Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

46668

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
equipment would rarely if ever be moved. However, in light of the wide range of potential FDS applications that now have been identified for the 60 GHz band and the Commissions general inclination to provide as expansive an opportunity for unlicensed operations in a particular band as is practical, the Commission tentatively concludes that a broader view is appropriate. The Commission tentatively concludes that the Commission should interpret fixed FDS operations as those instances where an FDS device is stationary and is operating at a discrete location for an indefinitei.e., more than mere transitoryperiod. The Commission envisions this interpretation would allow for a device that is used in a household and easily moved from room to room to operate in different parts of the residence, but that an automotivemounted radar that operates when the car is stopped while the ignition is engaged would be too transitory to qualify. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Does it provide a sufficient bright-line rule for device operation? Will it provide other unlicensed and authorized users in the 60 GHz band with sufficient confidence that they will be able to identify and resolve any degradation of the operational environment caused by these fixed users? Are there other interpretations that are more appropriate for defining fixed FDS
operations?
The Commissions third area of discussion relates to whether the Commission could permit FDS devices to operate at a higher power throughout the entire 5771 GHz band. In its recommendation, the TAC suggests that the Commission explores the possibility of allowing radars that incorporate a sensing technology such as listenbefore-talk LBT to operate at the same emission limits as WLAN devices in the band, i.e., 40 dBm EIRP and 27 dBm transmitter conducted output power.
The Commission seeks input regarding the effect such higher power levels would have on authorized users who are entitled to interference protection, as well as how those power levels would affect the ability of unlicensed radar systems to coexist with unlicensed communications systems. Are these EIRP and transmitter conducted output power levels appropriate for radar applications, given the implied high antenna gain/directivity? What antenna gain do radars need in various applications? Are mobile radar applications limited by power consumption such that they would not be able to leverage these higher
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:45 Aug 18, 2021

Jkt 253001

emission limits? With spectrum sensing capabilities, would a duty cycle restriction be necessary? The Commission seeks input and feedback as well as recommendations on these issues. Commenters should provide technical details and/or studies to show that it is practical for radars to operate at up to 40 dBm EIRP without causing harmful interference to existing authorized services in the band. The Commission notes that the 2021 TAC
Recommendation only mentions the listen-before-talk technique. Are there other spectrum contention avoidance techniques that would serve the same purpose and how effective are they?
What are the costs and benefits of such techniques? Have there been any completed or ongoing studies regarding coexistence between radars and authorized 60 GHz users and, if so, what are the results and recommendations?
Should the same spectrum sensing technique be required for all devices operating in the 5771 GHz band with the average power limit of 40 dBm EIRP? Have industry standards groups such as the 802.11 Standards Committee considered the use of spectrum sensing techniques for 60 GHz unlicensed devices? Will there be a need to regulate energy detection and observation time for LBT sensing? If so, what are the appropriate limits? Will usage of LBT
provide higher aggregate capacity? If so, does it justify the higher complexity necessary to support LBT? The Commission solicits input on these issues to develop a comprehensive record on these matters.
The Commission does not propose to alter the existing restrictions relating to the use of 60 GHz band unlicensed devices on board aircraft which are contained in 15.255b of its rules, but the Commission nevertheless seeks comment as to whether the Commission should expand the situations where such use is permissible. Currently, such operation is limited to when the aircraft is on the ground, and, for airborne use, only in closed exclusive communication networks within the aircraft. To account for the important interest in protecting passive EESS users that operate in the 5759.3 GHz band, the rule limits this use to aircraft with a high RF
attenuation body e.g., commercial airliners, and cannot be used in wireless avionics intra-communication applications where external structural sensors or external cameras are mounted on the outside of the aircraft structure.
The Commission does not believe that retaining the existing provisions regarding in-aircraft use of unlicensed devices would hinder the initial successful deployment of new
PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

applications and devices under the Commissions proposed rules. Many of the use opportunities that have been identified to datesuch as inside and outside vehicles, and in personal safety, medical imaging, home automation, environmental control, and robotic appliances devices, for exampleare not dependent on use on board an aircraft. Compliance options also exist for portable electronic devices that may be brought aboard airplanes. These could include, for example, activation of airplane mode during flight or the use of sensors to disable operations when the device is above a particular height above ground. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative determination.
Currently the Commission has only authorized 60 GHz radars to operate on board aircraft beyond the uses permitted in the rules via two limited situations.
Both were in conjunction with waiver grants that carefully evaluated how specific devices would be deployed in well-defined use cases. Leica Geosystems AG may operate a 6064
GHz radar on an unmanned aircraft, but with very restrictive conditions on the number of deployed devices. The Google Soli radar incorporated into a smartphone e.g., the Google Pixel allows control of a smartphone via gestures without touching the phone, and is not intended to be part of the aircraft communication network.
Although the Commission proposes to retain the existing rule, the Commission nevertheless seeks comment on whether the Commission should allow for expanded use of 60 GHz radars on board aircraft and, if so, with what requirements and restrictions. Given that the Commissions fundamental consideration has been and remains how to ensure that passive EESS
operations in the 5759.3 GHz band continue to be protected from harmful interference that could be caused by airborne use of unlicensed 60 GHz devices, could airborne radar use be permitted above 59.3 GHz? The Commission is not aware of any reports of harmful interference being caused by Google Soli devices during airborne use.
Could the Commission permit 60 GHz radars to operate on board aircraft for limited uses such as when incorporated into smartphones or similar portable electronic devices that may be carried by air travelers? Would the Commission need to limit such use to the power levels associated with the Google Soli waiver, which operates at lower power levels than those the Commission is proposing for 60 GHz radars? Are there other narrow use cases that the Commission should allow? For
E:FRFM19AUP1.SGM

19AUP1