[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19773-19777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9880]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 98-153; FCC 03-33]


Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Fourteen petitions for reconsideration were filed in response 
to the regulations for unlicensed ultra-wideband (``UWB'') operation. 
Some of the petitions addressed matters that were outside of the scope 
of this proceeding, resulting in the Commission issuing a Further 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making to address the issues raised.

DATES: Comments due July 21, 2003. Reply Comments due August 20, 2003.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, 
Marlene H. Dortch, Office of Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Reed (202) 418-2455, Policy and 
Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making portion of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 03-33, adopted 
February 13, 2003, and released March 12, 2003. The full text of this 
document is available for inspection and copying during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document 
also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex 
International, 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. 
Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by 
contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365.

Summary of Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making

    1. On February 14, 2002, the Commission adopted a First Report and 
Order implementing regulations to permit the unlicensed operation of 
ultra-wideband transmission systems. Fourteen petitions for 
reconsideration were filed in response to that Order. New rules were 
proposed to address issues raised by MSSI and by Siemens regarding the 
operation of low pulse repetition frequency (PRF) UWB systems, 
including vehicular radars, in the 3.1-10.6 GHz band; and the operation 
of frequency hopping vehicular radars in the 22-29 GHz band as UWB 
devices. The Commission also proposed new rules that would establish 
new peak power limits for wideband Part 15 devices that do not operate 
as UWB devices and proposed to eliminate the definition of a UWB 
device.
    2. Proposed changes to the UWB standards to accommodate the MSSI 
radar system. Comments are requested on allowing UWB systems that 
employ a pulse repetition frequency (PRF) no greater than 200 kHz to be 
used for any type of application in the 3.1 GHz to 10.6 GHz band. MSSI 
specifically mentioned vehicular radar systems as an example of such 
equipment. The emission standards limit the interference potential of 
low PRF emitters. As the PRF decreases below a certain level, depending 
on the RBW used to measure the peak emission, the peak limit becomes 
the defining standard and the average emission level generated in a 1 
MHz RBW decreases below the limit specified in the regulations. 
Accordingly, UWB devices employing a low PRF are limited in their 
output levels by the standard on peak emission levels, not by the 
standard on average emission levels. Comments are requested on whether 
a different PRF limit should be employed, if any other changes to the 
standards, including changes to the emission limits, are necessary to 
incorporate this addition to the type of UWB devices permitted to 
operate outdoors, or if the addition to the operation of outdoor UWB 
devices should be expanded only to include low PRF vehicular radar 
systems. Specific technical analyses supporting the comments are 
requested.
    3. Proposed changes to the UWB standards to accommodate the Siemens 
VDO radar system. Siemens requested an amendment of the rules to permit 
the operation vehicular radar systems in the 22-29 GHz band using 
frequency

[[Page 19774]]

hopping modulation to comply with the UWB definition and bandwidth 
requirements, provided the measurements are averaged over a 10 
millisecond period. Siemens VDO also requested that vehicular radar 
systems be permitted to comply with the RMS average emission limits 
based on averaging over a 10 millisecond time period. The Commission 
agrees that public comment should be obtained on Siemens VDO's 
proposal. This proposal is limited solely to vehicle radar systems 
operating in the 22-29 GHz band. Further, no changes are proposed to 
the emission limits applied to UWB vehicular radar systems. Rather, we 
are proposing new measurement techniques that may accommodate frequency 
hopping systems as UWB vehicular radars. We propose to permit frequency 
hopping systems to operate under the provisions for UWB vehicular radar 
systems provided the minimum UWB bandwidth is achieved in no greater 
than 10 milliseconds and the transmitter complies with all other 
technical standards for UWB operation in the 22-29 GHz band. Compliance 
with the average emission limit would be based on measurement using a 
one megahertz resolution bandwidth (RBW), a video bandwidth equal to or 
greater than the RBW, an RMS detector function, and a maximum 10 
millisecond averaging time. The peak measurement would be required to 
be performed as currently specified in the rules using a peak hold 
detector and shall be performed over a sufficiently long period that 
the peak levels being measured cease increasing.
    4. Comments are requested on whether the higher instantaneous power 
delivered by a frequency hopping system would cause harmful 
interference to these systems. Comments also are requested on the 
proposed measurement procedures. For example, should the peak 
measurement be performed with the hopping sequence stopped; should a 
different averaging time be employed; should the averaging time be 
based on the number of hops and the dwell time of the hops; and should 
a maximum time be specified within which all hopping channels must be 
used? Comments also are sought on the measurement procedure that would 
be used to demonstrate compliance with the UWB bandwidth limit. Siemens 
requests that the bandwidth be measured based on two different possible 
procedures described in the appendix to its petition. Both of the 
procedures suggested by Siemens are performed with the frequency 
hopping system active. However, we are concerned that those procedures 
may not indicate the actual bandwidth employed by the system and the 
corresponding distribution of RF energy, depending on various technical 
parameters of the actual hopping system, e.g., the distribution of the 
hopping channels, the dwell times for the hops, the number of hopping 
channels, the separation of the channels, the bandwidth of a single 
hopping channel, the number of hops in a specified time period, etc. 
Thus, we propose that the bandwidth be measured by first measuring the 
-10 dB bandwidth of a single hopping channel based on use of a peak 
hold detector and a 1 MHz resolution bandwidth, determining how many 
non-overlapping hops occur within a 10 millisecond period and 
multiplying the two values. Comments are requested on this proposed 
measurement procedure as well as the procedures described by the 
petitioner. Comments also are requested on any interference concerns 
that arise from this new modulation type or its method of measurement. 
The comments should address specific interference concerns such as 
possible interference to Amateur Radio Service operations, including 
amateur satellite systems, to EESS operation, and to police radar 
operations and should include a technical justification. Comments are 
requested on whether the compliance measurement procedure proposed by 
the petitioner is applicable only to systems that are similar to its 
vehicular radar system or if they are applicable to vehicular radar 
systems in general. Do the various system parameters need to be limited 
to a specific range of values for the measurements to be meaningful? If 
so, what is the range of parameters over which the limits are to be 
applied? Can a general measurement procedure be developed that is 
applicable for a full range of system parameters? If so, what is this 
measurement procedure? The measurement procedure proposed by the 
petitioner involves a power measurement over a 10 millisecond averaging 
time period. Comments are requested as to whether these time averaged 
measurements should be made using a spectrum analyzer in a swept 
frequency mode or should the spectrum analyzer be stepped across the 
frequency band of interest in discrete steps with a defined dwell time 
at each step. Comments also are requested on the adequacy of the 
measurement results for the purpose of quantifying the impact to 
systems that could receive interference from the frequency hopping 
vehicular radar systems. Comments also are requested on any limits that 
should be applied to the number of hopping channels, the maximum 
occupancy time permitted for a hopping channel during any full hopping 
sequence, the maximum time it takes to complete a full hopping 
sequence, and any other pertinent technical characteristics.
    5. Proposed changes to the non-UWB standards to accommodate 
wideband Part 15 transmitters. The peak emission limit specified in 47 
CFR 15.35(b) was established based on the operation of narrowband 
transmission systems and may unfairly penalize some wideband 
operations. A limit similar to that adopted in the R&O for UWB systems 
is proposed to eliminate the bias under the part 15 regulations towards 
narrowband operation. Under the UWB regulations, the EIRP limit on peak 
emissions is 0 dBm based on the use of a 50 MHz resolution bandwidth 
(RBW). A lower RBW may be employed, down to as low as 1 MHz, provided 
the peak limit is similarly reduced to the level 20 log (RBW/50) dBm 
EIRP, where RBW is the resolution bandwidth in megahertz. UWB systems 
also must operate with a -10 dB fractional bandwidth of at least 0.2 or 
have a -10 dB bandwidth of at least 500 MHz, whichever is less. Below 
2.5 GHz, the fractional bandwidth is dominant and above 2.5 GHz the 500 
MHz bandwidth limit dominates. Because we appear to be dealing 
primarily with systems operating above 2.5 GHz, we will employ the 500 
MHz minimum UWB bandwidth as a guideline for simplicity. Thus, the 
maximum resolution bandwidth that is used to measure peak limit for UWB 
emitters is one-tenth of the minimum UWB bandwidth. Accordingly, it 
appears that a peak limit, equivalent to the UWB standards, can be 
established for conventional part 15 devices based on a limit of 20 log 
(RBW/50) dBm EIRP where RBW is the resolution bandwidth of the 
measurement instrument in megahertz and where RBW must not be greater 
than one-tenth of the -10 dB bandwidth of the emission being measured.
    6. We propose to amend 47 CFR 15.35(b) to clarify the existing 
requirements as requested by MSSI, and to provide an alternative 
standard for peak emission limits for wideband Part 15 transmission 
systems. The specific proposed changes to this rule paragraph are shown 
in the rules section at the end of this summary. Comments are requested 
on this proposal. Comments also are requested on the alternative 
proposal presented by MSSI, namely should the rules be amended to 
permit devices operating above 1000 MHz under the part 15 general 
emission standards in 47 CFR 15.209 to comply with a peak emission 
limit of 5000 uV/

[[Page 19775]]

m at 3 meters based on a measurement using a peak detector, a 1 MHz 
resolution bandwidth and a video bandwidth no less than 1 MHz? We 
request comments on any changes to the interference potential of 
wideband part 15 devices that may occur as a result of these proposals. 
Technical support is requested for comments arguing interference 
concerns.
    7. UWB definition. The minimum UWB bandwidth requirement could 
cause a manufacturer to design transmitters that occupy more bandwidth 
than is operationally necessary or transmitters that inject noise to 
increase the occupied bandwidth simply to permit operation under the 
UWB regulations. Such systems would place greater energy in frequency 
bands where operation is not necessary for the system to function. 
Thus, a minimum bandwidth standard can be counterproductive to reducing 
the potential for harmful interference. For this reason, we are 
proposing to eliminate the definition of an ultra-wideband transmitter 
in 47 CFR 15.503(d). In its place, we would permit the operation of any 
transmission system, regardless of its bandwidth, as long as it 
complies with the standards for UWB operation set forth in Subpart F of 
47 CFR 15. We also propose to change the limit on peak power to the 
same limit we proposed above for non-UWB operation. This will ensure 
that excessive peak power levels are not permitted from narrowband 
systems. Comments are requested on this proposal. We request comments 
on any potential increase or decrease in interference potential to 
authorized radio services that could be caused by the adoption of this 
proposal. The comments should address the interference potential from 
narrowband systems operating under the UWB regulations. The comments 
also should address whether additional standards, such as a spectral 
power density limit based on a bandwidth narrower than 1 MHz, are 
needed. All comments should be based on a technical analysis of the 
interference potential.

Administrative Provisions

    8. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by Section 
603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,\1\ the Commission has prepared 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected 
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Further 
Notice''). Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments 
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments on the Further Notice provided in paragraph 175 
of the item. The Commission shall send a copy of this Further Notice, 
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition, the Further Notice and the 
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 5 U.S.C. 603.
    \2\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Reason for Action

    This rulemaking proposal is initiated to obtain comments regarding 
proposed changes to the regulations for radio frequency devices that do 
not require a license to operate. The Commission seeks to determine if 
its standards should be amended to permit the operation of vehicular 
radar and other low-pulse repetition frequency outdoor UWB devices in 
the 3.1-10.6 GHz band and to permit the operation of frequency hopping 
vehicular radar systems in the 22-29 GHz band under the UWB 
regulations. It also seeks to amend the peak power limit on non-UWB 
unlicensed devices.

B. Legal Basis

    The proposed action is taken pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 302, 
303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act 10 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 
303(r), 304, and 307.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    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 generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.''\4\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\5\ A ``small business concern'' is one 
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \4\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \5\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small-business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 
632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a 
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and 
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more 
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of 
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal 
Register.''
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise 
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field.''\7\ Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 
small organizations.\8\ ``Small governmental jurisdiction'' \9\ 
generally means ``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of 
less than 50,000.'' \10\ As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 
governmental entities, total, in the United States.\11\ This number 
includes 38,978 cities, counties, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96%, 
have populations of fewer than 50,000.\12\ The Census Bureau estimates 
that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental 
entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 
81,600 (96%) are small entities. Nationwide, as of 1992, there were 
4.44 million small business firms, according to SBA data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
    \8\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 
Economic Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract 
to the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration).
    \9\ 47 CFR 1.1162.
    \10\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \11\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 
Census of Governments.
    \12\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 
Census of Governments.
    \13\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 
Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, UC 92-S-1, 
Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 2D, Employment 
Size of Firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless 
firms within the two broad economic census categories of Paging \14\ 
and Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.\15\ Under both SBA 
categories, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 
1997 show that there were 1320 firms in this category, total, that 
operated for the entire year.\16\ Of this total, 1303 firms

[[Page 19776]]

had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 17 firms 
had employment of 1,000 employees or more.\17\ Thus, under this 
category and associated small business size standard, the great 
majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category 
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications firms, Census Bureau 
data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category, total, 
that operated for the entire year.\18\ Of this total, 965 firms had 
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more.\19\ Thus, under this second 
category and size standard, the great majority of firms can, again, be 
considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 513321 (changed to 517211 in 
October 2002).
    \15\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in 
October 2002).
    \16\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
Information, ``Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income 
Tax: 1997,'' Table 5, NAICS code 513321 (issued Oct. 2000).
    \17\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate 
of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer 
employees; the largest category provided is ``Firms with 1,000 
employees or more.''
    \18\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
Information, ``Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income 
Tax: 1997,'' Table 5, NAICS code 513322 (issued Oct. 2000).
    \19\ Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate 
of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer 
employees; the largest category provided is ``Firms with 1,000 
employees or more.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SBA has established a small business size standard for Radio 
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing. Under this standard, firms are considered small if they 
have 750 or fewer employees.\20\ Census Bureau data for 1997 indicate 
that, for that year, there were a total of 1,215 establishments in this 
category.\21\ Of those, there were 1,150 that had employment under 500, 
and an additional 37 that had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under 
this size standard, the majority of establishments can be considered 
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
    \21\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1977 Economic Census, Industry Series: 
Manufacturing, ``Industry Statistics by Employment Size,'' Table 4, 
NAICS code 334220 (issued August 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Satellite Telecommunications. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for Satellite Telecommunications Carriers, which 
consists of all such companies having $12.5 million or less in annual 
receipts.\22\ In addition, a second SBA size standard for Other 
Telecommunications includes ``facilities operationally connected with 
one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from 
satellite systems,''\23\ and also has a size standard of annual 
receipts of $12.5 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 
1997, there were 324 firms in the category Satellite 
Telecommunications, total, that operated for the entire year.\24\ Of 
this total, 273 firms had annual receipts of $5 million to $9,999,999 
and an additional 24 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to 
$24,999,990.\25\ Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms 
can be considered small. In addition, according to Census Bureau data 
for 1997, there were 439 firms in the category Satellite 
Telecommunications, total, that operated for the entire year.\26\ Of 
this total, 424 firms had annual receipts of $5 million to $9,999,999 
and an additional 6 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to 
$24,999,990.\27\ Thus, under this second size standard, the majority of 
firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 13 CFR 121.201, North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code 517410 (formerly 513340).
    \23\ Id. NAICS code 517910 (formerly 513390).
    \24\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
Information, ``Receipt Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax: 
1997,'' Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Oct. 2000).
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: 
Information, ``Receipt Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax: 
1997,'' Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Oct. 2000).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As no party currently is permitted to market or operate the 
proposed UWB standards, there will not be any impact on any small 
entities. On the other hand, the proposed change in the limit on peak 
power levels may relax the current emission limit for wideband 
transmission systems. The Commission does not have an estimated number 
for the small entities that may produce such products but believes that 
there are only a few in existence.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    Part 15 transmitters are already required to be authorized under 
the Commission's certification procedure as a prerequisite to marketing 
and importation. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
associated with these equipment authorizations would not be changed by 
the proposals contained in this Notice. These changes to the 
regulations would permit the introduction of an entirely new category 
of radio transmitters. The change in the method of measuring peak power 
for wideband transmitters will result in a slight relaxation of the 
peak power limit standard on these devices.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, 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 and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such 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 such small 
entities.''\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standards proposed in this proceeding are based on equipment 
performance and not on equipment design. As no party currently is 
permitted to market or operate the proposed UWB standards, there will 
not be any impact on any small entities. On the other hand, the 
proposed change in the limit on peak power levels may relax the current 
emission limit for wideband transmission systems.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    None.
    9. Request for Comments: This is a permit-but-disclose notice and 
comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, 
except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed 
as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 
1.1203, and 1.2306(a).
    10. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on 
or before July 21, 2003, and reply comments on or before August 20, 
2003. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS), http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html, or by filing 
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, 63 FR 23121 (1998).
    11. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. 
Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If 
multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, however, commenters must

[[Page 19777]]

transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or 
rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the 
transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal 
Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should 
send an e-mail to [email protected], and should including the following 
words in the body of the message, ``get form