[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36501-36506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13510]



47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 13-49; FCC 16-68]

Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in 
the 5 GHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.


SUMMARY: This document invites interested parties to update and refresh 
the record on the status of potential sharing solutions between 
proposed Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices 
and Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) operations in the 
5.850-5.925 GHz (U-NII-4) band. The Commission also solicits the 
submittal of prototype unlicensed interference-avoiding devices for 
testing, and seeks comment on a proposed FCC test plan to evaluate 
electromagnetic compatibility of unlicensed devices and DSRC. The 
collection of relevant empirical data will assist the FCC, the 
Department of Transportation, and the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration in their ongoing collaboration to analyze 
and quantify the interference potential introduced to DSRC receivers 
from unlicensed transmitters operating simultaneously in the 5.850-
5.925 GHz band.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 7, 2016, and reply comments 
are due on or before July 22, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Griboff, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-0657, email: [email protected], or Aole 
Wilkins, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2406, email: 
[email protected]; TTY (202) 418-2989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of a document in, ET 
Docket No. 13-49, FCC 16-68, adopted May 25, 2016, and released June 1, 
2016. The full text of this document is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 
CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may 
also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities: To 
request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities 
(braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email 
to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
(202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).


    The non-Federal Mobile Service operating on a primary basis in the 
5.850-5.925 GHz band is limited to DSRC systems, a component of the 
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) radio service.
    In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in February 2013, the Commission 
explored the potential for future unlicensed operations in the 5.850-
5.925 GHz band, and sought comment on technical requirements and 
sharing technologies and techniques that could be used by unlicensed 
users to protect incumbent operations, and specifically DSRC. See 
Revision of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Unlicensed 
National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, 
ET Docket No. 13-49, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 1769 
(2013) (NPRM); 78 FR 21320, April 10, 2013.
    In comments on the Commission's proposal, the automobile industry 
and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA) on behalf the Department of Transportation (DoT) raised 
potential interference concerns with respect to protecting DSRC from 
unlicensed users. Subsequently, in August 2013, the Regulatory Standing 
Committee of IEEE 802.11 formed ``the DSRC Coexistence Tiger Team'' to 
investigate potential mitigation techniques that might enable sharing 
between the proposed unlicensed devices and DSRC equipment. The IEEE 
Tiger Team completed its work in March 2015, stating that it was unable 
to reach a consensus, but instead submitted that further analyses and 
testing could follow.
    The IEEE Tiger Team examined two proposed sharing techniques. The 
``detect and avoid'' approach involves detecting the presence of DSRC 
signals, and avoiding using the spectrum in this band when DSRC signals 
are present. Under this sharing proposal, unlicensed devices would 
monitor the existing 10 megahertz-wide DSRC channels. If an unlicensed 
device detects any transmitted DSRC signal, it would avoid using the 
entire DSRC band to assure no interference occurs to DSRC 
communications. After waiting a certain amount of time the unlicensed 
device would again sense the DSRC spectrum to determine if any DSRC 
channels are in use or whether it could safely transmit.
    The ``re-channelization'' approach involves splitting the DSRC 
spectrum into two contiguous blocks: The upper part of the band 
exclusively for safety-related communications, and permitting 
unlicensed devices to share the lower part of the band with non-safety 
DSRC communications. This would be accomplished by moving the control 
channel and the two public safety channels to the top portion of the 
band, and reconfiguring the remaining four DSRC service channels in the 
lower end of the band as two 20 megahertz channels rather than 
maintaining four 10 megahertz channels. Under this approach, sharing 
between unlicensed devices and non-safety DSRC would occur according to 
the sharing protocols used by standard 802.11 devices, i.e., the device 
would listen for an ``open'' channel in the 5.850-5.895 GHz band and 
transmit if available. Otherwise the device would wait a very short 
period of time, and then try again.
    The Commission now seeks comment on the merits of these two 
approaches. What are the benefits and drawbacks of each approach? Would 
one approach be better than the other (e.g., minimize the risks of 
interference to DSRC more effectively while providing a comparable 
degree of meaningful access to spectrum for unlicensed devices)? For 
either approach, is it necessary for the Commission to specify all the 
details of the interference avoidance mechanism in the FCC rules or can 
this be addressed by relying primarily on industry standards bodies to 
develop the specific sharing methods? If the former, what specific 
technical details need to be specified in the FCC rules (e.g., out of 
bound emissions, noise tolerance, detection threshold, channel vacate 
time, etc.)? Has industry agreed upon performance indicators for DSRC, 
and if so, what are these metrics and is there a process to hold 
products to these performance levels?
    The Commission also seeks comment on how the choice of avoidance 
protocol affects the deployment and performance of DSRC. Would ``re-
channelization'' require any change in the design of the DSRC 
electronic components contained in DSRC prototypes or just require a 
change in the processing of the data? The Commission seeks comment on

[[Page 36502]]

whether changing the channel plan would require re-testing of DSRC and, 
if so, precisely what would need to be done, why, and in what 
timeframe? Commenters responding to this question should provide 
specific information about why the completed tests are not applicable 
to re-channelization, how any new tests will differ from those already 
performed, and the relevant timeframes for completing these specific 
    Further, any testing, studies or analyses that have been performed 
regarding DSRC capabilities, Wi-Fi performance, interference studies or 
the potential benefits or drawbacks of sharing, which are relied upon 
by stakeholders in this proceeding, either in the past or going 
forward, need to be filed in the record to be considered. Additionally, 
has any testing been done regarding DSRC self-interference or potential 
harmful interference with satellite and government co-channel or 
adjacent users? Any such information filed should include the test 
plans, results, and underlying data needed to fully evaluate the 
submission. If there are data or reports that are not public, parties 
should describe the data and reports and explain why it is necessary to 
submit this information confidentially.
    The Commission also seeks comment on what DSRC-related use cases 
should be expected and permitted in this band. Commenters should 
provide specific information regarding what DSRC applications are 
anticipated, what are the projected spectrum needs for each 
application, and how would the commenter classify each (i.e., safety, 
non-safety, time critical or not)? Should the DSRC offerings provided 
on a priority or exclusive basis be restricted to safety-of-life or 
crash avoidance purposes? What are the technical or policy reasons for 
differentiating between safety-of-life and non-safety-of-life 
applications? Are there meaningful distinctions between DSRC 
applications that are safety-related and those that are not, such as 
applications that are time critical? For parties that advocate for re-
channelization, is there a natural bifurcation point if the Commission 
decides to separate safety-related and non-safety-related DSRC? For 
instance, while entertainment, social media, maps, and parking 
applications are not safety-related, what is a good definition for a 
feature or service to be considered truly a safety-of-life use? How 
does our current band plan and these sharing approaches match up with 
international efforts for safety-related DSRC systems?
    To fully evaluate the potential effects of re-channelization, the 
Commission requests information on the projected timeframe for 
introduction of DSRC deployments under the current channel plan. What 
market penetration (e.g., percentage of cars on the road) is needed for 
DSRC to reliably provide safety-of-life functions or prevent vehicle-
to-vehicle collisions? What are the projected timeframes for achieving 
the penetration levels needed for each safety-of-life or crash 
avoidance function to be effective? Will these penetration levels be 
met by equipment that is native to the automobile or through standalone 
or retrofit devices? Would these timeframes change if re-channelization 
occurs and by how much? In the meantime, what other spectrum bands, 
driver-assist technologies, and commercial offerings are providing 
similar services to those envisioned using DSRC? Is it possible that 
autonomous car and other technologies could bypass DSRC safety-of-life 
capabilities prior to reaching a sufficient technology penetration to 
make this service effective?
    Does the 5.850-5.895 MHz portion of the band potentially offer the 
most value for unlicensed operations? What are the advantages and 
disadvantages of combining the non-safety-related channels into larger 
channels? How should portions of the band not required for safety-of-
life applications be shared among DSRC and unlicensed operations? For 
instance, should non-safety of life DSRC applications share the lower 
re-channelized band on an equal basis with unlicensed operators or have 
some priority? If commercial or other non-safety DSRC applications have 
priority access to the band, is a detect-and-vacate protocol necessary 
or does the IEEE 802.11 standard or other protocols allow for 
prioritization of DSRC traffic without the need to vacate non-safety 
channels for a pre-determined time period?
    In addition, the Commission invites interested parties to suggest 
other approaches that would facilitate unlicensed use of the 5.850-
5.925 GHz band without causing harmful interference to DSRC operations. 
Would a hybrid approach taking elements from both the ``detect and 
avoid'' and the ``re-channelization'' proposals create benefits for 
both DSRC and U-NII users? Are there advantages to an approach where 
unlicensed operators would use technologies such as the standard Wi-Fi 
protocol to share access to the non-safety-of-life DSRC operations in 
the lower 45 megahertz of spectrum, while unlicensed devices would use 
a ``detect and avoid'' approach to avoid, and thus protect, co-channel 
safety-of-life DSRC operations in the upper 30 megahertz of spectrum? 
Is it feasible to develop a ``hybrid chip'' that would implement a DSRC 
standard receiver for detection purposes to allow unlicensed use, if 
the spectrum is clear? Would it be viable to employ an approach based 
on use of a database to control access to the spectrum similar to that 
used for the Citizens Broadband Band Radio Service at 3.5 GHz or for 
White Space devices in the TV and 600 MHz Service bands? The Commission 
asks parties to propose mitigation techniques with adequate specificity 
and detail so that the Commission can compare and contrast them with 
the proposals already being considered. In that regard, the Commission 
seeks comment on the viability of any new proposal, and benefits and 
costs of the suggested technique, and on any trade-offs related to the 
    The Commission invites comment on the ramifications of any of the 
sharing techniques relative to indoor as well as outdoor use. For 
instance, is re-channelization, detect and avoid, or a hybrid approach 
more or less likely to allow for unlicensed indoor and outdoor 
deployments? Do certain sharing techniques permit more or less indoor 
or outdoor unlicensed use in certain geographic areas? Are there 
technical parameters that could be put into place to obviate 
interference concerns and facilitate deployment of unlicensed networks 
in either indoor or outdoor environments? For example, would it be 
feasible to tie the use of lower power levels for indoor-only devices 
to a less rigorous DSRC detection method in those devices, leaving the 
more sensitive DSRC detection methods to higher power outdoor-only 
units? Is it reasonable to assume that indoor-only devices are less 
likely to cause interference to DSRC outdoors, thus allowing for less 
aggressive detection sensitivity? If so, what technical characteristics 
would be required? The Commission seeks a full record on this technique 
and its specification to assess whether it is possible to share the 
DSRC band in this manner.
    The Commission invites parties to submit 5.9 GHz prototype 
unlicensed, interference-avoiding devices to the Commission for 
testing. The Commission also request that parties provide 5.9 GHz DSRC 
equipment, against which to test the prototype unlicensed, interference 
avoiding devices. In addition, the Commission requests comment on what 
date is reasonable for prototype submission, and what constitutes an 
acceptable prototype (e.g., does the device need to be able to 
communicate with another device, or is it sufficient for the device

[[Page 36503]]

to only demonstrate the sharing technique?). The deadline for 
submission of prototypes shall be July 30, 2016; however, the Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET) is delegated the authority to 
establish the submission requirements and grant waivers or extensions 
of the submission deadline or requirements, as necessary. Given the 
importance of this item, parties should explain in detail in any waiver 
or extension request why such request should be granted. Parties that 
would like to submit devices for testing should advise OET as soon as 
possible and should deliver their device at their earliest opportunity. 
To arrange delivery of a device, please contact Reza Biazaran at (301) 
362-3052 or [email protected].
    The Commission, in coordination with the DoT and NTIA, will test 
the prototype equipment as follows:
    Phase I: Testing at the FCC Laboratory in Columbia, Maryland to 
determine the prototypes' technical characteristics and how they are 
designed to avoid causing harmful interference to DSRC.
    Phase II: Basic field tests with a few vehicles at a DoT facility. 
The Phase II tests will determine whether the techniques to avoid 
interference that were evaluated in Phase I's lab tests are effective 
in the field.
    Phase III: Tests in ``real-world'' scenarios, with many vehicles, 
more test devices, and at a suitable facility.
    The Commission seeks comment on the proposed Phase I test plan as 
set forth below. The Phase I test plan describes an approach and 
methodology to empirically determine interference tolerance and 
thresholds associated with the DSRC receive components of the Vehicle-
to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communication 
links relative to the introduction of U-NII emissions into the 5.850-
5.925 GHz band, and to evaluate the effectiveness and reliability of 
any U-NII device interference mitigation capabilities. Since U-NII 
represents an unlicensed application for which any interference 
received from the operation of an authorized radio service must be 
accepted, the test plan does not assess the interference potential from 
DSRC transmissions to projected U-NII receivers.
    The data resulting from the Commission's tests are intended to 
inform the Phase II and Phase III analyses in which other relevant 
factors can be given further consideration, and the analytical results 
can be validated through limited field tests.
    The three phases of the test plan are interdependent. The 
Commission anticipates that all three phases of the test plan will be 
completed before reaching any conclusions as to how unlicensed devices 
can safely operate in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band. The Commission, 
however, expects that testing will be concluded and submitted into the 
record no later than January 15, 2017. Given the importance of this 
item, parties should explain in detail why any additional time should 
be allocated. Engineers from the FCC will carefully examine the options 
and mechanisms for sharing in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band and closely 
scrutinize the myriad interference prevention approaches.
    The following section describes the Phase I technical 
characterization effort for evaluating the potential for 
electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) between U-NII Devices and DSRC 
operations associated with the ITS under the proposal to share the 
5.850-5.925 GHz band.

Proposed Phase I Test Plan

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Objective
    The objective of this test effort is to collect the data necessary 
to establish interference thresholds associated with key performance 
parameters that can then be used in subsequent scenario-based analyses 
to better assess the interference potential to DSRC operations that 
might be introduced from sharing the frequency band with unlicensed (U-
NII) devices. In addition, any interference mitigation capabilities 
provided by the U-NII prototype test samples will be evaluated for 
viability, efficiency, and reliability.
1.2 Approach
    It is recognized that the EMC concerns introduced by the proposal 
to share the DSRC frequency band with unlicensed operations are 
complex, primarily due to the dynamic variabilities associated with 
each system under consideration. For example, U-NII applications are 
predominately utilized to establish local area networks (LANs), 
typically in support of Wi-Fi access and usage, although fixed point-
to-point communication links for supporting Internet backhaul 
applications are also likely. While the access points associated with 
LAN applications are typically relatively fixed in terms of location, 
the client devices that communicate with them can be quite mobile. 
Similarly, the DSRC roadside units (RSUs) are typically sited at fixed 
locations along roadways, but the on-board units (OBU's) that 
communicate with the RSU's and with other OBU's are vehicle-mounted and 
thus can involve high-velocity dynamic mobility. As such, it will be 
impractical to examine each and every potential interaction involving 
U-NII transmissions relative to DSRC receivers in either an empirical 
or analytical effort. Therefore, the approach proposed in this test 
plan represents an attempt to contain the myriad of variable conditions 
within a space bounded between ``best case'' (no interference) and 
``worst case'' (maximum interference) conditions. Subsequent analytical 
efforts can then introduce appropriate scenario-based considerations, 
and examine associated subtleties such as the probability of occurrence 
and the maximum duration of potential interference interactions.
    In an effort to deal with these complexities, the examination of 
compatibility between proposed U-NII transmitters and DSRC receivers 
sharing the same frequency band will employ a phased approach, with the 
various interested agencies (i.e., FCC, NTIA, and DoT) collaborating in 
each distinct test phase. Each successive phase of the study will 
progressively consider additional interference interaction 
variabilities. The first phase of this effort will be performed at the 
FCC Laboratory in Columbia, Maryland and will involve bench tests in a 
laboratory environment assuming static conditions (i.e., vehicle 
dynamics not considered). It is envisioned that the Phase II effort 
will utilize the Phase I data to support analytical efforts to assess 
compatibility under scenario-specific conditions and will also include 
some result verification through limited scenario-based field tests. 
The final phase (Phase III) of the study is envisioned to utilize the 
Phase II results, adjusted accordingly based on the verification test 
observations, to expand the field testing under ``real world'' 
conditions such as those proposed in Section 6.0 of the DoT Test Plan.
    This test plan primarily describes the proposed Phase I effort of 
this study, to be performed by FCC engineers at its laboratory facility 
in Columbia, MD, with the support of DoT engineers.

2.0 Phase I Test Proposals

2.1 Potential Interference Mechanisms
    It is anticipated that the likely interference mechanisms 
associated with sharing the DSRC frequency band are: (1) A potential 
for degrading the DSRC receiver noise floor, and thus, the link signal-
to-noise ratio (SNR) due to additive noise-like interference introduced 
by proposed U-NII devices; (2) a potential for corruption of received 
data packets due to introduced interference, resulting in an increased

[[Page 36504]]

packet error rate (PER) and/or reduced data throughput; (3) a potential 
for channel access contention, resulting in an increase in the time 
required for DSRC channel access; and (4) a potential for receiver 
saturation or overload due to short-range, co-tuned interactions. These 
represent the potential interference mechanisms and associated metrics 
that will be examined as a part of this proposed Phase I test effort.
2.2 Potential Interference Mitigation Techniques
    Several possible techniques and strategies have been proposed for 
mitigating interference interactions between projected U-NII 
transmitters and DSRC receivers. The IEEE Tiger Team explored two 
possible options: (1) The use of the existing DSRC channel plan with a 
clear channel assessment (CCA) capability specified for U-NII 
transmissions in the 10-MHz DSRC channels, and (2) the adoption of a 
modified DSRC channel plan (i.e., bi-furcation of the DSRC frequency 
band) with a CCA capability specified in 20-MHz channels. The NTIA 5 
GHz Report proposed more general mitigation strategies, such as several 
possible detection methodologies for use in implementing a CCA 
capability (e.g., energy, matched filter, and signal detection), and a 
geo-location/database mitigation approach. The NTIA 5 GHz Report also 
identifies some of the potential inadequacies associated with each of 
these potential interference mitigation approaches.
    The 802.11 standard under which U-NII operates currently provides 
for two methods of implementing a CCA capability. The first method, 
known as Carrier Sensing (CS), involves a determination of channel 
availability through the detection (reception) and decoding of the 
preamble of a data packet transmitted by the current channel occupant. 
Most 802.11 U-NII devices utilize the same basic CS technique, known as 
Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA). The 
FCC does not specify nor regulate CS requirements for U-NII devices. 
The second CCA method specified in the 802.11 standard is known as 
Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) where a U-NII device must identify an 
occupied channel through the detection of the channel occupants radio-
frequency (RF) energy levels relative to an established threshold value 
(i.e., Energy Detection (ED)), without regard to signal structure 
specifics. This technique is required for U-NII devices that share 
other portions of the 5 GHz spectrum in order to preclude interference 
to critical Government Radar operations. DFS requirements and 
compliance tests were developed cooperatively between FCC, NTIA and 
DoD, and are enforced by the FCC.
    Since U-NII device access to the spectrum is on a non-interference 
basis (NIB), DSRC must be accorded primacy in any channel access 
protocol. Such access prioritization will also likely be required for 
all of the seven 10-MHz channels that are assigned to DSRC. Thus, to 
ensure DSRC preferential access, a U-NII device must be capable of 
detecting an access-contending DSRC signal at energy levels that are 
equal to, or below, the DSRC receiver sensitivity level on each of the 
seven DSRC channels.
    As a primary element of this Phase I effort, the FCC will perform 
benchtop measurements of those prototype U-NII devices submitted for 
testing that implement these, or other not yet proposed, interference 
mitigation capabilities. The actual tests to be performed will be 
tailored to the particular mitigation strategy employed, and will be 
designed to ensure the effectiveness and reliability associated with 
the detection and recognition of DSRC-occupied channels.
2.3 General Test Approach
    It is not possible to design a detailed comprehensive plan for 
testing all of the components identified for examination in the Phase I 
test program until we have access to U-NII devices designed for 
operation in the 5.9 GHz frequency band and DSRC RSU and OBU equipment 
to test against. Therefore, what is proposed below represents a general 
plan for achieving the identified objectives. This plan will be adapted 
as necessary once more details of the devices to be tested are made 
    The first step in the Phase I effort is to solicit the devices 
necessary to implement the test plan, as the Commission does in this 
document. The FCC requests that industry provide prototype U-NII 
devices projected for operation in the 5.9 GHz frequency band, to 
include interference mitigation capabilities, for test and evaluation. 
The FCC, working cooperatively with NTIA and DoT, also request that the 
DSRC equipment necessary to exercise this test plan be provided. In 
addition, technical support must be made available to assist in 
configuring the devices for testing and in accessing the requisite 
device control and resulting data. All of the devices will be required 
to have appropriate software controls to perform the tests under a 
controlled environment.
    As devices are submitted to the FCC laboratory as test samples, 
they will first be technically characterized through the measurement of 
standard RF parameters such as the occupied bandwidth (OBW), 
fundamental power, and unwanted emission levels associated with the 
transmitted signals, and the sensitivity and noise floor levels 
associated with the receivers. The measured parameters will be compared 
with appropriate specifications (e.g., IEEE 802.11ac, IEEE 802.11p, 
ASTM E2213, FCC regulations, and other applicable rules and standards).
    Once the characterization measurements are complete, DSRC links 
will be established to simulate simple RSU-to-OBU and OBU-to-OBU two-
way wireless communication. Upon successful establishment of such 
communication links, and before any interference signals are 
introduced, measurements will be performed to establish base-line 
values for parameters such as SNR (signal-to-noise ratio), PER (packet 
error rate), network delay and the variance in network delay (also 
known as jitter).
    After the completion of baseline testing, a single U-NII signal, or 
simulation thereof (e.g., band-limited additive white Gaussian noise 
(AWGN)), will be introduced on a co-tuned basis (i.e., with coincident 
center frequencies) initially at a very low power level. The U-NII 
power level will then be incremented (1-3 dB steps) while the 
designated performance parameters are monitored and recorded. The 
results of this test will provide the data necessary to determine the 
DSRC tolerance to U-NII interference in a ``worst-case'' interference 
interaction (i.e., co-tuned operation). It is recognized that U-NII 
transmitters, particularly those used to provide Wi-Fi services, can 
utilize variable OBW's (occupied bandwidths) and are capable of 
implementing several combinations of data modulation and coding rate 
(Modulation-Coding Scheme or MCS) on a variable basis, depending on the 
transmission channel conditions. FCC experience gained from developing 
and instituting compliance measurement of U-NII transmissions suggest 
that there are only subtle differences in the relevant signal 
parameters among these combinations; however, measurements will be 
performed using different combinations of these variable parameters in 
an effort to identify a ``worst-case'' mode and to quantify the 
differential magnitude of the effect on a DSRC receiver.
    The procedure described above will then be repeated with the U-NII 
transmit signal re-tuned to the center frequency of each of the two 

[[Page 36505]]

DSRC channels relative to the DSRC-occupied channel (i.e., upper and 
lower first adjacent channels). This measurement will produce data that 
can be used to determine the adjacent-channel rejection capability of a 
DSRC receiver which in turn can be used to inform an assessment of EMC 
assuming adjacent-channel operation. Dependent upon the results of this 
test and time constraints, this process may be repeated with the U-NII 
device tuned to DSRC channels further removed (in frequency) from the 
DSRC-occupied channel (i.e., second adjacent channel interaction).
    Once these tests are complete, the potential effects of network 
loading (LAN and DSRC) and interference aggregation will be examined by 
the addition of supplementary DSCR links and U-NII devices to the test 
configuration as the availability of devices permit.
    Similar procedures, with modifications based on the protocols 
implemented by the prototype U-NII sample devices, will be used to 
evaluate the effectiveness and reliability of any interference 
mitigation capabilities (e.g., DSRC signal detection methods, Clear 
Channel Assessment capability of U-NII devices, and other mitigation 
methods not yet defined).

3.0 Summary

    The plan presented herein represents a ``high-level'' approach to 
the Phase I testing intended to acquire the empirical data necessary to 
further an examination of the potential for achieving EMC between U-NII 
devices and DSRC operations under the FCC proposal to share the 5.9 GHz 
frequency band. The proposed test procedures and methodologies will be 
further refined as more information becomes available with respect to 
the U-NII and DSRC devices anticipated to share this spectrum. The FCC 
requests relevant technical input in the form of comments from other 
concerned parties in the interest of enhancing and/or improving this 
test plan proposal.


    The FCC, in consultation with the DoT and NTIA, will continue to 
collaborate, as well as engage with other stakeholders, and may make 
adjustments to the plan as it evolves. Our goal is to collect the 
relevant empirical data for use in analyzing and quantifying the 
interference potential introduced to DSRC receivers from unlicensed 
transmitters operating simultaneously in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band. The 
Commission anticipates that the tests conducted to date, combined with 
the results of the three-phase test plan described above, will provide 
reliable, real-world data on the performance of unlicensed devices 
designed to avoid interfering with DSRC operations in the 5.850-5.925 
GHz band.

Procedural Matters

Ex Parte Rules

    This proceeding has been designated 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 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 this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Filing Requirements

    Comments are due on or before July 7, 2016, and reply comments are 
due on or before July 22, 2016. All filings must refer to ET Docket No. 
    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: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    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.
    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express 
Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, 
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be 
addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The NPRM included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA). That IRFA invited comment ``on making available an additional 
195 megahertz of spectrum in the 5.35-5.47 GHz and 5.85-5.925 GHz bands 
for U-NII use.'' This document seeks further comment on some of the 
proposals initially raised

[[Page 36506]]

in the NPRM and alternative proposals submitted into the record of this 
proceeding. We request supplemental comments on the IRFA in light of 
the details and issues raised in this document. These comments must be 
filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in 
response to this document as set forth on the first page of this 
document and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as 
responses to the IRFA.

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    The NPRM included a separate request for comment from the general 
public and the Office of Management and Budget on the information 
collection requirements contained therein, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, and the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. As noted above, this 
document seeks further comment on some proposals and alternatives 
initially raised in the NPRM. We invite supplemental comment on these 
requirements in light of the details and issues raised in this 

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13510 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]