LPR devices installed both in open-air environments and 
inside storage tanks (TLPR applications) in the following frequency bands:  5.925-7.250 GHz, 
24.05-29.00 GHz, and 75-85 GHz.  To permit LPR operation in the 75-85 GHz band, we also modify the 
existing Section 15.205 of the rules to remove the prohibition on intentional emissions in this band.  
These rule changes will provide needed flexibility and cost savings for LPR devices, benefiting the U.S. 
consumers and manufacturers without causing harmful interference to authorized services.  The amended 
rules will allow devices with accurate and reliable target resolution to identify water levels in rivers and 
dams or critical levels of materials such as fuel or sewer-treated waste, reducing overflow and spillage 
and minimizing exposure of maintenance personnel in the case of high risk substances.  The amended 
rules would also, to the extent practicable, harmonize our technical rules for LPR devices with similar 
                                                     
13
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing”; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND334220.HTM#N334220.
14
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
15
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&-
ds_name=EC0731SG2&-_lang=en.
16
5 U.S.C. § 603(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2 
35
European standards and would improve the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers in the global economy, 
leading to potential cost savings for small businesses.  We find that the benefits of the above changes to 
the rules outweigh their regulatory costs.  We believe that the adopted rules will apply equally to large 
and small entities.  Therefore, there is no inequitable impact on small entities.
11. Report to Congress:  The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including 
this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
17
  In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA.  A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be 
published in the Federal Register.
18
                                                     
17
See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
18
See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2
36
APPENDIX B
Parties Submitting Comments
Comments
1.    Delphi Automotive (Delphi)
2.    Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum (EIBASS)
3.   Emerson Process Management (Emerson)
4.   Hach Company (Hach)
5.   High Sierra Electronics (High Sierra)
6.   Krohne America, Inc. (Krohne)
7.   Magnetrol International, Incorporated (Magnetrol)
8.   Measurement, Control & Automation Association (MCAA)
9.    National Academy of Science’s Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF)
10.  National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)
11.  Siemens Milltronics Process Instruments (Siemens)
12.  Sutron Corporation (Sutron)
13.  VEGA Americas, Inc. (formerly Ohmart/VEGA Corporation) (VEGA)
14.  YSI Incorporated (YSI)
Reply Comments
1.   Hach Company (Hach)
2.   Krohne America, Inc. (Krohne)
3.   Magnetrol International, Incorporated (Magnetrol)
4.   Measurement, Control & Automation Association (MCAA)
5.   National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)
6.   O3b Limited (O3b)
7.   Siemens Milltronics Process Instruments (Siemens)
8.   Sutron Corporation (Sutron)
9.   VEGA Americas, Inc. (formerly Ohmart/VEGA Corporation) (VEGA)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2
37
APPENDIX C
Antenna Side-Lobe Gain
1. Antennas can produce emissions in unwanted directions due to side lobes.  The side lobes
are smaller beams that are away from the main beam.  A good (highly efficient) antenna would 
concentrate power into the main beam and limit the number of side lobes as well as suppress side lobe 
emissions to very low levels, but could never completely eliminate them.
2. Although an LPR operates in a downward direction and is constrained to a narrow 
beamwidth, there are horizontal emissions from the LPR antenna side lobes. These emissions can be 
controlled by a side-lobe gain limit, such that side-lobe emissions are suppressed to less than the general 
emission limit in Section 15.209 (i.e., -41.3 dBm EIRP), which has been established as the minimum 
interference protection level to authorized radio services from unlicensed operations above 960 MHz. 
3. The proposed rules require that the LPR antenna beamwidth be less than 8 degrees for the 
75-85 GHz band and less than 12 degrees for the 24.05-29.00 GHz and 5.925-7.250 GHz bands.  The 
proposed rules also require a fixed -10 dBi side-lobe gain for elevation angles greater than 60 degrees. 
4. To achieve the above required antenna beamwidths, a parabolic antenna with 100 % 
efficiency must have a certain minimum gain.  For an LPR operating at the maximum EIRP power with a 
parabolic antenna at the minimum main beam gain required to meet the maximum beamwidth limit, the 
table below shows the maximum side-lobe gain limit when it is specified relative to the main beam gain 
rather than an absolute gain limit of -10 dBi and the difference between the two limits.
Table 2 – Fixed Side-Lobe Gain vs. Relative Side-Lobe Gain
A B C D E F G
Frequency
Band
(GHz)
Main Beam 
EIRP Limit
(dBm/MHz)
(Note 1)
Side lobe
EIRP Limit
(dBm/MHz)
(Note 2)
Minimum
Main Beam
Gain
(dBi)
(Note 3)
Relative Side
lobe Gain
Limit
(dB)
(C) – (B)
Side lobe
Gain 
Limit
(dBi)
(D) + (E)
Difference 
between 
Fixed -10 dBi 
Proposed 
Limit and 
Relative Side 
Lobe Gain
(dB)
(-10 – (F))
5.925-
7.250
-33 -55 22.7 -22 0.7 -10.7
24.05-
29.00
-14 -41 22.7 -27 -4.3 -5.7
75-85 -3 -41 26.3 -38 -11.7 1.7
Notes: 1.  These limits are the proposed EIRP limits for the different LPR frequency bands. 
2.  These limits are the general interference protection criteria for the different 
frequency bands.
3.  These numbers show the minimum main beam gain for a parabolic antenna 
operating in accordance with the required antenna beamwidth (less than 8 degrees for 
the 75-85 GHz band and less than 12 degrees for the lower frequency bands.)
5. As illustrated in Table 2 above, when the LPR operates at maximum EIRP power with 
the minimum main beam gain for a parabolic antenna, the side-lobe gain limit based on the relative gain 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2
38
specification varies from 1.7 dB below to 10.7 dB above the proposed fixed -10 dBi side-lobe antenna 
gain limit.  Therefore, in the 75-85 GHz band, the relative side-lobe gain is 1.7 dB less than an antenna 
with a -10 dBi fixed side-lobe gain, while in the two lower frequency bands, the relative side-lobe gain 
limit is 5.7 dB and 10.7 dB higher than an antenna with a -10 dBi fixed side-lobe gain.  The difference 
between the two limits will depend on the actual main beam gain of the antenna.  Based on the examples 
above, when the LPR is operated at the maximum proposed EIRP power limits, a fixed side-lobe gain 
limit may result in side-lobe power which may be greater or less than the side-lobe limits shown in 
column C in Table 2.  Side-lobe power greater than the limit increases the interference potential and 
side-lobe power less than the limit requires the side-lobe suppression to be more than necessary, making 
the antenna design more challenging.  
6. These problems can be eliminated by specifying the antenna side-lobe gain limit relative 
to the main-beam gain, instead of the proposed -10 dBi fixed side-lobe gain.  If an antenna has a low 
main-beam gain because of losses due to inefficiency and the input power to the antenna is increased to 
compensate for the loss and to attain the maximum main beam EIRP, a side-lobe EIRP gain limit relative 
to the main beam gain will ensure that side-lobe power is always suppressed to less than the general 
emission limit of Section 15.209.  This will maintain the existing interference protection criteria for 
authorized radio services.  The side-lobe gain limits relative to main-beam gain limits are illustrated in 
Table 3 below.
Table 3 – Side-Lobe Gain Limit Relative to Main Beam Gain Limit
Frequency Range
(GHz)
Antenna Side lobe Gain
Relative to Main Beam Gain
(dB)
5.925-7.250 -22
24.05-29.00 -27
75-85 -38
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2
39
APPENDIX D
Final Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends title 47 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations Part 15 to read as follows:
Part 15 – RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
1.  The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 202, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.
2.  Section 15.3 is amended by adding paragraph (ii) to read as follows: 
§ 15.3 Definitions. 
*              *              *              *              *
(ii)  Level Probing Radar (LPR):  A short-range radar transmitter used in a wide range of 
applications to measure the amount of various substances, mostly liquids or granulates.  LPR equipment 
may operate in open-air environments or inside an enclosure containing the substance being measured.    
*              *              *              *              *
3.  Section 15.31 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (g) and adding paragraph (q) to read as 
follows: 
§ 15.31 Measurement standards.
*              *              *              *              *
(c)  Except as otherwise indicated in § 15.256, for swept frequency equipment, measurements shall 
be made with the frequency sweep stopped at those frequencies chosen for the measurements to be 
reported.
*              *              *              *              *
(g)  Equipment under test shall be positioned and adjusted, using those controls that are readily 
accessible to or are intended to be accessible to the consumer, in such a manner as to maximize the level 
of the emissions.  For those devices to which wire leads may be attached by the operator, tests shall be 
performed with wire leads attached.  The wire leads shall be of the length to be used with the equipment if 
that length is known.  Otherwise, wire leads one meter in length shall be attached to the equipment.  
Longer wire leads may be employed if necessary to interconnect to associated peripherals.
*              *              *              *              *
(q)  As an alternative to § 15.256 of this part, a level probing radar (LPR) may be certified as an 
intentional radiator by showing compliance with the general provisions for operation under Part 15 
Subpart C of this chapter, provided that the device is tested in accordance with the provisions in either 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2
40
paragraphs (q)(1) or (q)(2) below.  Compliance with the general provisions for an intentional radiator may 
require compliance with other rules in this part, e.g., § 15.5, § 15.31, § 15.35, etc., when referenced.
(1)  An LPR device intended for installation inside metal and concrete enclosures may show 
compliance for radiated emissions when measured outside a representative enclosure with the LPR 
installed inside, in accordance with the measurement guidelines established by the Commission for these 
devices. LPR devices operating inside these types of enclosures shall ensure that the enclosure is closed 
when the radar device is operating. Care shall be taken to ensure that gaskets, flanges, and other openings 
are sealed to eliminate signal leakage outside of the structure. The responsible party shall take reasonable 
steps to ensure that LPR devices intended for use in these types of enclosures shall not be installed in 
open-air environments or inside enclosures with lower radio-frequency attenuating characteristics (e.g.,
fiberglass, plastic, etc.). An LPR device approved under this subsection may only be operated in the type 
of enclosure for which it was approved.  
(2)  Except as provided in paragraph (q)(1) of this section, an LPR device shall be placed in testing 
positions that ensure the field strength values of the radiated emissions are maximized, including in the 
main beam of the LPR antenna.  
*              *              *              *              *
4.  Section 15.35 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
§ 15.35 Measurement detector functions and bandwidths.
*              *              *              *              *
(b)  Unless otherwise specified, on any frequency or frequencies above 1000 MHz, the radiated 
emission limits are based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing an average detector 
function.  Unless otherwise specified, measurements above 1000 MHz shall be performed using a 
minimum resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz.  When average radiated emission measurements are specified 
in this part, including average emission measurements below 1000 MHz, there also is a limit on the peak 
level of the radio frequency emissions.  Unless otherwise specified, e.g., see §§ 15.250, 15.252, 15.255, 
15.256, and 15.509-15.519 of this part, the limit on peak radio frequency emissions is 20 dB above the 
maximum permitted average emission limit applicable to the equipment under test.  This peak limit 
applies to the total peak emission level radiated by the device, e.g., the total peak power level.  Note that 
the use of a pulse desensitization correction factor may be needed to determine the total peak emission 
level.  The instruction manual or application note for the measurement instrument should be consulted for 
determining pulse desensitization factors, as necessary.
(c)  Unless otherwise specified, e.g., Section 15.255(b), and Section 15.256(l)(5), when the radiated 
emission limits are expressed in terms of the average value of the emission, and pulsed operation is 
employed, the measurement field strength shall be determined by averaging over one complete pulse 
train, including blanking intervals, as long as the pulse train does not exceed 0.1 seconds.  As an 
alternative (provided the transmitter operates for longer than 0.1 seconds) or in cases where the pulse train 
exceeds 0.1 seconds, the measured field strength shall be determined from the average absolute voltage 
during a 0.1 second interval during which the field strength is at its maximum value.  The exact method of 
calculating the average field strength shall be submitted with any application for certification or shall be 
retained in the measurement data file for equipment subject to notification or verification.
*              *              *              *              *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2
41
5.  Section 15.205 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: 
§ 15.205  Restricted bands of operation.
*              *              *              *              *
(d)  *     *     *
*              *              *              *              *
(4)  Any equipment operated under the provisions of § 15.253, § 15.255, § 15.256 in the frequency band 
75-85 GHz, or § 15.257 of this part.  
*              *              *              *              *
6.  New Section 15.256 is added to read as follows: 
§ 15.256  Operation of level probing radars within the bands 5.925-7.250 GHz, 24.05-29.00 GHz, and 
75-85 GHz.
(a) Operation under this section is limited to level probing radar (LPR) devices.
(b) LPR devices operating under the provisions of this section shall utilize a dedicated or integrated 
transmit antenna, and the system shall be installed and maintained to ensure a vertically downward 
orientation of the transmit antenna’s main beam.  
(c) LPR devices operating under the provisions of this section shall be installed only at fixed 
locations.  The LPR device shall not operate while being moved, or while inside a moving container.
(d) Hand-held applications are prohibited.
(e) Marketing to residential consumers is prohibited.
(f) The fundamental bandwidth of an LPR emission is defined as the width of the signal between two 
points, one below and one above the center frequency, outside of which all emissions are attenuated by at 
least 10 dB relative to the maximum transmitter output power when measured in an equivalent resolution 
bandwidth.
(1) The minimum fundamental emission bandwidth shall be 50 MHz for LPR operation under the 
provisions of this section.
(2) LPR devices operating under this section must confine their fundamental emission bandwidth 
within the 5.925-7.250 GHz, 24.05-29.00 GHz, and 75-85 GHz bands under all conditions of 
operation.
(g) Fundamental Emissions Limits
(1) All emission limits provided in this section are expressed in terms of Equivalent Isotropic 
Radiated Power (EIRP).
(2) The EIRP level is to be determined from the maximum measured power within a specified 
bandwidth.  
(i) The EIRP in 1 MHz is computed from the maximum power level measured within 
any 1-MHz bandwidth using a power averaging detector;
(ii) The EIRP in 50 MHz is computed from the maximum power level measured with a 
peak detector in a 50-MHz bandwidth centered on the frequency at which the 
maximum average power level is realized and this 50 MHz bandwidth must be
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2
42
contained within the authorized operating bandwidth. For a RBW less than 50 MHz, 
the peak EIRP limit (in dBm) is reduced by 20 log(RBW/50) dB where RBW is the 
resolution bandwidth in megahertz.  The RBW shall not be lower than 1 MHz or 
greater than 50 MHz. The video bandwidth of the measurement instrument shall not
be less than the RBW. If the RBW is greater than 3 MHz, the application for 
certification filed shall contain a detailed description of the test procedure, calibration
of the test setup, and the instrumentation employed in the testing.
(3) The EIRP limits for LPR operations in the bands authorized by this rule section are provided 
in Table 1 below:
Frequency Band of 
Operation (GHz)
Average Emission Limit 
(EIRP in dBm measured 
in 1 MHz)  
Peak Emission Limit (EIRP 
in dBm measured in 
50 MHz)
5.925-7.250 -33 7
24.05-29.00 -14 26
75-85 -3 34
Table 1 – LPR EIRP emission limits
The emission limits in Table 1 are based on boresight measurements (i.e., measurements performed 
within the main beam of an LPR antenna).
(h) Unwanted Emissions Limits
Unwanted emissions from LPR devices shall not exceed the general emission limit in § 15.209 of 
this chapter. 
(i) Antenna Beamwidth
(1) LPR devices operating under the provisions of this section within the 5.925-7.250 GHz and 
24.05-29.00 GHz bands must use an antenna with a -3 dB beamwidth no greater than 
12 degrees. 
(2) LPR devices operating under the provisions of this section within the 75-85 GHz band must 
use an antenna with a -3 dB beamwidth no greater than 8 degrees.
(j) Antenna Side Lobe Gain
LPR devices operating under the provisions of this section must limit the side lobe antenna gain 
relative to the main beam gain for off-axis angles from the main beam of greater than 60 degrees 
to the levels provided in Table 2 below:
Frequency Range
(GHz)
Antenna Side Lobe
Gain Limit Relative to
Main Beam Gain
(dB)
5.925-7.250 -22
24.05-29.00 -27
75-85 -38
Table 2 – Antenna side lobe gain limits
(k) Emissions from digital circuitry used to enable the operation of the transmitter may comply with 
the limits in § 15.209 of this chapter provided it can be clearly demonstrated that those emissions are due 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-2
43
solely to emissions from digital circuitry contained within the transmitter and the emissions are not 
intended to be radiated from the transmitter’s antenna.  Emissions from associated digital devices, as 
defined in § 15.3(k) of this chapter, e.g., emissions from digital circuitry used to control additional 
functions or capabilities other than the operation of the transmitter, are subject to the limits contained in 
Subpart B of Part 15 of this chapter.  Emissions from these digital circuits shall not be employed in 
determining the -10 dB bandwidth of the fundamental emission or the frequency at which the highest 
emission level occurs.
(l) Measurement Procedures  
(1) Radiated measurements of the fundamental emission bandwidth and power shall be made 
with maximum main-beam coupling between the LPR and test antennas (boresight).
(2) Measurements of the unwanted emissions radiating from an LPR shall be made utilizing 
elevation and azimuth scans to determine the location at which the emissions are maximized. 
(3) All emissions at and below 1000 MHz except 9-90 kHz and 110-490 kHz bands are based on 
measurements employing a CISPR quasi-peak detector.
(4) The fundamental emission bandwidth measurement shall be made using a peak detector with 
a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz and a video bandwidth of at least 3 MHz.
(5) The provisions in §§ 15.35(b) and (c) of this part that require emissions to be averaged over a 
100 millisecond period and that limits the peak power to 20 dB above the average limit do not 
apply to devices operating under paragraphs (a)-(l) of this section.
(6) Compliance measurements for minimum emission bandwidth of frequency-agile LPR devices 
shall be performed with any related frequency sweep, step, or hop function activated. 
(7) Compliance measurements shall be made in accordance with the specific procedures 
published or otherwise authorized by the Commission.