Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, 64506-64515 [2018-26013]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 241 (Monday, December 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64506-64515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26013]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183; FCC 18-147]


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. In the 
5.925-6.425 GHz and 6.525-6.875 GHz sub-bands the proposed rules will 
allow unlicensed access points to operate only on frequencies 
determined by an automated frequency control (AFC) system. In the 
remainder of the 6 GHz band, the 6.425-6.525 GHz and 6.875-7.125 GHz 
sub-bands, no AFC system will be required, and the unlicensed access 
points will be permitted to operate at lower transmitted power. The 
proposed rules will also permit unlicensed client devices to operate 
under the control of an access point throughout the 6 GHz band.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 15, 2019; reply comments 
are due on or before March 18, 2019. Written comments on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be 
submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 
other interested parties on or before April 16, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 18-295 
and GN Docket No. 17-183, by any of the following methods;
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone; 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. In addition to filing comments 
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction 
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to the

[[Page 64507]]

Federal Communications Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to 
Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, via email to 
Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, 202-418-0636, Nicholos.Oros@fcc.gov; or Michael Ha, 
Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-2099, Michael.Ha@fcc.gov. 
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document, send an 
email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

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 
18-17, adopted October 23, 2018, and released October 24, 2018. 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 
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

Synopsis

    1. Discussion. The rules the Commission proposes for unlicensed use 
of the 5.925-7.125 GHz band (6 GHz band) are designed to protect 
important incumbent licensed services that operate in various sub-bands 
of this spectrum. To do this, the Commission proposes dividing the 6 
GHz band into four sub-bands, each based on the prevalence and 
characteristics of the incumbent services that operate in that 
spectrum. The 5.925-6.425 GHz and 6.525-6.875 GHz sub-bands are heavily 
used by point-to-point microwave links, including critical links that 
must maintain a high level of availability. In these parts of the 6 GHz 
band, the Commission proposes to permit only ``standard-power access 
points''--using power levels permitted for unlicensed use in the U-NII-
1 (5.15-5.25 GHz) and U-NII-3 (5.725-5.85 GHz) bands--to operate only 
on frequencies determined by an automated frequency control (AFC) 
system. Other portions of the 6 GHz band, specifically the 6.425-6.525 
GHz and 6.875-7.125 GHz sub-bands (totaling 350 megahertz), are used by 
mobile stations where the locations of the incumbent receivers are not 
necessarily known or cannot be easily determined from existing 
databases. Because the lack of location information on mobile stations 
makes an AFC approach impractical, the Commission proposes to allow 
only indoor ``low-power access point'' operation in these sub-bands--
using lower, more restricted power levels applicable to operations in 
the U-NII-2 (5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.725 GHz) band. The Commission 
also proposes to permit client devices to operate across the entire 6 
GHz band while under the control of either a standard-power access 
point or a low-power access point. The Commission tentatively concludes 
that this two-class approach can expand unlicensed use without causing 
harmful interference to the incumbent services that will continue to be 
authorized to use this spectrum.
    2. Unlicensed Operation in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 Bands. The 
Commission proposes to make the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 6.525-6.875 GHz 
bands, referenced herein as the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands respectively, 
available for unlicensed operations under rules consistent with the 
existing rules for unlicensed device operations in the nearby U-NII-1 
and U-NII-3 bands (5.150-5.250 GHz and 5.725-5.850 GHz bands, 
respectively). Under this proposal, the power levels permitted for the 
standard-power access points would be the same as the power levels 
already permitted for unlicensed device operations in the nearby U-NII-
1 and U-NII-3 bands. The U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands are heavily used for 
point-to-point fixed links, which support a variety of critical 
services. The U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 frequencies are also allocated to the 
fixed-satellite service.
    3. The proposed framework for U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 prohibits 
unlicensed devices from operating co-channel with any fixed link within 
that link's defined exclusion zone. Thus, for example, if a fixed 
service receiver is receiving a specific channel, then unlicensed 
devices operating in the defined exclusion zone of this receiver must 
use a different channel. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. 
Similar to the licensing of new fixed links, which require frequency 
coordination to protect existing links, the Commission proposes to 
implement a frequency coordination process for unlicensed devices in 
these bands to ensure that these new unlicensed devices do not cause 
harmful interference to fixed service incumbents. Prior to operating in 
these bands, a standard-power access point would determine or receive a 
list of permissible operating frequencies and restrict operation to 
those frequencies. Similarly, client devices would have to obtain a 
list of permissible operating frequencies from a standard-power access 
point and restrict operation to those frequencies. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. Are there any alternative methods to ensure 
protection of incumbent services? What are the costs and benefits of 
any proposed alternative?
    4. Additionally, the Commission tentatively concludes that a 
similar coordination process is not needed to protect incumbent FSS 
operations because incumbent operations are limited to Earth-to-space 
transmissions in the 6 GHz band. As such, any interference from 
unlicensed devices would be experienced at the space station receivers 
and the particular location of the standard-power access point would in 
most case have a negligible effect. Since there will be no interference 
to FSS earth stations, they would not be considered by the AFC system. 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on whether there 
would be any benefits in including satellite earth station information 
in the AFC system at this time.
    5. Determining Permissible Frequencies of Operation. To determine 
whether an individual unlicensed device can transmit at a particular 
location on a given frequency, the Commission proposes that standard-
power access points be required to obtain a list of permissible 
frequencies from an AFC system prior to transmitting or a list of 
prohibited frequencies in which it cannot transmit. The Commission 
envisions the AFC system to be a simple database that is easy to 
implement. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. What 
capabilities should be incorporated into the AFC system? Should it be a 
centralized model where all data and computations are in a central 
location or the cloud? In this case, the standard-power access point 
will establish a connection with the AFC system, provide its location 
and technical details, and the AFC system will communicate the list of 
permissible frequencies (or a list of prohibited frequencies) back to 
the standard-power access point. Or should the AFC system's 
architecture be a de-centralized model where the standard-power access 
point maintains a local database and performs the necessary 
computations to determine which frequencies are permissible? Under such 
a model, how would the local database within the

[[Page 64508]]

standard-power access point be kept up to date? What are the trade-
offs, including the costs and benefits, between a centralized versus a 
decentralized model in terms of efficiency, device complexity, and 
ability to protect fixed service stations?
    6. Should the AFC system determine frequency availability using the 
maximum permissible power for a standard-power access point, or should 
it determine frequency availability at power levels less than the 
maximum, and calculate a list of available frequencies and the maximum 
power permitted on each one? If the AFC system calculates the maximum 
power for each frequency, how would it control the power levels of 
standard-power access points to ensure that they operate at permissible 
levels? How should frequency availability information be reported to 
standard-power access points? Should the AFC system report availability 
for discrete frequency bands, e.g., 10 or 20 megahertz channels, or 
should it simply report the range or ranges of available frequencies? 
Alternatively, should the AFC simply list the range or ranges of 
unavailable frequencies?
    7. Under a registration requirement, a standard-power access point 
would transmit identifying information along with its location to the 
AFC system before receiving a list of permissible channels. 
Alternatively, a device under a centralized system architecture could 
provide only its location data and the AFC system would provide it with 
the list of permissible channels for that location. Under a 
decentralized system architecture, registration is not necessarily 
required as the device only needs periodic updates of the local fixed 
service operating environment.
    8. The Commission seeks comment on whether device registration in 
the AFC database is necessary. What are the advantages and 
disadvantages of each approach? Would a registration requirement 
increase cost or complicate design and operations of devices and the 
AFC? Would a registration requirement be beneficial for determining the 
source if a fixed service station were to experience harmful 
interference? If device registration is required, what information 
should be provided? Should the information be limited to a device 
identifier, location, and some basic technical information? Or should 
device ownership data and contact information also be required? The 
Commission also seeks comment on how registration information should be 
entered into the AFC system. Should it be entered manually by a person, 
such as a professional installer or the equipment user, or should we 
require automated entry of some or all of the information? The 
Commission additionally seeks comment on whether there are methods that 
can be used when a device registers and/or operates to verify its 
location and operating parameters. For example, could a two-step 
verification process be used such that registrants must certify as to 
the accuracy of the information entered into the AFC system?
    9. The Commission recognizes that, because licensed use of these 
bands is not static, the AFC system must be designed to ensure that 
unlicensed operations protect new and modified licensed operations. The 
Commission proposes to adopt a requirement that devices periodically 
verify whether frequency availability has changed. Is a periodic re-
check interval the most appropriate method to determine changes in 
frequency availability information and, if so, what should the maximum 
permissible interval for verifying frequency availability be? Would an 
alternative method be more appropriate, such as requiring the AFC 
system to have the capability to direct devices to change frequencies? 
Should the Commission adopt a general performance rule instead of 
specifying a particular re-verification mechanism? The Commission also 
seeks comment on what should happen when a device and the AFC system 
are temporarily unable to communicate during the frequency re-
verification/update process. Should the Commission, for example, allow 
the device to temporarily continue operating for a period before 
requiring it to cease operations?
    10. The Commission seeks comment on the types of security 
requirements that would be necessary for standard-power access points 
in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands to ensure that the interference 
mitigation regime is not thwarted. White space devices and databases, 
as well as Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices and the Spectrum 
Access System, are required to incorporate security measures to ensure 
that devices communicate only with authorized databases, that all 
communications and interactions between a database and devices are 
accurate and secure, and that unauthorized parties cannot access or 
alter a database or the list of available frequencies sent to a device. 
They are also subject to requirements that communications between 
devices and the database, and between different databases, must be 
secure to prevent corruption or unauthorized interception of data, and 
that databases be protected from unauthorized data input or alteration 
of stored data. Are similar requirements necessary or appropriate for 
devices and the AFC in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands? Are any 
additional requirements necessary? Does the Commission need to specify 
security requirements for devices to ensure that the software within 
them cannot be easily modified to enable operation on frequencies other 
than those indicated as available by the AFC system?
    11. The Commission proposes to designate multiple entities to 
operate AFC systems. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. 
Should the Commission require that devices have the capability to 
communicate with all AFC systems or should they only be required to 
have the capability to communicate with a subset of the designated AFC 
systems? For example, should a manufacturer be allowed to operate an 
AFC system that serves only devices that it produces? Should the 
Commission allow the functions of an AFC system, such as a data 
repository, registration, and query services, to be divided among 
multiple entities, or should the Commission require all functions of a 
single AFC system to be performed by a single entity? Can each AFC 
system operate autonomously or is there a need for them to communicate 
any information with each other? If so, what information would need to 
be exchanged? Given the potential complexity of multiple AFC system 
operators needing to coordinate, should the Commission instead 
designate only a single AFC system operator?
    12. The Commission seeks comment on the procedures that should be 
used to test and validate the capabilities of the AFC and to designate 
AFC system operators. For example, should the Commission follow 
procedures similar to those the Office of Engineering and Technology 
(OET) used for designating white space database administrators? If not, 
what certification procedure should be implemented? Additionally, the 
Commission notes that parties have suggested that a multi-stakeholder 
group could administer AFC system requirements and standards through 
interaction with AFC system operators. The Commission seeks comment on 
this suggestion, and on the appropriate mechanism for ensuring 
Commission oversight of such a multi-stakeholder group.
    13. The Commission proposes that an AFC system operator be required 
to serve for a five-year term which can be renewed by the Commission 
based on performance during the operating term. The Commission also 
proposes that if an AFC system ceases operation, the

[[Page 64509]]

operator provide a minimum of 30-days' notice to the Commission and it 
transfer its registration data, if registration is required, to another 
AFC system operator. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. 
Are there other functions an AFC system operator should be required to 
perform?
    14. The Commission proposes that an AFC system operator be 
permitted to charge a fee for providing registration and channel 
availability functions. The Commission notes that fees could be charged 
on a transaction basis every time a device is registered or receives an 
update from an AFC system. The Commission also notes that device 
manufacturers or a trade association could fund an AFC system as part 
of its business and that no individual transaction fees would be 
charged. The Commission proposes that any of these methods be 
permitted. Are there other funding mechanisms for AFC systems that 
should be permitted? What are the costs and benefits of each type of 
proposed funding mechanism?
    15. Protecting Fixed Service from Harmful Interference. In general, 
fixed services use highly directional antennas where the energy 
transmitted and received is concentrated in a particular direction. 
This suggests that unlicensed devices need only be excluded from a zone 
determined by the fixed service receive antenna pattern and the EIRP of 
the unlicensed device. Using those parameters along with an appropriate 
propagation model would allow an AFC system to determine an exclusion 
zone, an area inside of which unlicensed devices would not be able to 
operate co-channel with fixed service systems. The size of the 
exclusion zone would be based on the specific interference protection 
criteria used.
    16. The Commission proposes that the AFC system use data from its 
Universal Licensing System (ULS) to facilitate access by unlicensed 
devices in the bands that are used for the fixed service. The 
Commission does not believe it is necessary to propose a mandatory 
requirement on information collections for the ULS that were previously 
voluntary in order to increase the efficacy of the AFC system. The 
Commission notes that licensees have an obligation to keep their 
information filed with the Commission current and complete. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    17. Is there any additional technical data, not currently collected 
in ULS, that is necessary to facilitate automatic coordination? If so, 
should that information be collected by the Commission and stored in 
ULS, or can such supplemental information be reported to and stored in 
the AFC system? In cases of missing data, how should the AFC operate? 
Should the Commission establish default values to be used to reach a 
reasonable assessment with a high degree of confidence that harmful 
interference will not occur? How should the Commission handle a 
situation where harmful interference occurs to a fixed service station 
due to that station's failure to keep its ULS records up-to-date? 
Should the unlicensed device be required to switch channels? Should 
there be any obligation on the fixed service station to update its ULS 
records before it can seek remedy from the Commission?
    18. The Commission seeks comment on how the AFC system should take 
into consideration temporary fixed operations and/or stations operating 
under conditional authority which may not be listed ULS. Should the 
Commission require the operators of temporary fixed and/or stations 
operating under conditional authority to provide notification of the 
details of their operations (location, antenna height, antenna pattern, 
etc.)? Or can those details be reported directly to an AFC? In the 
latter case, does there need to be a requirement to share such data 
among AFCs? If so, how would such a sharing system be implemented in a 
centralized or decentralized AFC system architecture? Are there other 
methods of protecting temporary fixed operations? Should the AFC system 
account for filed applications in addition to licensed stations when 
determining a list of frequencies on which an unlicensed device can 
operate?
    19. The Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt the 
interference to noise power (I/N ratio) or the ratio of the carrier to 
interference power (C/I ratio) for specifying the interference 
protection criteria. The Commission also seeks comment on whether any 
other metrics could be used for specifying the interference protection 
criteria. What are the respective costs and benefits of each metric? 
The interference protection criteria will be used by the AFC system to 
determine whether a standard-power access point would cause harmful 
interference to a fixed link receiver. The interference protection 
criteria the Commission specifies will in effect determine how close 
co-channel standard-power access points can operate to the fixed link 
receivers. The Commission seeks comment on the interference protection 
criteria to adopt. Commenters are encouraged to provide technical 
analysis supporting the particular interference protection criteria 
that they advocate.
    20. The Commission does not propose to protect fixed links 
operating on adjacent channels or second-adjacent channels as FWCC 
suggests. The Commission invites parties who believe that specific 
adjacent or second-adjacent channel protection rules be adopted to 
submit technical showings to support their position.
    21. To counteract the effects of fading, FWCC states that licensees 
design their fixed microwave systems with fade margins of 25-40 dB. The 
Commission seeks comment on FWCC's characterization of the fade margin. 
What are the typical design criteria for fixed service station fade 
margins? The Commission also seeks comment on whether and specifically 
how fading might affect the levels of the potentially interfering 
signal being transmitted from unlicensed devices. Given that 
atmospheric conditions affect multipath fading, should the interference 
protection criteria be relaxed or other allowances made in areas where 
fades are not as prominent? How might this be accomplished? Should the 
Commission consider the time of day fading occurs in conjunction with 
the relative busy hours for unlicensed traffic when determining the 
interference protection criteria? To what degree? Given that the loss 
of synchronization can occur even without the presence of any 
interference, can such events be attributed to atmospheric multipath 
fading? Given the diurnal and seasonal nature of atmospheric multipath 
fading, are there mitigation strategies that can take advantage of this 
phenomenon to ensure the potential for causing harmful interference is 
minimized?
    22. Several different propagation models can be used to determine 
the appropriate exclusion zones. The Commission believes that in the 
first kilometer, an effective propagation model should include clutter 
loss in addition to both line-of-sight and non-line-of-sight 
conditions. Beyond the first kilometer, the propagation model should 
include a combination of a terrain-based path loss model and a clutter 
loss model appropriate for the environment. The Commission seeks 
comment on this approach, as well as the appropriate propagation models 
for this application. Can some of the propagation models for different 
conditions be combined into a single model? Is using curve fitting to 
combine propagation models of different ranges of applicability into a 
single model an appropriate approach for this application? What are the 
costs and benefits of each propagation model?

[[Page 64510]]

What other factors should be considered when choosing an appropriate 
propagation model?
    23. If expressed in terms of latitude, longitude, and height, what 
is the required accuracy of the location of each standard-power access 
point to ensure fixed service protection? Rather than requiring a 
certain location accuracy for a standard-power access point, would it 
be more appropriate to assign an area of uncertainty around the 
computed location, based on the underlying technology and propagation 
environment, and then build the necessary processing into the AFC 
system to adjust its separation distance between the standard-power 
access point and fixed service receiver based on the area of 
uncertainty? If so, who will determine such an assignment and how, 
particularly with respect to indoor deployment? How will the location 
accuracy information be shared with the AFC? Will it be part of the 
registration process? What are the costs and benefits of any proposed 
alternative?
    24. The typical installation height above ground of a standard-
power access points should probably range from 5 meters to 30 meters. 
The Commission seeks comment on whether this estimate of typical 
standard-power access point heights is appropriate. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether to limit the maximum installation height of 
outdoor standard-power access points. If so, should that limit be set 
to 30 meters? Because frequency availability will depend on the height 
of standard-power access points, will the AFC system inherently address 
this matter by limiting the availability of permissible frequencies?
    25. The Commission seeks comment on requiring that every standard-
power access point be professionally installed. If the Commission 
requires professional installation, what mechanisms should be in place 
to ensure that a non-professional or unlicensed person cannot perform 
an installation? Should the Commission rely on an industry-led process 
to develop professional installer accreditation standards as the 
Commission has done in similar situations? Should AFC system(s) be 
required to take steps to ensure that only standard-power access points 
that have been professionally installed can receive a list of 
frequencies upon which to operate? If the Commission adopts a 
professional installation requirement, should it exempt certain access 
points that are less likely to cause interference such as, for example, 
those installed indoors or that are below a specified height? Are there 
other measurement/geolocation tools, existing or on the horizon, that 
can complement GPS? If so, can they be used in lieu of professional 
installation? Should the Commission require that geolocation capability 
be built into the standard-power access points? Are there other means 
of obtaining location information, such as street address and floor 
number? If so, how will this impact the contour calculations? What are 
the costs and benefits of any proposed alternative?
    26. The Commission proposes to require client devices that operate 
in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands to be under the control of a standard-
power access point. Notwithstanding this proposal, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether client devices should be allowed to transmit probe 
requests, consistent with 802.11 standard, as means for joining a 
network, prior to receiving a frequency assignment. If so, is there any 
way to allow such use without causing harmful interference to the 
incumbent users? The Commission seeks comment on what assumptions to 
make about the area in which a client device can operate.
    27. The Commission seeks comment on the typical or maximum 
operating radius for communications between a client device and a 
standard-power access point. How should the distance be incorporated 
into any frequency coordination computation to ensure incumbents are 
protected? The Commission's proposed rules define a client device as 
``a U-NII device whose transmissions are generally under the control of 
an access point and that is not capable of initiating a network.'' The 
Commission seeks comment on this definition.
    28. Preventing Aggregate Interference to Operations in the Fixed-
Satellite Service. The Commission tentatively concludes that use of the 
AFC is not necessary to protect satellite receivers and that limits on 
radiated power will prevent interference to space station receivers 
from individual unlicensed devices. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether a restriction on pointing toward the geostationary arc would be 
appropriate. The Commission seeks comment on the potential for the 
satellite receivers in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands to receive harmful 
aggregate interference due to transmissions from unlicensed devices 
operating in these bands. The Commission also seeks comment on methods 
that could be used to monitor aggregate interference to satellite 
receivers and potential remediation techniques in the event that such 
aggregate interference reaches levels that would require action. In 
this respect, the Commission asks about the feasibility of developing 
monitoring techniques that would be agreeable for all parties involved 
and whether there is any role that unlicensed users could play with 
regard to such monitoring.
    29. No earth stations are currently licensed to use the space-to-
Earth allocation in the 6.7-6.875 GHz portion of the U-NII-7 band. If 
this spectrum is used for space-to-Earth links in the future, the 
Commission proposes that the AFC system could be used to prevent 
harmful interference to the earth station receivers by excluding 
standard-power access point from operating in this spectrum near the 
associated earth stations. The Commission seeks comment on how the AFC 
system might be used to protect any future receiving satellite earth 
stations. In particular, the Commission asks what interference 
protection criteria and propagation models might be appropriate
    30. Lower Power Indoor Unlicensed Devices in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-
8 Bands. The Commission proposes to allow unlicensed devices to operate 
in the 6.425-6.525 GHz and 6.875-7.125 GHz bands, referenced herein as 
the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands respectively, under two specific 
conditions: (1) Unlicensed devices are limited to the lower power 
levels applicable to unlicensed operations in the U-NII-2 bands and (2) 
such devices are restricted to indoor operation.
    31. Many incumbents in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands conduct mobile 
operations. Because exclusion zone calculations require knowledge of 
the incumbent receiver location and antenna orientation, the Commission 
does not believe that an AFC system would be feasible in these bands. 
Instead, the Commission proposes technical rules for unlicensed devices 
designed to minimize the potential harmful interference to incumbent 
operations in these bands. By restricting such devices to low power, 
indoor use, the Commission anticipates that incumbent licensed services 
would be protected from harmful interference, in part due to 
significant building attenuation and clutter losses for transmissions 
originating from indoor devices. The Commission recognizes that its 
assessment that there is a low likelihood that indoor low power devices 
will cause harmful interference depends in part on the assumptions that 
are made with respect to the number and density of these devices and 
assumptions about the incumbent services interference protections. The 
Commission proposes to adopt power limits that are based on the 
existing

[[Page 64511]]

rules in the U-NII-2C band (5.47-5.725 GHz).
    32. The Commission seeks comment on the compatibility between 
unlicensed indoor low power devices and Low Power Auxiliary Station 
services which may operate indoors in the U-NII-8 band. Commenters 
should provide all study assumptions, including appropriate propagation 
models, availability requirements, receiver sensitivity, noise figure, 
antenna patterns, and fade margins, between indoor low power unlicensed 
devices anticipated under our proposals and mobile and fixed links in 
these bands. The Commission believes the same conditions that protect 
incumbents from harmful interference from a single U-NII device will 
also protect those same incumbents from aggregate interference. 
Nevertheless, the Commission requests that commenters address this 
assumption. The Commission encourages parties to employ statistical 
models to evaluate the risk of harmful interference.
    33. Given the uncertainties inherent in establishing mobile links 
and the attenuation of the signals due to building and clutter losses, 
the Commission anticipates that low-power indoor operation will not 
increase the risk of harmful interference to mobile service incumbents. 
The Commission seeks comment on this assessment. The Commission seeks 
comment on factors that it has not accounted for in this analysis, 
including more detailed information on the specific mobile deployment 
configurations in these bands. Are Cable Television Relay Service and 
TV pickup mobile station deployment configurations largely similar? Are 
receive sites for the TV pickup and Cable Television Relay Service 
mobile assignments typically deployed at fixed locations? What are the 
typical fade margins for mobile links and what types of service are 
these fade margins required for? For the approximately 200 public 
safety or business/industrial pool assignments in these bands, do they 
operate on a mobile basis or are they temporarily fixed for longer 
periods of time when in use? How many mobile stations are typically 
associated with an assignment?
    34. The Commission seeks comment on whether requirements for the 
various fixed services in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands differ. For 
example, do Broadcast Auxiliary Service point-to-point links have the 
same design criteria regarding availability and fade margins as Private 
Operational Fixed public safety and business/industrial pool links or 
common carrier point-to-point links? Fixed Service commenters have 
raised the possibility of indoor unlicensed devices in tall buildings 
causing unacceptable degradation to the fade margin of a fixed service 
link. Under what conditions would such interference occur? How do these 
design criteria for fixed service links in these bands relate to the 
potential for such interference? Are there mitigation strategies that 
will reduce the potential for unlicensed devices to cause harmful 
interference under these conditions? Would unlicensed device operation 
in these bands have any detrimental effect on Broadcast Auxiliary 
Service operations, which are characterized by transmitting to 
strategically located receive sites?
    35. The Commission believes that the technical characteristics 
proposed for indoor low-power access points in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 
bands will protect the FSS and that additional interference mitigation 
techniques are unnecessary. Because of the low power and low 
probability that an indoor unlicensed device will have a direct line of 
sight with Sirius/XM satellites, the Commission believes the risk of 
causing harmful interference to those satellites is low. Regarding the 
limited number of MSS feeder downlinks in the U-NII-8 band, the 
Commission tentatively concludes that MSS operations will be similarly 
protected by the limitations on unlicensed use proposed in this Notice, 
particularly given the small number and isolated nature of these 
locations. The Commission seeks comment on these tentative conclusions, 
and on whether any additional mitigation techniques might be necessary 
to protect satellite services in these bands.
    36. The Commission proposes to restrict operation of unlicensed 
devices in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands to indoor operation. 
Broadcasters covering large venues such as sporting events and 
political conventions rely on the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands for 
operations that may take place indoors. Are there additional low-power 
device restrictions that the Commission should consider to prevent 
interference to broadcaster indoor operations in these bands? The 
Commission also proposes to require client devices that operate in the 
U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands to be under the control of low-power access 
point. This requirement will help prevent uncontrolled outdoor 
operation of client devices.
    37. The Commission believes that in most cases Broadcast Auxiliary 
Service operations will be between a mobile transmitter and a fixed 
location to which it will have a direct line of sight. ITU models give 
values for both building entry and clutter losses with some probability 
of occurrence. The Commission notes that the ITU model shows a median 
building entry losses of approximately 18 dB for traditional 
construction and 30 dB for thermally efficient construction for 
horizontal incidence, with increasing building entry losses at larger 
elevation angles. Are assumptions for building entry losses and clutter 
loss enough to overcome concerns of interference even when the 
unlicensed device might be in the main beam of the receiver? Are there 
other factors or models that should be considered when evaluating loses 
between indoor unlicensed devices and U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 incumbent 
services?
    38. The Commission also invites comment on how the Commission could 
ensure that low-power access points are restricted to indoor use. 
Should the Commission adopt a requirement that indoor devices have 
direct connection to a power outlet? Are there other methods or 
equipment form-factors that would discourage outdoor usage of low-power 
access point unlicensed devices that the Commission should consider? 
For example, noting that GPS signals generally do not penetrate very 
far into buildings, would it be feasible and cost effective to require 
low-power access points to monitor GPS satellite signals and to cease 
transmissions if a GPS signal is detected? Would it be better to set a 
GPS signal threshold rather than a detection threshold above which a 
low-power access point would be required to shut off to differentiate 
between clear-sky (outdoor) GPS satellite view and indoor detection? 
The Commission seeks comment on this and other methods of ensuring 
devices operate in accordance with the indoor-only restriction. 
Finally, given that client devices are even lower power (5 mW/MHz EIRP) 
and are required to only operate in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands after 
receiving an authorization from a low-power access point, are there any 
other considerations the Commission needs to take into account to 
ensure these devices do not cause harmful interference to incumbent 
operations?
    39. The Commission does not propose to make changes to existing 
provisions in Part 15 for unlicensed wideband and ultra-wideband 
systems as the Commission expects such systems will continue to coexist 
with all other systems, both licensed and unlicensed, within the 6 GHz 
band. The Commission seeks comment from interested parties regarding 
the potential effect of our proposals on their existing unlicensed 
devices and use models. To

[[Page 64512]]

the extent that parties believe new devices could adversely affect 
existing operations, they should suggest specific rules and mitigation 
strategies that would minimize such risk.
    40. Other Unlicensed Operation Options. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether we should allow indoor low-power access point 
operations in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands under the same conditions 
as proposed for the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands; i.e., low power, indoor-
only use without the need for authorization from an AFC system. If so, 
what power level could be permitted for such operation without 
increasing the risk of harmful interference to licensed services? Are 
there any other operational requirements, rules or mitigation 
techniques that would allow low-power access points to operate in the 
U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands without the use of an AFC system?
    41. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are any ways to 
protect incumbent mobile operations, if the Commission were to allow 
unlicensed operations in the U-NII-6 or U-NII-8 bands at the same power 
levels as those proposed for U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands, both indoors 
and outdoors. Are a significant number of Broadcast Auxiliary Service 
and Cable Television Relay Service receive sites fixed, such that they 
could be protected by the AFC in the same fashion as fixed operations? 
Do fixed received sites associated with mobile operations typically use 
fixed antennas or steerable antennas and could a protection contour be 
defined around a fixed receive site taking into consideration the 
characteristics of the receive antenna? Is it possible, for example, to 
dynamically update the permissible frequency list whenever mobile sites 
become active or when the information for these sites becomes 
available? Can push notifications serve as a means of informing 
affected standard-power access points that the permissible frequency 
list must be updated to protect the incumbents? Additionally, would the 
Commission's tentative conclusions regarding protections of satellite 
services in the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 bands be undermined by permitting 
high power unlicensed operations in these bands?
    42. The Commission seeks comment on whether unlicensed devices in 
the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands should be explicitly permitted to operate 
either as a mobile hotspot or as a transportable device. As with fixed 
access points in these bands, such operation would be under the control 
of an AFC system. Is such operation feasible under such a condition? 
Are there rules we can put in place to permit such operation while 
still ensuring that licensed services are protected from harmful 
interference? For example, the rules for Mode II personal/portable 
white space devices allow them to load channel availability information 
for multiple locations to define a geographic area in which the device 
can operate. Could a similar mechanism work in these bands? Are there 
specific capabilities that need to be included in the AFC to enable 
such operation? Should such operation be restricted to certain power 
levels? Are there other safeguards that could be implemented to permit 
such operation?
    43. Power Limits. Based on the experience of the existing U-NII 
bands, the Commission believes these levels will provide the proper 
balance between allowing flexibility for unlicensed devices to deploy 
while still protecting incumbent systems. Therefore, the Commission 
proposes maximum EIRP power spectral density limits of:
     For U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 standard-power access points, the 
maximum conducted output power is 1 watt and maximum power spectral 
density is 17 dBm in any 1 megahertz band. If a transmitting antenna 
with directional gain greater than 6 dBi is used, the maximum power and 
power spectral density shall be reduced by the amount in dBi that the 
directional gain is greater than 6 dBi.
     For U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 band low-power access points, the 
maximum conducted output power is 250 milliwatts and maximum power 
spectral density is 11 dBm in any 1 megahertz band. If a transmitting 
antenna with directional gain greater than 6 dBi is used, the maximum 
power and power spectral density shall be reduced by the amount in dBi 
that the directional gain is greater than 6 dBi.
     For client devices, the maximum conducted output power is 
63 milliwatts and maximum power spectral density is 5 dBm in any 1 
megahertz band. If a transmitting antenna with directional gain greater 
than 6 dBi is used, the maximum power and power spectral density shall 
be reduced by the amount in dBi that the directional gain is greater 
than 6 dBi.
    44. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed power limits. 
The Commission also seeks comment on whether higher power operations 
could be permitted in rural and underserved areas under certain 
conditions. If so, should such operations be limited to only the U-NII-
5 and U-NII-7 bands and only under the control of an AFC system? 
Commenters advocating for higher power should also address how much 
more power they believe is necessary to serve these areas and provide 
comment on how to define rural and underserved areas in this context. 
Additionally, commenters should address whether such operations should 
be limited to point-to-point operations (possibly with a minimum 
antenna gain) or if point-to-multipoint operations should be permitted.
    45. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to adopt power 
rules that are structured differently than the existing U-NII rules. 
For example, the Commission could specify only a radiated power 
spectral density limit or a combination of a radiated maximum power and 
a radiated power spectral density limit. What are the benefits and 
drawbacks of each approach as it relates to equipment design and cost 
as well as maximizing the area over which unlicensed devices can 
operate and ensuring incumbents are protected from harmful 
interference? Should the Commission specify a maximum transmit power 
based on a 20 megahertz channel bandwidth in addition to the power and 
power spectral density limits described above? What are the benefits of 
such an approach? Would such a rule unnecessarily restrict devices to 
less efficient operational modes? Should certain types of transmitters 
that employ electrically steerable, MIMO, or phased array antennas have 
special rules which allow the device to operate with higher power 
levels?
    46. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on our proposal to 
reduce the permitted transmitted power and power spectral density when 
using antennas with a directional gain greater than 6 dBi. Should the 
Commission require that antennas be integrated with the device or can 
the Commission permit users to choose an appropriate antenna for their 
application? If antennas are not integrated with the device, should an 
equipment authorization grantee be required to maintain a list of 
permissible antennas with its equipment authorization or in the manual 
or on a website? What effect will our proposal have on the equipment 
authorization process?
    47. Unwanted Emissions Limits. The Commission proposes that for all 
unlicensed devices operating in the 6 GHz band under the proposals 
herein, all emissions below 5.925 GHz and above 7.125 GHz shall not 
exceed an EIRP of -27 dBm/MHz. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the need to 
specify out-of-band emission limits between the sub-bands of the 6 GHz 
band--i.e. between the U-NII-5, U-NII-6, U-NII-7 and U-NII-8 bands? 
What are the

[[Page 64513]]

appropriate emission limits? The Commission also seeks comment on the 
transmit emission mask that unlicensed devices should be required to 
meet to protect incumbent services operating on adjacent frequencies 
within the band. Is the emission mask suggested by RKF Engineering in 
the technical study submitted by Apple Inc., Broadcom Corporation, et 
al. appropriate for this purpose? If not, what is the appropriate 
emission mask?
    48. Prohibition on use in Moving Vehicles and Drones. The 
Commission proposes that unlicensed access points (both standard-power 
access point and low-power access point) be prohibited from operating 
in moving vehicles such as cars, trains, or aircraft. The Commission is 
especially concerned about the interference consequences of allowing 
operation onboard aircraft because the longer line-of-sight distances 
from devices at typical aircraft altitude could result in interference 
over a wide area. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and 
whether there are alternative, feasible proposals to use the band for 
moving vehicles. The Commission also propose that unlicensed devices, 
whether a standard-power access point, low-power access point, or 
client device, operating under these rules not be permitted for use 
with unmanned aircraft systems. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal.
    49. Additional Mitigation Measures. Although the Commission 
believes that unlicensed device operation as discussed herein will not 
result in harmful interference to licensed services, the Commission 
nonetheless ask whether any additional requirements are necessary to 
ensure that any instances of harmful interference that may occur can be 
resolved expeditiously.
    50. The Commission seeks comment on whether to require standard-
power access points in these bands to transmit digital identifying 
information. If so, should such a requirement be applied in all 
instances (standard-power access points and low-power access points and 
their associated client devices)? If, as proposed, low-power access 
point operation would be restricted to indoors and such devices would 
not have any identifying information in the AFC database, would there 
be any practical benefit to requiring low-power access points to 
transmit digitally identifying information? Would a specific format for 
such information need to be specified and would there be a need for 
specialized equipment to detect and decode the identifying information? 
If so, could this function be easily incorporated into new equipment or 
retrofitted to existing equipment? How much would adding this 
capability into equipment cost?
    51. As an additional means to locate the source of harmful 
interference, the Commission could require that the AFC record the 
actual frequency being used by each standard-power access point. This 
information could be useful for locating interference sources if it can 
be collected from every standard-power access point and stored in a 
relational database. The Commission seeks comment on this tool and 
other means for remediation of interference.
    52. The Commission seeks comment on whether it would be necessary 
to institute an interference resolution process beyond the existing 
rule for unlicensed devices. For example, would it be necessary to 
establish an interference detection and identification procedure? If 
so, who will develop this procedure and who will be responsible for 
exercising it? Should the AFC system operator(s) be responsible for 
this task?
    53. The Commission seeks comment on requiring manufacturers to 
provide consumers with information on any specific operational 
requirements applicable to devices operating in the U-NII-5 through U-
NII-8 bands to prevent harmful interference. How should this 
information be conveyed, e.g., by device labeling or in the user's 
manual, and what information should be provided? Depending on the types 
of operational requirements that the Commission adopts, examples of 
information that could be provided include that certain devices may be 
operated only indoors, may not be operated on board aircraft, require 
professional installation, or must update their location information 
with an AFC system when installed at a new location.
    54. Procedural Matters. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This 
document contains proposed new or modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.
    55. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 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 document. The IRFA is Appendix C of the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which can be obtained as described 
above. We request written public comment on the IRFA. Comments must be 
filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in 
response to the NPRM and must have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer 
and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will 
send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    56. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may 
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on 
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using 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: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.

[[Page 64514]]

     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.
    57. 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).
    58. 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.
    59. 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 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 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 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.

I. Ordering Clauses

    60. 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby 
adopted.
    61. It is ordered that notice is hereby given of the proposed 
regulatory changes described in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and 
that comment is sought on these proposals.
    62. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

    Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 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. Revise Sec.  15.401 to read as follows:


Sec.  15.401   Scope.

    This subpart sets out the regulations for unlicensed National 
Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices operating in the 5.15-5.35 
GHz, 5.47-5.725 GHz, 5.725-5.85 GHz, 5.925-6.425 GHz, 6.425-6.525 GHz, 
6.525-6.875 GHz, and 6.875-7.125 GHz bands.
0
3. Amend Sec.  15.403 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (f) through (s) as paragraphs (h) through 
(u);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b) through (e) as paragraphs (c) through 
(f); and
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (b) and (g).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  15.403   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) is a system that 
automatically determines and provides lists of which frequencies are 
available for use by access points operating in the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 
6.525-6.875 GHz bands.
* * * * *
    (g) Client Device. A U-NII device whose transmissions are generally 
under the control of an access point and that is not capable of 
initiating a network.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  15.407 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) as paragraphs (a)(7) and 
(8);
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (a)(4) through (6);
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(8);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) as paragraphs (b)(6) 
through (9);
0
e. Adding new paragraph (b)(5);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d); and
0
g. Adding paragraph (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  15.407   General technical requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (4) For an access point operating in the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 6.525-
6.875 GHz bands, the maximum conducted output power over the frequency 
band of operation shall not exceed 1 W, provided the maximum antenna 
gain does not exceed 6 dBi. In addition, the maximum power spectral 
density shall not exceed 17 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.
    (5) For an access point operating in the 6.425-6.525 GHz, and 
6.875-7.125 GHz bands, 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

[[Page 64515]]

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.
    (6) For client devices in the 5.925-6.425 GHz, 6.425-6.525 GHz, 
6.525-6.875 GHz, and 6.875-7.125 GHz bands, the maximum conducted 
output power over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed 63 
mW provided the maximum antenna gain does not exceed 6 dBi. In 
addition, the maximum power spectral density shall not exceed 5 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.
* * * * *
    (8) The maximum power spectral density is measured as a conducted 
emission by direct connection of a calibrated test instrument to the 
equipment under test. If the device cannot be connected directly, 
alternative techniques acceptable to the Commission may be used. 
Measurements in the 5.725-5.85 GHz band are made for a reference 
bandwidth of 500 kHz or the 26 dB emission bandwidth of the device, 
whichever is less. Measurements in the 5.15-5.25 GHz, 5.25-5.35 GHz, 
5.47-5.725 GHz, 5.925-6.425 GHz, 6.425-6.525 GHz, 6.525-6.875 GHz, and 
6.875-7.125 GHz bands are made for a reference bandwidth of 1 megahertz 
or the 26 dB emission bandwidth of the device, whichever is less. A 
narrower resolution bandwidth can be used, provided that the measured 
power is integrated over the full reference bandwidth.
    (b) * * *
    (5) For transmitters operating within the 5.925-7.125 GHz band: All 
emissions outside of the 5.925-7.125 GHz band shall not exceed an 
e.i.r.p. of -27 dBm/MHz.
* * * * *
    (d) Operational restrictions. (1) Operation of access points in the 
5.925-6.425 GHz, 6.425-6.525 GHz, 6.525-6.875 GHz and 6.875-7.125 GHz 
bands is prohibited in moving vehicles such as cars, trains, and 
aircraft.
    (2) Operation in the 5.925-6.425 GHz, 6.425-6.525 GHz, 6.525-6.875 
GHz and 6.875-7.125 GHz bands is prohibited for control of or 
communications with unmanned aircraft systems.
    (3) Operation in the 6.425-6.525 GHz and 6.875-7.125 GHz bands is 
limited to indoor locations.
* * * * *
    (k) Automated frequency coordination (AFC). (1) Access points 
operating in the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 6.525-6.875 GHz bands shall access 
an AFC system to determine the available frequencies at their 
geographic coordinates prior to transmitting. Access points may 
transmit only on frequencies indicated as being available by an AFC 
system.
    (2) An AFC system shall obtain information on protected services 
within the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 6.525-6.875 GHz bands from Commission 
databases and use that information to determine frequency availability 
for access points based on protection criteria specified by the 
Commission.
    (3) An AFC system operator will be designated for a five-year term 
which can be renewed by the Commission based on the operator's 
performance during the term. If an AFC system ceases operation, it must 
provide at least 30-days' notice to the Commission and transfer any 
registration data to another AFC system operator.
    (4) An AFC system operator may charge fees for providing 
registration and channel availability functions.

[FR Doc. 2018-26013 Filed 12-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P