Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band
| Citation | 85 FR 31997 |
| Record Number | 2020-11320 |
| Published date | 28 May 2020 |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 103 (Thursday, May 28, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 103 (Thursday, May 28, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31997-32002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11320]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 103 / Thursday, May 28, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 31997]]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183; FCC 20-51; FRS 16739]
Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes to expand unlicensed
use of the 5.925-7.125 GHz band (6 GHz band) while protecting the
incumbent licensed services that operate in this spectrum. The proposed
rules would allow a new class of unlicensed devices to operate
throughout the entire 6 GHz band at power levels that are low enough to
prevent the occurrence of harmful interference to licensed services.
The Commission seeks comment on permitting unlicensed access points
that are restricted to indoor operation in the 6 GHz band to operate at
a power spectral density of 8 dBm/MHz with a maximum permissible
equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of 33 dBm, an increase
of 3 dB over the current rules. The Commission also seeks comment on
permitting access points that operate under the control of an automated
frequency coordination (AFC) system in the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 5.512-
6.875 GHz sub-bands to be used for mobile applications. In addition,
the document seeks comment on allowing access points that operate under
AFC control to transmit with more power than the 36 dBm EIRP currently
permitted.
DATES: Comments are due June 29, 2020. Reply comments are due July 27,
2020.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section of
this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
During the time the Commission's building is closed to the
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering
and Technology, 202-418-0636, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183, FCC
20-51, adopted April 23, 2020, and released April 24, 2020. The full
text of this document is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445
12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be
downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/search-results?t=advanced&fccNo=18-147. People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
[email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
Synopsis
1. Discussion. The Commission proposes rules to expand unlicensed
use of the 5.925-7.125 GHz band (6 GHz band). These proposals build
upon the rules the Commission adopted for unlicensed use of the 6 GHz
band in a Report and Order adopted on April 23, 2020, FCC 20-51 (85 FR
31390, May 26, 2020). In those rules the Commission permitted standard-
power access points to operate under the control of an automated
frequency coordination (AFC) system in the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 5.512-
6.875 GHz sub-bands. Those rules also permitted low-power access points
to operate indoors throughout the entire 6 GHz band. In this further
notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission seeks comment on
options for further expanding unlicensed operations in the 6 GHz band.
First, the Commission proposes to authorize operations that are not
limited to indoor use--and, thus, must be very low power to protect
incumbents. Second, the Commission seeks comment on increasing the
power spectral density EIRP for low-power indoor operations from 5 dBm/
MHz to 8 dBm/MHz. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on
permitting mobile AFC controlled standard-power access point operation
and on whether to allow higher power levels for AFC controlled standard
power access points used in fixed point-to-point applications
2. Very Low Power Operation. Apple, Broadcom et al. have requested
that the Commission permit very low-power unlicensed devices to operate
in portions of the 6 GHz band with no requirements that the devices be
kept indoors or be under the control of an AFC system. Apple, Broadcom
et al. claim that this device class will be critical for supporting
indoor and outdoor portable use cases such as wearable peripherals
including augmented reality/virtual reality and other personal-area-
network applications as well as in-vehicle applications. Apple,
Broadcom et al. have requested that these very low-
[[Page 31998]]
power devices be permitted to transmit with 14 dBm EIRP and -8 dBm/MHz
power spectral density EIRP.
3. The Commission proposes to permit very low power devices to
operate across the entirety of the 6 GH band, both indoors and
outdoors, without using an AFC. This would make a contiguous 1200-
megahertz spectrum block available for new and innovative high-speed,
short range devices. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
What are the benefits that these devices can bring to the American
public? What use cases are envisioned for these devices? What form
factors will be most useful for performing everyday activities? Will
very low power functionality be built into existing devices such as
cell phones or will they be standalone devices? What data rates are
necessary to enable the enhanced applications envisioned for these
devices? Over what distances will transmissions to very low power
devices be necessary? Where are these devices most anticipated to be
used and for what applications? The answers to these questions will
drive additional comment and decisions on these devices as the
fundamental decision that must be determined is how much power can
these very lower power devices be permitted so that the potential of
causing harmful interference to incumbent 6 GHz band users is
minimized.
4. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate power level for
very low power unlicensed devices in the 6 GHz band. In examining what
power levels the Commission should authorize, there are many factors
that need to be considered, including body loss (as many use cases will
be for body worn devices), use of transmit power control, antenna type
and radiation pattern, use of a contention-based protocol and projected
activity factor. As a threshold matter, similar to the requirements for
low power indoor devices, the Commission proposes to require that 6 GHz
band very low power unlicensed devices incorporate an integrated
antenna. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. Using an
integrated antenna will ensure that users are unable to swap out the
antenna for a higher gain antenna that could increase the potential for
interference. The Commission assumes that the antennas will be
omnidirectional and have minimum gain. Is that a good assumption? Are
there other antennas anticipated for these devices?
5. As the Commission has found for indoor low power devices, should
the Commission require a contention-based protocol that requires
devices to sense or listen to the spectrum prior to transmitting to
ensure all unlicensed devices have an equal opportunity to transmit as
well as to protect incumbent users? Commenters should address whether
protocols such as Wi-Fi's current carrier sense multiple access with
collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) would be used or are there other
protocols that may work here too. Apple, Broadcom et al. contend that
such a protocol will protect mobile Broadcast Auxiliary Service
Incumbents in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands. The Commission seeks
comment on the viability of relying on a contention-based protocol to
protect these uses. Can this protocol also be used to protect Fixed
Service microwave incumbents? What sensing levels are necessary to
reliably detect incumbent services to protect them? Wideband and
ultrawideband unlicensed devices operate in the 6 GHz band. Can the
contention-based protocol be used to enable co-existence between
various unlicensed device types? Commenters should provide detailed
technical information on the contention-based protocol and how it can
be used to protect existing 6 GHz band users (and whether a requirement
to include a contention-based protocol would materially affect the
spectrum very low power devices could use as well as the relevant power
levels in order to protect incumbent services).
6. In determining the proper power level for very low power
unlicensed devices using 160-megahertz channels, the Commission first
notes that it authorized low power indoor devices to operate with 5
dBm/MHz power spectral density (PSD) EIRP and a maximum 27 dBm EIRP.
This decision is based on an extensive record replete with multiple
studies--both Monte Carlo and static link budgets. A major contributing
factor to those analyses was consideration of building entry loss and
the effect such propagation loss would have on protecting incumbent
licensees from harmful interference. Building attenuation is a function
of building construction type (traditional or thermally efficient) and
the elevation angle of the signal path at the building fa[ccedil]ade.
Because the major difference between low power indoor unlicensed
devices and very low power unlicensed devices is that, for the latter
devices, outdoor use would not be subject to building entry loss, how
should the Commission evaluate the interference potential of these
devices as many may be operating outdoors? Can the analyses performed
for indoor low power devices inform how the Commission proceeds here?
The Commission notes that for many anticipated use cases, use will
occur near the ground and in the presence of buildings and other
objects further subjecting potentially interfering emissions to clutter
losses. Accounting for clutter losses would infer that more power could
be permitted without increasing the potential for harmful interference.
How should the Commission account for clutter losses? What types of
clutter losses would affect low power device signals? Because clutter
losses, like building attenuation, is statistical, the Commission seeks
information on clutter loss statistical distributions that would be
appropriate to use in any analyses. What information is available? What
are the minimum, maximum, and mean values that can be expected for
various locations? How have these distributions been validated?
Commenters should provide detailed information and reference material
to support their claims regarding appropriate clutter losses to
consider.
7. Other factors that must be considered when evaluating very low
power unlicensed devices is body loss and transmit power control. The
Commission anticipates that most of the devices contemplated for such
operation will be body worn and subject to such losses. In their
filings with technical analyses, Apple, Broadcom et al. assume that
there will be at least 18 dB signal attenuation from body loss and
transmit power control. Is this assumption realistic? The Commission
seeks comment on the correct value to consider for body loss and
transmit power control for these devices. Commenters should provide
detailed technical analysis supporting the value(s) they believe the
Commission should rely on to determine the maximum power level for very
low power devices.
8. The Commission also asks commenters to address some specific
technical solutions and use situations that it believes are likely to
arise through typical operation. First, cell phones typically employ
proximity or other sensors to determine if they are close to a body to
adjust power to meet the Commission's radio frequency (RF) exposure
rules. Could such a sensor be used in conjunction with these very low
power devices as a way of adjusting their power based on how much body
loss might be expected? How would such a system work to both ensure the
ability of devices to close their links as well as avoiding causing
harmful interference to incumbent licensees? Should such sensors be
required on
[[Page 31999]]
these devices? If so, what parameters are essential and what algorithms
would ensure proper power level tuning? How would interference to
incumbent operations be protected when a very low power unlicensed
device must use higher power when facing maximum body loss in the
direction of its intended receiver, but no similar losses in other
directions? For example, a cell phone in a backpack may be transmitting
to a body worn device where the intended signal encounters a person's
full mass in that intended direction, but no losses in other
directions. Is this a reasonable scenario? What are the potential
consequences of such operation?
9. Alternatively, in use cases where an unlicensed device may not
encounter much body loss, how would transmit power control be
implemented to protect incumbent licensees? For example, if a device is
mounted on a bicycle handlebar and communicating with a body worn
device, there would be no body loss and little clutter. The Commission
seeks comment on other use cases and whether proximity sensors could be
used and how transmit power control would provide sufficient power for
the application and at the same time protect incumbent licensees. How
does the expected geometry between these unlicensed devices, which
presumably will generally be used close to the ground and fixed service
microwave links which are generally high off the ground and employ
directional antennas affect the power level the Commission can allow?
What about the interaction for Broadcast Auxiliary Services?
10. The Commission seeks comment on how all these factors should be
considered in analyses and the various technical solutions can work
together to authorize very low power unlicensed devices across the 6
GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate factors that
should be incorporated into a link budget. The Commission also seeks
comment on the appropriate way to model the potential interactions
between unlicensed devices and incumbent operations. Should the
Commission rely on Monte Carlo analysis, link budget analysis, link-
level simulations that take into account detailed physical layer
implementations of unlicensed devices as well as incumbent devices, or
a combination of these methods? Regardless of which type of analysis
commenters submit, all assumptions should be fully explained and
supported and all methodologies explained in detail. The Commission
also seeks comment on what technological measures can be incorporated
into a very low-power device to support the operations at the requested
power limits and mitigate the potential for harmful interference to
incumbent services?
11. In contemplating the various factors discussed, the Commission
seeks comment on what power level the Commission should authorize for
very low power unlicensed devices across the 6 GHz band. In this
regard, the Commission notes that, similar to the rules the Commission
adopted for indoor low power devices in a Report and Order adopted on
April 23, 2020, FCC 20-51 (85 FR 31390, May 26, 2020), the Commission
anticipates requiring devices to meet a power spectral density
requirement, which inherently places a maximum on radiated power. Do
commenters support this approach? Apple, Broadcom et al. contend that
14 dBm EIRP and -8 dBm/MHZ PSD EIRP is necessary to enable the
applications they anticipate for these devices. The Commission seeks
comment on the power level and other technical or operational rules the
Commission should consider to maximize the utility of the 6 GHz band
and protect incumbent licensees. The Commission encourages commenters
to also conduct testing and measurements of protype devices to support
whatever rules they advocate for. Such testing can be done under an
experimental license to the extent needed. What technical measures will
be effective in meeting the Commission's goals of balancing new devices
against the need to protect incumbent licensees?
12. Power Spectral Density Increase for Low Power Indoor Operation.
The Commission seeks comment in this FNPRM on whether to allow low
power indoor devices to operate at a higher power spectral density of 8
dBm/MHz with a maximum permissible EIRP of 33 dBm when a device uses a
bandwidth of 320 megahertz in the U-NII-5 through U-NII-8 bands. The
Commission adopts 5 dBm/MHz in the Report and Order considering the
analyses in the record based on limited measurements, Monte Carlo
simulations and static link budgets, none of which fully capture a
future deployment scenario involving a very large number of unlicensed
devices operating in a complex interference environment. Analyses that
can incorporate realistic environments, including accurate link-level
and system level simulations or measurements which take into account
the physical layer characteristics of both unlicensed and incumbent
devices would be more convincing in determining whether a higher PSD
such as 8 dBm/MHz should be adopted. For devices operating with
bandwidths other than 320 megahertz, the maximum allowable total power
would scale accordingly (e.g., 30 dBm with a bandwidth of 160
megahertz, 27 dBm with a bandwidth of 80 megahertz, 24 dBm with a
bandwidth of 40 megahertz, and 21 dBm with a bandwidth of 20
megahertz). The Commission believes that these rules would be useful
for many indoor devices that require high data rate transmissions such
as indoor access points communicating with clients like high-
performance video game controllers, and wearable video augmented
reality and virtual reality devices.
13. Would the proposed power levels be useful for low power indoor
devices? What are the specific benefits to consumers and users of
unlicensed operations of a higher power spectral density limit? Are the
proposed power limits appropriate for preventing interference to
authorized users in the U-NII-5 through U-NII-8 bands? Do the mobile
uses of these bands present challenges to adjusting the power limits?
Should the Commission adopt any other requirements in addition to power
density and total EIRP limits to protect services in these bands? The
Commission seeks specific comment on how a higher power spectral
density limit would impact the analysis of Examples 1B, 4, and 5 from
the AT&T study submitted to the Commission on November 12, 2019 in ET
Docket No. 18-295, as well as how common those scenarios are.
Proponents of low-power indoor operations have convincingly shown that
even in these examples the likelihood of harmful interference to fixed
microwave services will be insignificant with a power spectral density
limit of 5 dBm/MHz. Is the risk materially higher at 8 dBm/MHz? Is so,
is such risk still low (or even insignificant)? And how common are such
scenarios? The Commission seeks specific comment from fixed service
incumbents on what fraction of their operations do each of these
scenarios represent. And is the Commission correct to surmise that
these are worst case scenarios (as would be suggested by the incentives
of those introducing these scenarios into the record) or do they
actually represent a significant number of operations? Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on the benefits and costs of the proposal. How
should the Commission quantify the potential economic benefits of
authorizing higher power spectral density for low power indoor devices
and the potential cost to incumbent operations should interference
occur?
14. Mobile Standard-Power Access Point Operation. The Commission
seeks
[[Page 32000]]
comment on whether to allow standard-power access points, under AFC
control, to be used in mobile applications under rules similar to those
for personal/portable white space devices. Such usage would expand the
area over which unlicensed 6 GHz devices can operate to deliver
additional benefits to the American public. Mobile use at higher power
levels than what the Commission is proposing, or very low power
unlicensed devices could also enable new innovative applications. The
Commission seeks comment on what benefits such usage could provide.
What new applications are envisioned for higher power mobile operation?
15. The white space device rules limit personal/portable devices to
a lower power level than fixed white space devices. Under the rules a
personal/portable white space device must determine its geographic
coordinates using an incorporated geo-location capability prior to its
initial service transmission, each time the device is activated from a
power-off condition, and at least once every 60 seconds while in
operation. In addition, it must access a database to obtain a list of
available channels for its location and must access the database for an
updated channel list if it changes location by more than 100 meters
from the location at which it last obtained its channel list. Also, a
personal/portable white space device must re-check its location and
access the database daily to verify that the operating channel(s)
continue to be available. Further, it may load channel availability
information for multiple locations, (i.e., in the vicinity of its
current location) and use that information to define a geographic area
within which it can operate on the same available channels at all
locations.
16. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should
allow mobile standard-power access point operation in the 6 GHz band,
and if so, what technical requirements should apply? Are the personal/
portable white space device rules an appropriate model to follow in
developing rules for mobile standard-power access points? Which of
those rules could be adopted for 6 GHz standard-power devices? Which of
the white space rules would need to be modified for devices operating
in the 6 GHz band? What other changes or requirements would be needed?
Should the Commission define a separate device category for mobile
standard-power devices? If so, how should these differ from fixed
standard-power access points? For example, the Commission believes such
devices would need an integrated geolocation capability and have an
integrated connectorized antenna. The Commission seeks comment on these
requirements and any others that need to be placed on these devices.
17. What power limit would be appropriate for mobile standard-power
access points? Could mobile standard-power access points operate at the
same power as fixed devices or should they have a lower maximum power?
How should the protection distances be calculated for mobile devices?
What factors need to be considered to ensure that incumbent operations
are protected from harmful interference? How often would mobile devices
need to update their position? Should it be the same requirement as for
white space devices which require updates every 60 seconds or when the
location changes by more than 100 meters? Or, are other requirements
more appropriate? Should the Commission allow devices to preload a list
of cleared channels over an area (e.g., create a geo-fenced area) and
operate without updating location with the AFC system so long as they
stay within the cleared area? Should mobile operation be permitted in
both the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands?
18. What effect would permitting mobile standard-power access point
operation have on the AFC? Would allowing standard-power access points
to operate while in motion make the AFC system overly complicated as it
would need to continuously update available frequency lists for such
devices? Would mobile applications add substantial congestion to links
connecting devices to the AFC system as a moving device may need to be
in near constant contact with the database, potentially degrading the
quality of service for the expected predominant fixed access point use?
Would the added complexity of mobile operation delay the AFC system
development and prevent the American public from reaping the benefits
of expanded unlicensed use soon? What costs would be involved with
adding this capability? And, what additional requirements would be
needed for 6 GHz unlicensed devices? Would additional information need
to be communicated to the AFC system to identify whether a device is
fixed or mobile? Would fixed devices need to be updated to send
additional data too? How would this impact development of devices and
the timeline for getting them into the marketplace? Are there
additional security concerns associated with mobile operation? What are
the costs that might be involved with permitting mobile standard-power
device operation?
19. The Commission seeks comment on all technical and operational
aspects associated with mobile standard-power device operation.
Commenters should provide detailed technical analysis to support
comments advocating technical limits and methods of protecting
incumbent users from harmful interference. In addition, commenters
should provide detailed support for any operational rules they believe
could be adopted to expand 6 GHz unlicensed use to mobile standard-
power operations while protecting incumbent operations from harmful
interference.
20. Higher Power Limits and Antenna Directivity for Standard-Power
Access Points. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to allow
standard-power access points used in fixed point-to-point applications
to operate at power levels greater than 36 dBm EIRP. In the Report and
Order, the Commission limits standard power access points to a maximum
36 dBm EIRP power level to limit the range at which harmful
interference could potentially occur. That approach deviates from the
U-NII-1 and U-NII-3 band rules which permit higher power point-to-point
operations, because of the different incumbent licensee environment in
the 6 GHz band as compared to 5 GHz. To explore whether similar
flexibility can be permitted in the 6 GHz band, the Commission seeks
comment on whether to allow power levels greater than 36 dBm EIRP for
standard-power access points operating in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands
when configured as point-to-point links. As a threshold matter, the
Commission believes that any flexibility provided for higher power
should be used for targeted applications that would benefit from point-
to-point operations, such as backhaul and not for point-to-multipoint
use or as a scheme for providing more wide area service through
multiple antennas aimed to cover larger areas. Thus, if the Commission
allows higher power for point-to-point links, the Commission seeks
comment on replicating the U-NII-1 and U-NII-3 band requirement on such
links that would exclude the use of point-to-multipoint systems,
omnidirectional applications, and multiple collocated transmitters
transmitting the same information.
21. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate technical
parameters and limits that would be associated with 6 GHz point-to-
point operation. How would the Commission ensure that incumbent
operations will be protected from unlicensed devices operating at
higher power levels? For example, should there be a limit on the
maximum
[[Page 32001]]
conducted transmitter power as is done in other U-NII bands to
encourage parties to use higher gain, highly directional antennas? If
so, what is the appropriate power limit? Should there be specific
antenna requirements for standard-power access points operating at
power levels above 36 dBm EIRP, such as a minimum gain or maximum
beamwidth requirement? To limit the maximum EIRP and thus the distance
over which stations could be potentially affected, the U-NII-1 band
requires a 1 dB reduction in maximum conducted output power and maximum
power spectral density for each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23
dBi. Would a similar requirement be needed for the 6 GHz band? If so,
what should be the antenna gain threshold for triggering the power
reduction? Are any other requirements necessary to protect incumbent
services? What modifications to the AFC system would be required to
accommodate higher power point-to-point operations? Would any
corresponding changes be needed for standard-power access points
related to the information they exchange with the AFC? If so, how
quickly could changes be made to the AFC and equipment? What costs are
involved?
22. Regarding unlicensed point-to-point applications in the 6 GHz
band, the Commission also seeks comment on whether the AFC system
should be permitted to take the directivity of a standard-power access
point's antenna into account when determining the available frequencies
and power levels at a location, rather than assuming an omnidirectional
antenna. The directional pattern of an access point's antenna could
affect the identification of available frequencies at a location,
because when the transmit antenna points away from a microwave
receiver, the effect would be that the access point has a lower EIRP in
the direction of the receiver. Under such situations, the required
separation distance between the access point and microwave receiver
would be shorter, which could increase the number of locations where a
device could operate. Would taking access point transmit antenna
directivity into account result in any significant increase in the
amount of spectrum available to unlicensed devices?
23. If the AFC system considers access point transmit antenna
directivity, how would the Commission assure the accuracy of antenna
pattern and orientation information? Would the Commission need to rely
on a professional installer requirement as the Commission does for
certain stations in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service? If so, how
would such a requirement be implemented? Are there other ways to ensure
reporting accuracy of this information? How could this information be
supplied to the AFC system? Should there be an automated system, or
could the Commission allow for a manual system or both? Should the
Commission require the AFC system to store detailed information, such
as the antenna gain at one-degree intervals, or could the Commission
define several simpler generic antenna patterns that approximate
commonly used antennas? What other criteria would the Commission need
to specify to ensure that incumbent services are protected? Would the
benefits of such an approach outweigh the increased costs and
complexity of the AFC system and the risk that inaccurate antenna
pattern information might result in harmful interference to incumbent
services? If the Commission were to permit a change, what specific
changes are needed to the AFC system? Are corresponding changes needed
to the standard-power access points' software or hardware? How long
would it take to make such changes? What costs would be associated with
such changes?
24. Procedural Matters. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This
document does not contain 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).
25. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
RFA, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this
FNPRM. The Full IRFA is found in Appendix C at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/search-results?t=advanced&fccNo=18-147. Written public comments
are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance
with the same filing deadlines for comments on the FNPRM, and they
should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this
FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration, in accordance with the RFA.
26. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
27. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS. These
documents will also be available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is
located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the
public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday
from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
28. Ex Parte Presentations. The proceedings shall be treated as
``permit-but-disclose'' proceedings in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
[[Page 32002]]
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in these
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
Ordering Clauses
29. It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in Sections
4(i), 201, 302, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 302a, 303, and Sec. 1.411 of the Commission's
Rules, 47 CFR 1.411, that this FNPRM is hereby adopted.
30. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this FNPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
31. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this FNPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant
to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-11320 Filed 5-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
