6644 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 13 / Friday, January 22, 2021 / Notices 

Comment Period Ends: 01/12/2021, 

Contact: Elizabeth Bly 541–560–3465. 

Revision to FR Notice Published 11/ 

27/2020; Retracted due to erroneous 

filing. 

Dated: January 15, 2021. 

Cindy S. Barger, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01365 Filed 1–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[ET Docket No. 18–295; GN Docket No. 17– 

183; DA 21–7; FRS 17404] 

Office of Engineering & Technology 

Seeks Additional Information 

Regarding Client-to-Client Device 

Communications in the 6 GHz Band 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Office 

of Engineering and Technology seeks 

additional information to supplement 

the record on whether the Commission 

should permit direct communications 

between unlicensed 6 GHz band client 

devices. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

February 22, 2021, and reply comments 

are due on or before March 23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, 202–418–0636, 

Nicholas.Oros@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, Public Notice, DA 21–7, ET 

Docket No. 18–295, GN Docket No. 17– 

183, released January 11, 2021. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection and can be 

downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov/ 

document/oet-seeks-info-6-ghz-u-niiclient-client-device-communications or 

by using the search function for ET 

Docket No. 18–295 on the Commission’s 

ECFS web page at www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

Synopsis 

1. In the 6 GHz Further Notice, the 

Commission sought comment on 

additional actions that it should take to 

further expand unlicensed operations in 

the 6 GHz band through revisions to the 

existing rules for standard-power or 

low-power indoor operations or by 

authorizing a third type of operation, 

very low power operations. Among the 

comments filed, unlicensed proponents 

requested that the Commission modify 

its low-power indoor device rules to 

permit client-to-client device 

communications, which they assert 

would enable additional types of 

innovative unlicensed operations in the 

band. The Fixed Wireless 

Communications Coalition opposes any 

such revisions and asserts that there is 

no record support for permitting clientto-client communications in this band. 

2. In the 6 GHz Order, the 

Commission prohibited unlicensed 

client devices from acting as ‘‘mobile 

hotspots’’ because ‘‘[p]ermitting a client 

device operating under the control of an 

access point to authorize the operation 

of additional client devices could 

potentially increase the distance 

between these additional client devices 

and the access point and increase the 

potential for harmful interference to 

fixed service receivers or electronic 

news gathering operations.’’ To avoid 

this situation, the Commission’s rules 

prohibit 6 GHz U–NII client devices 

from directly communicating with one 

another. The Commission did not, 

however, examine whether a more 

limited approach to indoor client-toclient communications within the ambit 

of the 6 GHz Notice should be 

permissible—e.g., when a client is not 

acting as a mobile hotspot. Accordingly, 

Apple, Broadcom et al. suggest that 

client devices be permitted to directly 

communicate with each other if they 

can decode an enabling signal 

transmitted by a low-power indoor 

access point within the last four 

seconds. They suggest that the 

Commission could further constrain 

client-to-client communications by 

requiring that the enabling signal be 

received at a signal strength of at least 

¥99 dBm/MHz. According to Apple, 

Broadcom et al., as a client device could 

communicate at this signal level with a 

low-power indoor access point in a 

traditional access-point-to-client 

topology under the existing rules, this 

would ensure each individual client 

participating in client-to-client 

communications is safely inside the area 

where a client device is authorized to 

communicate with an access point 

3. The Commission takes this 

opportunity to invite interested parties 

to supplement the record, for the 

Commission’s consideration, on 

whether and under what circumstances 

client devices could be permitted to 

directly communicate with each other 

in a limited manner consistent with the 

rationale underlying the Commission’s 

decisions in the 6 GHz Order that were 

targeted at protecting incumbent 

licensed services. More specifically, the 

Commission invites comment on 

whether to permit 6 GHz U–NII client 

devices to directly communicate when 

they are under the control of or have 

received an enabling signal from a lowpower indoor access point. As an initial 

matter, commenters should explain how 

they define an enabling signal, what 

characteristics it must have, how it is 

similar or different from signals, such as 

beacons, that access points already use 

to connect with client devices, and the 

degree to which an enabling signal 

would tether a client device not under 

the direct control of an access point to 

that access point. Commenters should 

also provide information on the types of 

applications that direct client-to-client 

communications would enable that 

cannot be accomplished by 

communications through an access 

point. In addition, commenters 

advocating for rule changes should 

address whether direct client-to-client 

communications should be under the 

current power limits or restricted to 

lower power limits to reduce the 

potential for harmful interference to 

incumbent operations. In this 

connection, the Commission notes that 

client devices under the control of a 

low-power indoor access point are 

permitted to operate up to 24 dBm EIRP 

over 320-megahertz channels (or ¥1 

dBm/MHz). 

4. As the 6 GHz Order explained, the 

requirement that 6 GHz U–NII client 

devices operate under the control of 

either a standard-power or low-power 

indoor access point is designed to 

prevent client devices from causing 

harmful interference by limiting their 

operation either to outdoors in areas 

where the AFC system has determined 

that interference will not occur or to 

indoor locations where other factors 

such as building entry loss prevent 

harmful interference. In particular, 

operations under the control of a lowpower indoor access point is aimed at 

restricting operation of the client 

devices to indoor locations. It may be 

possible for a client device to receive an 

enabling signal from an access point 

even when the enabling signal is too 

weak to enable the client device to 

conduct communications with the 

access point. In such situations, the 

weak received signal level makes it 

more likely that the client device could 

be outdoors. By requiring the enabling 

signal have a specific signal strength, 

this problem could be potentially 

avoided. If the Commission were to 

adopt rules permitting client-to-client 

communications, should it require the 

enabling signal from the low-power 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 13 / Friday, January 22, 2021 / Notices 6645 

indoor access point to be received by 

the client device with a particular signal 

level? Apple, Broadcom et al. suggested 

¥99 dBm/MHz: Is this level 

appropriate? If not, what signal level 

would be appropriate for this purpose? 

How can a specific signal level be 

correlated with the current requirement 

that the client device be under the 

control of an access point? For example, 

under such an approach, should the 

enabling signal level be of such a 

strength to effectively require that the 

signal levels between the access point 

and client device be sufficiently strong 

to permit bi-directional communications 

between the client devices and the 

access point, thereby ensuring that both 

client devices are sufficiently close to 

the access point? How frequently should 

a client device be required to receive an 

enabling signal to continue transmitting 

to another client device? 

5. If permitted, should the client 

devices be limited to receiving an 

enabling signal from the same access 

point or could client-to-client 

communications be permitted so long as 

each client device receives an enabling 

signal from any authorized access point? 

Apple, Broadcom et al.’s suggestion 

would potentially permit two client 

devices to communicate even if they 

receive enabling signals from two 

different access points. For example, 

client devices in two different buildings 

receiving enabling signals from different 

low-power indoor access points could 

attempt to communicate with each 

other. Would permitting this to occur 

increase the potential for the client 

devices to cause harmful interference to 

licensed services? How would a 

requirement for both devices to receive 

an enabling signal from the same access 

point be implemented? Or should other 

configurations be permitted? For 

example, could a client device 

controlled by a standard power access 

point be permitted to communicate with 

a client device controlled by a lowpower indoor access point? Could 

client-to-client communications be 

permitted between devices when both 

clients are controlled by a standard 

power access point? If so, are any 

changes needed to the AFC systems? 

Must the enabling signal be received on 

the same channel for each device under 

any of the scenarios contemplated? 

Under any envisioned client-to-client 

communication scenario, commenters 

should provide detailed descriptions of 

how such communications can be 

enabled including how such 

communications fit under the current 

rules that limit client devices to 

operating only under the control of a 

standard power access point or a lowpower indoor access point or whether, 

and which, rules would need to be 

modified. Commenters should provide 

detailed analysis of how any client-toclient communication configurations 

they prefer would protect incumbent 

operations from harmful interference. 

Finally, commenters should provide any 

other information they believe relevant 

to evaluating whether direct client-toclient communications consistent with 

the rationale of the Commission in the 

6 GHz Order should be permitted, 

including any alternative methods or 

necessary rule changes not directly 

noted above. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Ronald T. Repasi, 

Acting Chief, Office of Engineering and 

Technology. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01404 Filed 1–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[OMB 3060–0686; FRS 17401] 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission Under Delegated 

Authority 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burdens, and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) invites the general public 

and other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collections. 

Comments are requested concerning: 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimate; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; ways to minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and ways to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

The FCC may not conduct or sponsor 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. No person shall be subject to 

any penalty for failing to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

PRA that does not display a valid OMB 

control number. 

DATES: Written PRA comments should 

be submitted on or before March 23, 

2021. If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the contact listed below as soon 

as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to PRA@

fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information about the 

information collection, contact Cathy 

Williams at (202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control No.: 3060–0686. 

Title: International Section 214 

Process and Tariff Requirements, 47 

CFR Sections 63.10, 63.11, 63.13, 63.18, 

63.19, 63.21, 63.22, 63.24, 63.25 and 

1.1311. 

Form No.: International Section 214— 

New Authorization; International 

Section 214 Authorization—Transfer of 

Control/Assignment; International 

Section 214—Special Temporary 

Authority and International Section 

214—Foreign Carrier Affiliation 

Notification. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities. 

Number of Respondents: 268 

respondents; 455 responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1 

hour–20 hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion, 

annual and quarterly reporting 

requirements, third party disclosure 

requirement, and recordkeeping 

requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. The statutory 

authority for Part 1 of this information 

collection is contained in 47 U.S.C 151, 

154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309, and 

325(e). The statutory authority for Part 

63 of this information collection is 

contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11, 

201–205, 214, 218, 403, and 651 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, and 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 

154(j), 160, 201–205, 214, 218, 403, and 

571. The statutory authority for this 

information collection is also contained 

in the Cable Landing License Act, 

Executive Order 10530 and the Coastal 

Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1456. 

Total Annual Burden: 1,677 hours. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES