Quiero saber acerca de...

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules Commission seeks comment on whether the recent activities in the IEEE
standards group examining channel access protocols that would enable the same 60 GHz system transmitting communication signals to transmit radar signals address this issue. Commenters should provide technical detail, studies and analyses supporting their position on how a duty cycle requirement for FDS devices should be specified.
The Commission notes that the 60
GHz Co-existence Study Groups activities have been geared toward developing a consensus approach to a framework for a potential Commission rulemaking, with discussions concerning duty cycles; transmission onand off-times; operating bandwidth and channelization e.g., radar implementations with 2-gigahertz, 4gigahertz, 7-gigahertz-bandwidth;
contention-based protocols; transmit power; and antenna gain. Although representatives from the 60CSG recently informed us that the group has yet to achieve consensus on a recommended regulatory approach to accomplish coexistence among the diverse operations in the 60 GHz band, they also described several potential frameworks for further unlicensed development in this frequency range.
These include establishing a single rule for radar operations in the 5764 GHz portion of the 60 GHz band, establishing a rule based on average power and/or average PSD limits that draws from the ETSI EN 305 550 standard, taking a channelization approach to radars in the 60 GHz band, and amending the rules to reflect different categories of technologies that operate in the 60 GHz band, such as allowing for different operating parameters when operating in a vehicle, indoors, or outdoors, or between implementations that are fixed, mobile, or portable. The Commission seeks comment on the 60 GHz CSG
filing. What are the technical trade-offs and cost/benefits for each framework?
What parts of these four frameworks can the Commission incorporate into the Commissions final rules to optimize the benefits and minimize the costs to all authorized 60 GHz users, and help us achieve the Commissions objective of fostering a greater variety of unlicensed uses in the 60 GHz band? The Commission also seeks input on the work results of any other coexistence standards activities international and domestic and/or cooperative works between communications and FDS
study groups that may have taken place, and how such work may inform the Commissions proposals to expand unlicensed use of the band.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:45 Aug 18, 2021

Jkt 253001

Because the Commission is proposing to permit fixed and mobile radars to operate in the 60 GHz band, the Commission believes it is no longer necessary to qualify an application as SRIMS to operate as a mobile radar under 15.255. The Commission therefore proposes to remove this designation from the rules and replace it with the general designation of FDS
devices for both fixed and mobile radars. As indicated, when adopting the rule for SRIMS, the Commission stated that it intended it to be a narrow application of mobile radar use, while continuing to prohibit general mobile radar use in 15.255. As such, the Commission did not adopt a definition for SRIMS. Over the last few years, there has been much confusion on which 60
GHz mobile and fixed radar applications should qualify under the SRIMS
designation. The Commission also requested input in response to the multiple 60 GHz waiver requests but was not able to make a bright-line determination for certain applications.
The Commission seeks comment on the proposal to remove the SRIMS
exception from 15.255 and replace it with general rules covering all FDS
devices. The Commission also seeks comment on the benefits or costs of this proposal with respect to 60 GHz authorized users. Parties that oppose removing the SRIMS designation from the rules should cite specific harms that they believe would result from making this change to the rules.
The Commission next addresses 15.255c2 of its rules, which permits a fixed FDS device to operate at up to 40 dBm average EIRP and at up to 43
dBm peak EIRP in the 61.061.5 GHz band segment. Under this rule, a fixed FDS devices occupied bandwidth must be fully contained within the 500megahertz bandwidth of the 61.061.5
GHz band; and it must attenuate its signals outside the 61.061.5 GHz band, but still within the 5771 GHz band, to less than 10 dBm average EIRP and 13
dBm peak EIRP. The Commission believes that this rule is valuable insofar that it permits the operation of fixed FDS devices at power levels as high as communication devices, albeit restricted to a more narrow operating bandwidth, without being restricted to a specific duty cycle limit. As such, the Commission proposes to retain 15.255c2 but also seeks comment on whether the Commission should expand this provision to apply to both fixed and mobile FDS applications. The Commission seeks comment on how useful this 500-megahertz bandwidth provision has been in practice in
PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

46667

facilitating FDS device deployment, given that radars typically achieve better resolution with a wider bandwidth.
What FDS applications currently are being enabled using the higher power levels permitted in the 61.061.5 GHz band? Could the Commission expect that expanding 15.255c2 would result in new mobile FDS applications, and if so would they perform functions that otherwise would not be possible under the existing rules? How would expanding the rule affect the spectrum environment for all users of the band?
What costs and benefits would be associated with such an action? In particular, the Commission seeks comment and technical analyses on these issues to develop a comprehensive record.
Section 15.255c2 requires the average power of any emission outside of the 61.061.5 GHz band, measured during the transmit interval, to be less than or equal to 10 dBm, and similarly the peak power of any emission to be less than or equal to 13 dBm. Because no measurement bandwidth is currently specified in the rule, the Commission seeks comment on whether this requirement is sufficiently specific.
Should these limits be specified in terms of power spectral density PSD?
If so, what are the required peak and average power densities outside of the 61.061.5 GHz band? The reference bandwidth that the Commission often uses for specification of the spurious domain emission levels for frequency bands above 1 GHz is 1 megahertz. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate reference bandwidth for PSD for emission outside of the 61.0
61.5 GHz band. Are any other additional requirements necessary?
To the extent that the Commission retains provisions in 15.255 that specifically permit fixed FDS
operations, the Commission seeks comment on how the Commission should interpret fixed and whether the Commission should incorporate a specific definition for the term into the Commissions Part 15 rules. When OET
granted the automotive waivers, it noted that the Commission did not specifically address whether the rule permits something that is inherently mobile such as an automobile to be treated as fixed in certain circumstances, and left any determination of what constitutes fixed and mobile operation under the rule for separate consideration. A
review of the 1998 Report and Order that first permitted fixed FDS use in the band would suggest that the Commission was anticipating a narrow set of applications that would be used in industrial settings where the
E:FRFM19AUP1.SGM

19AUP1