Unlicensed-National Information Infrastructure, Order on Reconsideration, 19896-19902 [2016-07847]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19896-19902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07847]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 13-49; FCC 16-24]


Unlicensed--National Information Infrastructure, Order on 
Reconsideration

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to seven petitions for reconsideration 
of certain rules adopted in the First Report and Order (First R&O) in 
this proceeding, the Commission amends its Part 15 rules governing the 
operation of unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) 
devices in the 5 GHz band. These rule changes are intended to make 
broadband technologies more widely available for consumers and 
businesses by temporarily increasing the in-band power limits and 
permanently increasing the out-of- band power limits for certain U-NII-
3 band devices. The Commission also takes steps to maintain certain 
levels of interference protection for other authorized operations 
within the 5 GHz band.

DATES: Effective May 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aole Wilkins, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-2406, email: Aole.Wilkins@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 
418-2989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion & Order (MO&O), ET Docket No. 13-49, FCC 16-24, 
adopted March 1, 2015, and released March 2, 2016. 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: www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

Summary of Memorandum Opinion and Order

A. U-NII-3 Band Proposals for Changes to the First R&O

    1. Prior to adoption of the First R&O, the FCC's rules permitted 
the certification of devices that operate in the 5.725-5.85 GHz (U-NII-
3) band under two different rule sections (i.e. Sections 15.247 and 
15.407). In some instances, and especially for devices that operate in 
point-to-point configurations with high gain antennas, the old Section 
15.247 out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits were as much as 47 dB more 
permissive than the Section 15.407 OOBE limits and, therefore devices 
certified under the old limits were significantly more likely to create 
harmful interference to other operations. In the First R&O, the 
Commission adopted a consolidated set of rules for the 5.725-5.85 GHz 
band devices under the Section 15.407 U-NII rules to resolve 
interference issues to Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) and other 
radar facilities in the adjacent band. In the First R&O, the Commission 
recognized that point-to-point systems utilizing high gain transmit 
antennas certified under the old Section 15.247 requirement may have to 
be modified to comply with the lower OOBE limit required for operation 
under Section 15.407. The Commission stated that manufacturers had the 
flexibility to determine how they should meet the lower OOBE limits, 
whether by reducing output power, decreasing the transmit antenna gain, 
or utilizing improved bandpass filters.
    2. In response to the First R&O, the Commission received several 
petitions for reconsideration of its decision. Petitioners, mainly 
manufacturers and operators of high gain point-to-point communication 
systems, ask that the Commission's decision to impose more restrictive 
OOBE limits for devices in

[[Page 19897]]

the U-NII-3 band should either be reversed or modified. The petitions 
express concerns regarding increased equipment costs, sustainability of 
existing service, and diminished performance of devices in the band. 
The petitioners' state that the limits adopted in the First R&O will 
prevent remote communities from receiving access to critical services 
and will render required upgrades costly and unobtainable. Numerous 
comments were filed in general support of the petitions requesting 
modification of the new OOBE limits.
    3. Consensus Certification Proposal. This approach proposed 
multiple equipment certification requirements for point-to-point 
equipment intended to reduce the probability of harmful interference 
while minimizing burdens on manufacturers and users. Under this 
approach, users would verify that a device's location and transmission 
direction would not cause interference with TDWRs; allow equipment that 
supports dynamic frequency selection (DFS) in the U-NII-2C band to 
automatically allow increased emissions from the U-NII-3 band in 
frequency ranges where no radars are detected; and create a 5 km radius 
exclusion zone around each TDWR and prohibit the peak of a 
transmitter's antenna beam from intersecting with such exclusion zones.
    4. Ubiquiti Proposal. Under this approach, for transmitters 
operating in the 5.725-5.85 GHz band, all out-of-band emissions be 
limited to a level of -27 dBm/MHz at 75 MHz beyond the band edge, 
increasing linearly to 10 dBm/MHz at 25 MHz beyond the band edge, and 
from 25 MHz beyond the band edge, increasing linearly to a level of 17 
dBm/MHz at the band edge.
    5. Joint Emissions Proposal. This approach closely resembled the 
Ubiquiti proposal, but would provide further relief from the OOBE 
limits in the 5 MHz closest to the band edge by allowing emissions to 
increase linearly to a maximum level of 27 dBm/MHz.
    6. Broadcom Proposal. This approach mimics the Ubiquiti and the 
Joint Emissions Proposals, but would roll off emissions to -17 dBm/MHz 
at 75 MHz beyond the band edge. Broadcom believes the change is 
necessary because of an artifact that occurs outside of the in-band 
wanted emissions in certain of their current model chips. These 
spurious emissions are unintentional artifacts in the design of their 
current chipsets and did not create a compliance issue until the UNII 
rules were modified in 2014. Broadcom asserts that the mask can be 
modified to accommodate their circumstance while continuing to provide 
the same level of interference protection to TDWRs.
    7. The Commission believes that the Joint Emissions Proposal best 
addresses the need for amended rules in the U-NII-3 band. It recognizes 
that, without further accommodation, point-to-point systems that 
utilize high gain transmit antennas with full permissible output power 
may not readily be able to comply with the OOBE limit adopted in the 
First R&O. Based on the record, in order for today's systems to 
suppress emissions to the degree required by the existing OOBE limits, 
they would require prohibitively expensive equipment modifications 
which would add an undue amount of weight to the devices. The 
Commission believes that the rules we are adopting here will allow 
point-to-point systems to operate, while avoiding harmful out of band 
interference, without excessive difficulty or cost. Unlike the 
Consensus Certification Proposal, which would apply different OOBE 
requirements based on a variety of situations, including the location 
of each installation relative to TDWRs, the approach adopted here will 
provide a single, consistent OOBE requirement for all equipment. Also 
unlike the Consensus Certification Proposal, the chosen approach will 
also avoid the need for onerous oversight by the Commission and it 
will, ultimately, better protect TDWRs against harmful interference 
because it is simpler to administer and enforce at the certification 
level. The Commission does not believe that Broadcom's difficulty in 
meeting the new limits for its current product is sufficient reason to 
further relax the OOBE limits. Instead, the Commission provides relief 
to all manufacturers by allowing some extra time to certify and to 
bring newly compliant devices into the marketplace.
    8. As demonstrated in Ubiquiti's ex parte presentation, the 
proposed emission limits closely reflect the emissions mask seen in 
devices that are currently being sold, and thus the manufacturers may 
have a reduced need to undergo extensive redesigns to their equipment. 
Additionally, this revision should provide relief for wireless Internet 
service providers (WISPSs) and operators of long range point-to-point 
U-NII-3 equipment by reducing the need to redesign their networks 
because manufacturers will be able to use the rules adopted herein to 
design equipment that achieves link distances comparable to what they 
were able to achieve with the old rules. The Commission therefore adds 
new language for Section 15.407 (b)(4) that would provide relief from 
the OOBE limits adopted in the First R&O by permitting emissions to 
roll off linearly from 27 dBm/MHz at the band edge to a level of 15.6 
dBm/MHz at 5 MHz from the band edge, then decreasing linearly to 10 
dBm/MHz at 25 MHz from the band edge and continue to decrease linearly 
to a level of -27 dBm/MHz at all frequencies more than 75 MHz from band 
edge. The Commission adopts additional provisions in the first 5 MHz 
outside of the band edge because manufacturers have sufficiently 
demonstrated their inability to suppress their emissions to meet the 
Ubiquiti Proposal mask within this region. This approach will offer the 
needed relief to manufacturers, but will still provide a level of 
interference protection to adjacent band services that is greater than 
that provided in Section 15.247. This approach offers relief for users 
and manufacturers by relaxing the OOBE roll-off requirement outside of 
the TDWR band while maintaining the same level of interference 
protection within the TDWR band as specified under the rules the 
Commission adopted in the First R&O.

B. Association of Global Automakers Petition

    9. Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Systems are designed 
to operate under the FCC provisions for the Intelligent Transportation 
Systems (ITS) radio service in the 5.85-5.925 GHz band. Prior to the 
adoption of the First R&O, unlicensed devices were permitted in the 
adjacent 5.725-5.85 GHz band under two different rules, Sections 15.247 
and 15.407. The Commission, in the First R&O, consolidated the rules 
for devices operating in the 5.725-5.85 GHz band and imposed the more 
stringent Section 15.407 OOBE limits, which provide more protection 
from interference to adjacent band incumbent spectrum users.
    10. In its petition for reconsideration, the Association of Global 
Automakers, Inc. (Global) requests that the Commission suspend or 
reverse key decisions made in the First R&O because it failed to 
explain how its decision to allow additional, higher-powered, 
unlicensed U-NII devices to operate in the 5 GHz band would not cause 
harmful interference to previously-authorized DSRC operations. It 
claims that substantial evidence suggests that harmful interference 
will likely result to DSRC operations from expanded ``high power Wi-
Fi'' operations in the 5 GHz band. Global further states that the FCC 
should explain what steps the agency will take to protect DSRC 
operations against that

[[Page 19898]]

harmful interference; the Commission should adopt procedures that will 
swiftly and effectively resolve any harmful interference that may 
subsequently occur to DSRC from U-NII devices; and if the FCC expects 
that there will be some level of interference between these adjacent-
band operations, the FCC should clarify what level of interference will 
be acceptable and what course of action will be available to DSRC 
operators to protect their networks from unacceptable levels of 
interference. The majority of parties that responded to Global's 
petition were opposed to reversing the decisions that the Commission 
made in the First R&O regarding the U-NII-3 band.
    11. The Commission rejects Global's Request and declines to reverse 
or suspend its decision to consolidate the rules for unlicensed devices 
operating in the 5.725-5.85 GHz band under one rule section. The 
Commission finds that DSRC systems will receive greater interference 
protection under the emission mask adopted in this MO&O than was 
provided under the old rules. In the First R&O the Commission explained 
that higher powered operations in the 5.725- 5.85 GHz band are already 
permitted to operate under Section 15.247, and that adopting more 
stringent limits for the newly modified Section 15.407 rules would 
reduce the OOBE from each U-NII-3 device and, in turn, should reduce 
the aggregate emissions from these devices. Therefore, the decisions 
made in the First R&O with respect to U-NII-3 did not result in an 
expansion of use but, instead, provided increased protection for 
systems operating in the adjacent bands, such as DSRC systems and 
TDWRs. Even with the slight relaxation of the U-NII-3 OOBE limit that 
are being adopted in this MO&O, the allowed emissions from U-NII 
devices into the DSRC band will still be held to a lower limit than 
what was permitted by Section 15.247 prior to the adoption of the First 
R&O. This in turn will result in less potential interference to ITS 
operating in the adjacent band because the per device and aggregate 
emissions in the band will be reduced. Additionally, the Commission 
believes the additional level of protection afforded to DSRC systems is 
sufficient because, unlike the TDWR, the DSRC systems were not 
experiencing interference problems previously. Given that the new rules 
increase protections for the ITS systems, the Commission does not 
consider additional protections from adjacent band signals to be 
necessary.

C. EchoStar Proposal

    12. Prior to adoption of the First R&O, the 5.15-5.25 GHz (U-NII-1) 
band had a very low peak transmitter conducted output power limit of 50 
mW, and U-NII operations were restricted to indoor only operations. In 
the First R&O, the Commission adopted rules to remove the indoor-only 
restriction and increased the permitted power for these devices in 
order to increase the utility of the U-NII-1 band and to accommodate 
the next generation of Wi-Fi technology. Specifically, under the new 
rules all client devices in the U-NII-1 band may now operate at 
conducted power levels up to 250 mW without distinction as to whether 
devices are located indoors or outdoors. The new rules permit Access 
Points to operate in the U-NII-1 band at conducted power levels up to 1 
Watt if they use antennas that limit gain in the upward direction, or 
if they are located indoors. Client devices are permitted to operate in 
the U-NII-1 band without limiting the antenna gain in the vertical 
direction because they typically represent mobile or portable devices, 
such as handsets, laptops, and tablets. These devices are not typically 
installed in permanent outdoor locations, and due to their mobile 
nature the antenna gain in any particular direction cannot be 
guaranteed. Finally, many client devices incorporate power control 
features that encourage the device to use as little power as necessary 
to establish and maintain the communications link. In consideration of 
all of these factors, the Commission anticipated a negligible 
interference potential associated with client devices that operate as 
described and, as a result, determined that the antenna requirements 
described above for access points were not necessary for client 
devices.
    13. EchoStar (ETC) argues that the First R&O is unclear regarding 
the power limit applicable to its set-top boxes that serve as client 
devices for indoor wireless access points and operate in the U-NII-1 
band (5.15-5.25 GHz). ETC further asks the Commission to permit such 
set-top boxes to operate at the maximum power level afforded under new 
Section 15.407(a)(1)(ii) (i.e., 1 Watt). ETC states that it has 
integrated Wi-Fi technologies into its set-top boxes and systems to 
facilitate the distribution of programming within a customer location, 
at faster speeds than those achievable via in-home cable connections. 
By including an access point as part of the customer's installation, 
the system effectively creates a private Wi-Fi network in the home. ETC 
claims that it is essential that they be permitted to operate at the 
same maximum power levels that Part 15 affords to facilitate access 
points and other indoor devices that operate in an entirely stationary 
mode.
    14. ETC stated in its petition that while these devices are not 
usually attached to anything physically, the box can only operate while 
sitting still and, generally cannot be moved throughout the home 
without risking a degradation or loss of video service. As such, the 
box is functionally identical to an indoor access point, and therefore, 
the interference considerations are the same for both. Thus, ETC claims 
there is no reason not to permit both types of devices to transmit at a 
maximum power level of 1 Watt when operating in the U-NII-1 band. 
Several parties supported ETC's request for a clarification of the 
rules.
    15. The Commission clarifies that in the First R&O it adopted a 
power limit of 250 mW for all client devices, regardless of whether 
they are fixed, mobile, or portable. While the Commission noted that 
client devices are ``typically mobile or portable,'' it also made clear 
that the new 250 mW power limit applies to ``any client device which 
operates under control of an access point.'' To avoid further 
confusion, the Commission on reconsideration modifies Section 
15.407(a)(1)(iv) by deleting the words ``mobile and portable''.
    16. In response to ETC's recommendation to adopt rules that allow 
U-NII-1 band indoor set-top boxes or any other type of client devices 
to operate at 1 Watt, the same power levels as U-NII-1 band access 
points, the Commission declines to do so. As a point of clarification, 
the Commission has allowed set-top boxes that serve as access points to 
operate up to 1 Watt based on the rationale that access points 
generally remain in one location. However, it has treated client 
devices as subject to the 250 mW limit because it is generally more 
difficult to control the location and use of these devices (i.e., 
client devices can be used outdoors). Some commenters have suggested 
that a possible point of distinction between fixed and mobile client 
devices could be the need for AC power. The Commission notes, however, 
that many mobile devices can operate from AC power as an alternative to 
battery power. While it understands from Echostar's petition that their 
particular set-top box is not designed to be moved throughout the home, 
the Commission is not convinced that this can be ensured on a general 
basis for all ``fixed'' client devices and there is no reliable way to 
determine whether or

[[Page 19899]]

not a client device will be positioned indoors or outdoors.
    17. It is unclear from Echostar's petition that its set top box 
qualifies as an access point and therefore would be permitted to 
operate at 1 W. This will depend on the specific characteristics of the 
device as presented through the equipment authorization process. 
Echostar and any other entity can, therefore, seek approval, at the 
time it files for equipment authorization, for a set-top box or other 
such device to operate up to 1 Watt by making a showing that it serves 
as an access point. However, the Commission is not convinced of the 
need to increase the in-band power levels for set-top boxes, and if 
consumers desire to increase the range between the access point and the 
set-top boxes, repeaters are widely available at commercially 
reasonable prices for this purpose. The Commission concludes that 250 
mW is adequate for most client device installations. For the 
aforementioned reasons, the Commission will continue to limit client 
devices in the U-NII-1 band to operating at conducted power levels up 
to 250 mW with a maximum PSD level of 11dBm/MHz using a transmit 
antenna with a maximum gain of 6 dBi. It continues to impose this limit 
on client devices, and without distinction as to whether devices are 
located indoors or outdoors.

D. Proposals To Increase OOBE in Restricted Bands 5.091-5.15 GHz

    18. Section 15.205 identifies a number of restricted bands in which 
low power, non-licensed transmitters are not allowed to place any 
portion of their fundamental emission because of potential interference 
to sensitive radio communications such as commercial aviation 
communications and navigation, radio astronomy, search and rescue 
operations, and other critical government radio services. Additionally, 
unwanted emissions from non-licensed transmitters that fall into 
restricted bands must comply with the general radiated emission limits 
in Section 15.209. The 5.091-5.15 GHz band falls within the larger 4.5-
5.15 GHz restricted band, as specified in Section 15.205(a).
    19. The 5.091-5.15 GHz band is allocated to the Aeronautical Mobile 
Service (AMS) on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use, 
including aeronautical fixed communications; Aeronautical Mobile 
Telemetry (AMT), restricted to 52 designated flight test areas and 
additional locations authorized for flight testing on a case-by-case 
basis; and the Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) limited to feeder links 
for non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite systems in the Mobile 
Satellite Service (MSS).
    20. The Wireless Internet Service Provider Association (WISPA) et 
al. supports relaxing the Section 15.205 provisions between 5.091 GHz 
and 5.15 GHz by 1dB for every dB that the antenna gain exceeds 6 dBi, 
provided that the antenna is oriented at 30 degrees or less above the 
horizon. Fastback proposes to change the restricted band at 4.5-5.15 
GHz to end at 5.091 GHz, thus allowing higher out of band emissions (up 
to -17 dBm/MHz) from U-NII-1 devices into the 5.091-5.15 GHz portion. 
It states that adopting its proposed recommendations would enable an 
increase in EIRP for U-NII-1 point-to-point links, corresponding to an 
increased communication range of two hundred and fifty percent.
    21. The Commission declines to increase the allowable emissions 
from U-NII band devices into the restricted band below 5.15 GHz. The 
restricted bands were created to protect radio communications services 
that are sensitive to interference and that provide critical benefits 
to public safety and national security. WISPA and Fastback have not 
offered any analysis showing that increasing the emissions limit in 
this restricted band would not create an unacceptable risk of 
interference in the restricted band. Moreover, to the extent that WISPA 
and Fastback make their proposals in order to increase the utilization 
of the U-NII-1 band, the Commission observes that it other rule 
revisions adopted in this order accomplish this purpose, by removing 
the restriction to indoor operation and increasing the permitted power 
level for U-NII-1 devices. The emission limits into the adjacent 
restricted band from U-NII-1 devices may not provide all of the 
benefits that some equipment suppliers desire, and some equipment 
manufacturers may find that they need to reduce power below the level 
permitted under the rules in order to achieve compliance with the OOBE 
limit below 5.15 GHz. However, the removal of the indoor restriction 
and the increase in power permitted in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band provide 
greater opportunities than were available before. Other parts of the 5 
GHz band can accommodate higher powered operation where it may not be 
possible to achieve the desired power level and compliance with the 
OOBE limit at 5.15--5.25 GHz.

E. Proposals To Extend the Transition Period

    22. The Commission adopted rules requiring that, 12 months after 
the effective date of the First R&O (June 2, 2015), applications for 
certification of 5 GHz devices must meet the new and modified rules. 
Additionally, the Commission required that the manufacture, marketing, 
sale and importation into the United States of devices that did not 
meet the new or modified rules must cease two years after the effective 
date of the rules adopted in the First R&O (June 2, 2016). While the 
Commission was sympathetic to the arguments of commenters that the more 
restrictive unwanted emission limits for digital modulation devices may 
present design challenges for some manufacturers, the Commission 
ultimately found that it was in the public interest to implement the 
changes as soon as possible to eliminate the potential of harmful 
interference to TDWRs.
    23. Motorola Solutions, Inc. (MSI) asks that the Commission 
reconsider its requirement that the manufacture, marketing, sale and 
importation into the United States of digitally modulated and hybrid 
devices certified under Section 15.247 cease operating in the 5.725- 
5.850 GHz U-NII-3 band two years after the effective date of the First 
R&O. MSI estimates that almost all of its nearly 200 enterprise WLAN 
products and access points will require reengineering to comply with 
the more stringent OOBE requirements and believes this undertaking 
cannot be completed in two years. MSI recommends a five-year 
transition, but they believe it is unnecessary and arbitrary to impose 
any time limit on the continued sale of pre-approved devices, as the 
new certification obligations adopted by the Commission will facilitate 
a prompt transition on their own. Similarly, Cambium requests that the 
one-year and two-year deadlines be extended to three years for 
equipment not yet certified and the two-year deadline be eliminated for 
product models certified under the old rules. They claim that this will 
allow manufacturers a reasonable timeframe to address design issues 
with meeting new requirements.
    24. Cisco raises no objection to a short extension of the 
transition deadlines if manufacturers can make a compelling case that 
it is not possible to redesign and re-certify equipment with a 
reasonable effort, but given the central role U-NII-3 equipment has 
played in causing interference to TDWR, any extension that delays the 
introduction of enhanced security features should be as brief as 
possible. MSI clarifies that its petition was not intended to extend 
the deadline for introduction of enhanced security features to 
previously certified devices, but to limit the period of time

[[Page 19900]]

in which equipment previously certified under the legacy rules could 
continue to be manufactured and marketed. Broadcom claims that 
enterprise and home router devices that use its chipsets, which are 
generally operated indoors using a lower gain antenna, have less 
potential to cause interference than the point-to-point systems 
operating outdoors that are using high-gain antennas that prompted the 
industry emission limits proposal adopted in this proceeding. Broadcom 
states that although it would be able to meet the emission limits we 
adopted above, it would need more time to bring their devices into 
compliance.
    25. The Commission modifies the dates by which the certification, 
manufacture, marketing, sale and importation into the United States of 
U-NII-3 band devices that do not meet the modified emission limits 
adopted in this Memorandum Opinion and Order must cease. The Commission 
modifies Section 15.407(b)(4) to permit manufacturers of devices 
certified before March 2, 2017 with antenna gain greater than 10 dBi to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Section 15.247(d), 
but manufacturing, marketing, sale and importing of devices certified 
under this alternative must cease by March 2, 2018. The Commission 
further modify Section 15.407(b)(4) to permit manufacturers of devices 
certified before March 2, 2018 with an antenna gain of 10 dBi or less 
to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Section 
15.247(d), but manufacturing, marketing, sale and importing of devices 
certified under this alternative must cease before March 2, 2020. The 
Commission has already issued two orders that have provided a 10-month 
extension that permitted manufacturers to continue to certify devices 
under the old rules until March 2, 2016. Here, the Commission does not 
further extend the transition provisions in Section 15.37(h) allowing 
certification and marketing under the old rules, but rather implement a 
phased implementation of only the out-of-band limits in Section 15.407.
    26. The Commission understands Cisco's concerns and agrees that 
manufacturers should be granted an extension of time only if they 
cannot comply with the modified rules with reasonable effort and that 
the time extension should not be indefinite. The Commission recognizes 
that during the years leading up to the rule change, the industry had 
made a significant investment in the research, design, and development 
of new product lines. The Commission also recognizes that manufacturers 
have made a significant effort to design compliant equipment but are 
not able to reasonably suppress their OOBEs without significantly 
reducing the in-band power and thereby reducing the range of their 
devices. The majority of products that are effected, operate with 
relatively low power and employ antenna gains of less than 10dBi. The 
Commission understands that the typical design cycle for enterprise and 
home routers can last two to three years and that there is no simple 
solution for manufacturers to swiftly redesign compliant products 
before the transition period deadlines. Therefore, the Commission will 
provide a slightly longer transition period for devices that operate a 
10 dBi or lower antenna. The Commission notes that these devices tend 
to present a lower risk of harmful interference because they are 
typically lower powered and are installed indoor. The Commission 
recognizes that in theory, harmful interference could occur from an 
enterprise or home access point, however it has not observed this in 
practice. In practice, harmful interference to the TDWR was typically 
caused by long-range devices that were unlawfully modified and 
typically operated with antenna gains of 15 dBi and above. The devices 
that employ higher gain antennas are typically operated by service 
providers for the purposes of wireless back haul and are installed in 
outdoor environments. The Commission therefore concludes that in the 
case of devices that employ an antenna with a gain of 10 dBi or less, 
appropriate deadlines are March 2, 2018 for certification, and March 2, 
2020 as the cut-off for devices that can be imported or marketed within 
the United States under the old emission limits.
    27. The Commission believes these extensions will give 
manufacturers and vendors sufficient time to come into compliance with 
the new emission limits. The Commission does not believe a short 
extension of the deadlines will represent a significant risk of harmful 
interference for the TDWR. The new certification and marketing 
deadlines apply to devices that operate in the U-NII-3 band.
    28. The Commission notes that the ultimate purpose of the 
transition date is to expediently reduce the threat of harmful 
interference to the TDWR and other radar facilities from devices on the 
market that were easily and unlawfully modified. However, the 
Commission recognizes that manufacturers will need additional time to 
design new product lines that comply with the new rules. Extending the 
emission limit deadlines will permit manufacturers to plan their 
research and design activities to comply with the outcome of our 
actions here. Permitting this extended period will provide economic 
relief by allowing manufacturers to continue to sell through remaining 
inventory. The Commission has already provided more time than 
originally intended to bring these devices into compliance and no 
further extensions are contemplated.

Procedural Matters

    29. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)\1\ requires that a regulatory 
flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making 
proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if 
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.'' \2\ The RFA generally defines the term ``small 
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' 
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' \3\ In 
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term 
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act.\4\ 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 U.S. Small 
Business Administration (SBA).\5\ 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,

[[Page 19901]]

cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and 
television studio and broadcasting equipment.'' \6\ The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for firms in this category, 
which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees.\7\ 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 fewer than 500 employees and 155 had more than 100 
employees.\8\ Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can 
be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. 
L. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
    \2\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \3\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \4\ 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.''
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
    \6\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, ``334220 Radio 
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing''; https://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND334220.HTM#N334220.
    \7\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
    \8\ https://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&-ds_name=EC0731SG2&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Pursuant to the RFA, the Commission incorporated an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) into the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) in ET Docket No. 13-49.\9\ There were no public 
comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies 
proposed in the IRFA, and the Commission concluded in the Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in the First Report and Order 
(First R&O) \10\ that the rules adopted in the First R&O do not add 
substantial additional compliance burden on small businesses. For the 
reasons described below, the Commission now certify that the policies 
and rules adopted in the present Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Revision of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules to Permit 
Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in 
the 5 GHz Band in ET Docket No. 13-40, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd. 1769 (2013) (NPRM).
    \10\ See Revision of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules to Permit 
Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in 
the 5GHZ Band, ET Docket 13-49, 29 FCC Rcd 4127 (2014) (First R&O).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. In the First R&O, the Commission prepared a FRFA detailing the 
ways in which the Commission sought to minimize the impact of the new 
regulations on small businesses.\11\ The rule change adopted in this 
MO&O is merely a modification of the rule adopted in the First R&O that 
will provide relief for those entities that are required to comply with 
rules adopted in the First R&O and modified herein. Therefore, the 
Commission certify pursuant to the RFA that the final rule adopted in 
this order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See First R&O at 4165-4168.
    \12\ See 5 U.S.C. 605 (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. The Commission will send a copy of the MO&O, including a copy 
of this final Regulatory Flexibility Certification,\13\ in a report to 
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the 
MO&O and this final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the Federal Register.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    \14\ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains no new 
or modified information collection requirement that are subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The 
Commission note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission 
previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.
    34. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of 
this Memorandum Opinion and Order in a report to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Ordering Clauses

    35. 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. 
154(i), 301, 302a, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r), this Memorandum 
Opinion and Order IS ADOPTED and Part 15 of the Commission's Rules, 47 
CFR. Part 15, IS AMENDED. The revisions will be effective May 6, 2016 
of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
    36. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 302, 303(e) 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 
and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 405, the petitions for 
reconsideration addressed ARE GRANTED, to the extent indicated above, 
and otherwise ARE DENIED.
    37. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

    Communications equipment.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 15 as follows:

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 
549.


0
2. Section 15.407 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and 
(b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  15.407  General technical requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) For client devices in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band, the maximum 
conducted output power over the frequency band of operation shall not 
exceed 250 mW provided the maximum antenna gain does not exceed 6 dBi. 
In addition, the maximum power spectral density shall not exceed 11 dBm 
in any 1 megahertz band. If transmitting antennas of directional gain 
greater than 6 dBi are used, both the maximum conducted output power 
and the maximum power spectral density shall be reduced by the amount 
in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) For transmitters operating in the 5.725-5.85 GHz band:
    (i) All emissions shall be limited to a level of -27 dBm/MHz at 75 
MHz or more above or below the band edge increasing linearly to 10 dBm/
MHz at 25 MHz above or below the band edge, and from 25 MHz above or 
below the band edge increasing linearly to a level of 15.6 dBm/MHz at 5 
MHz above or below the band edge, and from 5 MHz above or below the 
band edge increasing linearly to a level of 27 dBm/MHz at the band 
edge.
    (ii) Devices certified before March 2, 2017 with antenna gain 
greater than 10 dBi may demonstrate compliance with the emission limits 
in Sec.  15.247(d), but manufacturing, marketing and importing of 
devices certified under this alternative must cease by March 2, 2018. 
Devices certified before March 2, 2018 with antenna gain of 10 dBi or 
less may demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Sec.  
15.247(d), but manufacturing, marketing and importing of devices 
certified under this

[[Page 19902]]

alternative must cease before March 2, 2020.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-07847 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P