Office of Engineering and Technology Seeks Comment Following Court Remand of 6 GHz Band Order

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 25, 2022
Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission
Abstract

In this document, the Commission invites comments in connection with the remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit of the Commission's 6 GHz Report and Order. The 6 GHz Report and Order opened the 6 GHz band to the operation of unlicensed low power access points. The D.C. Circuit largely rejected a challenge of the 6 GHz Report and Order, but remanded to the Commission concerns raised by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) regarding interference to unlicensed devices in the 2.4 GHz band.
Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 79 (Monday, April 25, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24302-24303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08673]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183; DA 22-253; FR ID 82111]


Office of Engineering and Technology Seeks Comment Following 
Court Remand of 6 GHz Band Order

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission invites comments in 
connection with the remand by the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit of the Commission's 6 GHz Report and 
Order. The 6 GHz Report and Order opened the 6 GHz band to the 
operation of unlicensed low power access points. The D.C. Circuit 
largely rejected a challenge of the 6 GHz Report and Order, but 
remanded to the Commission concerns raised by the National Association 
of Broadcasters (NAB) regarding interference to unlicensed devices in 
the 2.4 GHz band.

DATES: Comments are due on or before May 25, 2022, and reply comments 
are due on or before June 9, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 18-295 
and GN Docket No. 17-183, by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    <bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>. People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ef898c8cdadfdbaf898c8cc1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7b1b4b4e2e7e397b1b4b4f9b0b8a1">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d5b5e5e080d097d5b5e5e135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82e4e1e1b7b2b6c2e4e1e1ace5edf4">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 
418-0432 (tty).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-0636, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2967404a414645485a07665b465a694f4a4a074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a0423292225262b3964053825390a2c2929642d253c">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document (Public Notice), in ET Docket No. 18-295 and GN Docket No. 17-
183, DA 22-253, released on March 10, 2022. The full text of this 
document is available for public inspection and may be downloaded at: 
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/oet-seeks-comment-following-court-remand-6-ghz-band-order">https://www.fcc.gov/document/oet-seeks-comment-following-court-remand-6-ghz-band-order</a>.

Synopsis

    In the Public Notice, the Office of Engineering and Technology 
invites comments in connection with the remand by the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit of the 
Commission's 6 GHz Report and Order. On February 22, 2022, the court 
issued its mandate.
    The Commission's 6 GHz Report and Order ``open[ed up] the entire 6 
GHz band [(5.925-7.125 GHz)] for unlicensed indoor lower power access 
points.'' The Commission found that ``[t]hese access points will be 
ideal for connecting devices in homes and businesses such [as] 
smartphones, tablet devices, laptops, and Internet-of-Things devices to 
the Internet.'' The Commission adopted several requirements to 
``protect the various incumbent-licensed services in the band, 
including fixed microwave services, various other fixed and mobile 
services, and fixed-satellite services.''
    Among other things, the 6 GHz Report and Order required that the 
operation of devices relying on indoor low power access points be: 
``(1) limited to indoor operation'' whereby ``the signals transmitted 
by these unlicensed devices will be significantly attenuated when 
passing through the walls of buildings[;]'' ``(2) required to use a 
contention-based protocol,'' such as a ``listen before talk . . . 
scheme[;]'' and ``(3) subject to low-power operation,'' which, as 
relevant here, means ``a maximum radiated power spectral density of 5 
dBm per 1 megahertz.'' The Commission concluded that ``the[se] 
restrictions and requirements . . . for indoor use of low power access 
points eliminat[e] any significant risk of causing harmful 
interference.''
    Petitioners representing licensed commercial wireless service 
providers, electric utilities, public safety entities, and broadcasters 
operating in the 6 GHz band sought judicial review, asserting that the 
6 GHz Report and Order contravened the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
    The D.C. Circuit largely rejected these challenges. Holding that 
``petitioners have failed to provide a basis for

[[Page 24303]]

questioning the Commission's conclusion that the [6 GHz Report and 
Order] will protect against a significant risk of harmful 
interference,'' the court ``den[ied] the petitions for review in all 
respects save one.''
    The one issue as to which the court granted review involved a claim 
by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) ``that because mobile 
operators frequently work indoors, the provisions of the [6 GHz Report 
and Order] designed to restrict low-power routers to indoor operation 
offer mobile licensees little protection'', and that therefore, the 
Commission should have ``reserve[d] a sliver of [the 6 GHz] band 
exclusively for mobile licensees.'' In support of its claim, NAB argued 
that ``after the Commission allowed unlicensed access in the 2.4 GHz 
band, `a contention-based protocol . . . failed to protect . . . 
licensed users[,] rendering that band partially unusable.' ''
    The court ruled that ``[t]he Commission never responded to [NAB's] 
complaints about interference in the 2.4 GHz band,'' and that 
``[a]lthough the Commission cited a study to support its conclusion 
that the [6 GHz Report and Order] sufficiently protects mobile 
operators, that study does not rebut the Association's claims about 
interference in the 2.4 GHz band.'' The court nevertheless declined to 
vacate the 6 GHz Report and Order, observing that `` `[i]t is 
conceivable that the Commission may be able to explain' why its 
experience in the 2.4 GHz band supports its ability to protect licensed 
mobile operators from harmful interference'' and agreeing with the 
Commission that `` `vacating this order would be incredibly disruptive 
given the fact that devices have already started to be deployed . . . 
.' ''
    In the Public Notice, the Office of Engineering and Technology 
seeks comment on NAB's arguments in the Commission's proceeding 
regarding broadcasters' experience in the 2.4 GHz band, how that 
experience relates to the kinds of contention-based protocol operations 
prescribed for indoor use in the 6 GHz rules, and whether the 2.4 GHz 
experience warrants reservation of a portion of the 6 GHz band for 
mobile indoor operations or any other modification to the Commission's 
6 GHz rules. The Office of Engineering and Technology emphasizes that, 
in light of the limited scope of the court's remand, it does not seek 
comment on any other aspects of the 6 GHz Report and Order.
    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).
    Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be 
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding 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 Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rule. In 
proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) of the Commission's rule 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 this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Federal Communications Commission.
Ronald T. Repasi,
Acting Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-08673 Filed 4-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source
Indexed from Federal Register on April 25, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.