[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31247-31282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11732]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 90, 95, and 96
[GN Docket No. 12-354; FCC 14-49]
Commission Seeks Comment on Shared Commercial Operations in the
3550-3650 MHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this further notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission
seeks comment on specific rule proposals for the establishment of a new
Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3550-3650 MHz band (3.5 GHz
Band).
DATES: Submit comments on or before July 14, 2014 and reply comments on
or before August 1, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 12-354,
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
[ssquf] Mail: 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.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Powell, Attorney Advisor,
Wireless Bureau--Mobility Division at (202) 418-1613 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN
[[Page 31248]]
Docket No. 12-354, FCC 14-49, adopted and released April 23, 2014. The
full text of this document is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased
from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-
5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at [email protected]. The
full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats
are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to
[email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
Comment Filing Instructions
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415 and 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, May 1, 1998.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] 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.
[ssquf] 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.
[ssquf] 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.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
[ssquf] 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).
Ex Parte Rules
This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. See 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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).
See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f), 47 CFR
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.
We note that our ex parte rules provide for a conditional exception
for all ex parte presentations made by NTIA or Department of Defense
representatives. See 47 CFR 1.1204. This FNPRM raises significant
technical issues implicating federal and non-federal spectrum
allocations and users. Staff from NTIA, DoD, and the FCC have engaged
in technical discussions in the development of this FNPRM, and we
anticipate these discussions will continue after this FNPRM is
released. These discussions will benefit from an open exchange of
information between agencies, and may involve sensitive information
regarding the strategic federal use of the 3.5 GHz Band. Recognizing
the value of federal agency collaboration on the technical issues
raised in this FNPRM, NTIA's shared jurisdiction over the 3.5 GHz Band,
the importance of protecting federal users in the 3.5 GHz Band from
interference, and the goal of enabling spectrum sharing to help address
the ongoing spectrum capacity crunch, we find that this exemption
serves the public interest.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
This FNPRM contains proposed new and modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this FNPRM, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, we seek specific comment on how we might ``further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.''
Synopsis of the Further Public Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
We are in the midst of a communications revolution that has
connected us to each other as never before through an ever increasing
number of wireless devices. As a result of the continuing proliferation
of connected devices, demand for wireless broadband capacity is growing
rapidly. New, more efficient wireless network architectures and
innovative approaches to spectrum management are tools that can help
maximize the utility of existing spectrum resources and make new
spectrum bands available for broadband access. As we previously
discussed, See
[[Page 31249]]
3.5 GHz NPRM, 78 FR 1188, January 8, 2013, our proposals for the 3550-
3650 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band) focus on two components of the
Commission's ongoing efforts to address wireless coverage and capacity
issues: Small cells and spectrum sharing--both of which were addressed
in a report issued by the President's Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST).
With this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we propose
specific rules for a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5
GHz Band that would make the 3.5 GHz sharing regime originally
described by PCAST a reality. The 3.5 GHz Band could be an ``innovation
band,'' where we can explore new methods of spectrum sharing and
promote a diverse array of network technologies, with a focus on
relatively low-powered applications. If successful, the spectrum
sharing model proposed for this band could ultimately be expanded to
other spectrum bands and ``transform the availability of a precious
national resource --spectrum--from scarcity to abundance.''
The proposed rules set forth herein build upon the record developed
in response to a series of prior proposals and workshops over the past
sixteen months. These detailed proposals will allow for more focused
comment prior to establishing rules governing the proposed Citizens
Broadband Radio Service in a new part 96 of the Commission's rules.
Specifically, the proposed rules would implement an innovative and
comprehensive framework to authorize a variety of small cell and other
broadband uses of the 3.5 GHz Band on a shared basis with incumbent
federal and non-federal users of the band, with oversight and
enforcement through a Spectrum Access System (SAS). The proposed rules
reflect our belief that the 3.5 GHz Band could be an ideal ``innovation
band,'' well suited to exploring the next generation of shared spectrum
technologies, to drive greater productivity and efficiency in spectrum
use.
The creation of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service was originally
proposed in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (3.5 GHz NPRM or NPRM)
released in December 2012. After reviewing the record generated by the
3.5 GHz NPRM, we released a public notice to supplement the record with
focused comment on specific concepts for the 3.5 GHz Band (Licensing
PN). See Licensing PN, 78 FR 72851, December 4, 2013. The Licensing PN
described a ``Revised Framework'' that elaborated on some of the
alternative licensing and authorization concepts set forth in the NPRM.
With this FNPRM we fulfill a commitment made in issuing the Licensing
PN that we would seek comment on specific detailed rules before
publishing a First Report and Order in this proceeding.
As set forth in more detail below, we propose to establish a three-
tiered authorization framework--Incumbent Access, Priority Access, and
General Authorized Access (GAA) tiers--based on the recommendations of
PCAST and originally proposed in the NPRM. Under this framework,
existing primary operations--including authorized federal users and
grandfathered Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations--would
compose the Incumbent Access tier and would receive protection from
harmful interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. At
this time, we propose to establish geographic Exclusion Zones based on
the models suggested in the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration's (NTIA) Fast Track Report to protect federal Incumbent
Access tier operations. We plan to work with NTIA in coming months to
reassess these Exclusion Zones in light of new technologies envisioned
in this FNPRM and new data from technical studies evaluating the
coexistence of radars and wireless broadband services. If there are
further developments that would enable a reduction in the size of the
Exclusion Zones, we encourage participants to file in the record to
ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for public comment prior to
issuance of a Report and Order in this proceeding.
Interference management with respect to the three tiers of service,
including adherence to designated Exclusion Zones, would be managed by
a dynamic SAS, conceptually similar to, but more advanced than the
databases used to manage Television White Spaces (TVWS) devices.
Consistent with the Revised Framework, we propose to define each
Priority Access License (PAL) as an authorization to use for one-year a
10 megahertz channel in a single census tract. PALs would be open to
any prospective licensee that meets basic FCC qualifications and
mutually exclusive applications for PALs would be subject to
competitive bidding. PAL channels would be dynamically coordinated by
the SAS and the exact spectral location of a given PAL authorization
could shift from time to time as directed by the SAS during its license
term. The GAA tier would be licensed-by-rule to permit open, flexible
access to the band to the widest possible group of potential users. We
propose to reserve at all times for GAA use, a minimum of 50 percent of
the band that is not encumbered by Incumbent Access tier users in any
given location.
We propose baseline technical standards for the operation of
Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices (CBSDs) and End User Devices
in the 3.5 GHz Band as well as general rules for the operation of the
SAS and approval of SAS Administrators. Many of these concepts were
originally raised in the NPRM and Licensing PN. We also seek further
comment on other important issues raised in this proceeding, including:
(1) Protection criteria for Incumbent Users; (2) potential protection
of FSS earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band (C-Band); (3)
competitive bidding procedures for resolving mutually exclusive
applications for PALs; and (4) the possible extension of the proposed
rules to include the 3650-3700 MHz band. Some of these issues,
particularly those dealing with protection criteria for Incumbent
Access tier users, may require additional focused input from government
and private industry stakeholders.
Our goal in this FNPRM is to generate focused comment on specific
proposed rule text as a penultimate step before the establishment of a
new rule part--part 96--authorizing fixed and mobile wireless use of
the 3.5 GHz Band. Our goal is to adopt rules that promote efficient and
widespread use of the 3.5 GHz Band for a variety of potential users. We
emphasize that this is an iterative process and that, while some issues
remain open, the proposed rules set forth herein provide a clear
framework that would allow users to begin operations in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service in designated geographic areas.
II. Background
The Fast Track Report first identified the 3.5 GHz Band as
potentially suitable for commercial broadband use. NTIA recommended
that this band could be made available for commercial wireless
broadband by 2015 based on the conditions outlined in the Fast Track
Report. NTIA's recommendation included significant geographic
restrictions to protect existing Department of Defense (DoD) radar and
FSS operations and to protect new commercial systems from co-channel
interference from high-powered military in-band shipborne and adjacent
band DoD ground-based radar systems. The radar systems that operate in
the 3.5 GHz Band overcome the inherent propagation limitations of this
frequency range by employing high transmitter power levels and high-
gain
[[Page 31250]]
antennas. These characteristics of the radar systems were a
contributing factor to the size of the exclusion zones in the Fast
Track evaluation.
In July 2012, PCAST recommended that the Federal Government
identify 1,000 megahertz of federal spectrum for shared use to create
``the first shared use spectrum superhighways.'' PCAST recommends that
shared spectrum be organized into three tiers. To ensure interference
protection, all users would be required to register in a database
modeled on the TVWS database. The first tier would consist of incumbent
federal users. These users would be entitled to full protection for
their operations within their deployed areas, consistent with the terms
of their assignments. The second tier would consist of users that would
receive short-term priority authorizations to operate within designated
geographic areas. Secondary users would receive protection from
interference from third tier users but would be required to avoid
interference with and accept interference from Federal Primary users.
Third tier users (GAA) would be entitled to use the spectrum on an
opportunistic basis and would not be entitled to interference
protection. PCAST recommends that the Commission, in conjunction with
NTIA, work expeditiously to implement its recommendations in the 3.5
GHz Band.
The Commission's December 2012 NPRM proposed a three-tier, license-
by-rule authorization framework, based on concepts described in the
PCAST Report that are intended to facilitate rapid broadband deployment
while protecting existing incumbent users of the 3.5 GHz Band. The NPRM
solicited comment on all aspects of this proposal, including the
appropriate licensing framework and the potential uses of each service
tier. The Commission received extensive comment from a wide range of
stakeholders in response. The NPRM also included a supplemental
proposal to expand the proposed licensing and authorization model to an
additional adjacent 50 megahertz of spectrum in the 3650-3700 MHz band,
making up to 150 megahertz available for shared wireless broadband
access.
As we noted in the NPRM, the technical characteristics of the 3.5
GHz Band and the existence of important incumbent operations in the
band in many areas of the country contribute to make the band an ideal
platform to explore innovative approaches to shared spectrum use and
small cell technology. NTIA's Fast Track Report recommended, based on
technical assumptions typical of traditional macrocell deployments of
commercial wireless broadband technology, that new commercial uses of
the band occur outside of large ``exclusion zones'' to protect Federal
government operations. Given that the exclusion zones would cover
approximately 60 percent of the U.S. population and because of limited
signal propagation in the band, the band did not appear to be well-
suited for macrocell deployment. However, as noted in the NPRM, these
very disadvantages could be turned into advantages if the band were
used to explore spectrum sharing and small cell innovation. This
proposal was based on recommendations put forth by the FCC's Technology
Advisory Council (TAC), which has advocated for the increased use of
small cell devices in spectrum constrained areas and supported
dedicating a spectrum band to small cell uses. The combination of small
cells and spectrum sharing technologies could vastly increase the
usability of the 3.5 GHz Band for wireless broadband and serve as a
model for future coexistence among services in other spectrum bands.
In November 2013, in response to record comments received up to
that point, we released the Licensing PN, which described a Revised
Framework that elaborated upon some of the licensing concepts and
alternatives set forth in the NPRM. The Revised Framework retains the
three-tier model proposed in the NPRM but expands eligibility to apply
for PALs, and explores innovative means of assigning authorizations
within that tier. Like the NPRM's main proposal, the Revised Framework
would leverage the unique capabilities of small cell and SAS
technologies to enable sharing among users in the Priority Access and
GAA tiers. Specifically, the Revised Framework contains the following
core concepts:
An SAS to dynamically manage frequency assignments and
automatically enforce access to the Priority Access and GAA tiers;
Expansive eligibility for Priority Access tier use;
Granular, but administratively-streamlined licensing of
the Priority Access tier;
Exclusive spectrum rights for Priority Access subject to
licensing by auction in the event of mutually exclusive applications;
A defined ``floor'' of GAA spectrum availability, to
ensure that GAA access is available nationwide (subject to Incumbent
Access tier use);
Additional GAA access to unused Priority Access bandwidth,
as identified and managed by the SAS, to maximize dynamic use of the
unutilized portion of the band and ensure productive use of the
spectrum;
Opportunities for Contained Access Users to obtain
targeted priority spectrum use within specific facilities (such as
buildings) that meet certain requirements to mitigate the potential for
interference to and from Incumbent Users and other Citizens Broadband
Radio Service users; and
A set of baseline technical standards to prevent harmful
interference and ensure productive use of the spectrum.
The Licensing PN generated a robust supplementary record, eliciting
comments from a wide range of stakeholders. While most commenters
support expanding Priority Access tier eligibility from ``critical
access'' users to all qualified applicants, opinions were split on
other specific aspects of the Revised Framework. Notably, commenters
diverged greatly on the band plan, PAL specifications, authorization
methodology, and technical specifications of CBSDs. These submissions
are addressed in greater detail on an issue-by-issue basis in Section
III.
In addition, we have convened two workshops to discuss technical
issues related to this proceeding. The first workshop explored broad
issues that emanated from the original NPRM. More recently, on January
14, 2014, the Bureau and OET hosted a workshop to further explore the
technical requirements, operational parameters, and architecture of the
proposed SAS (SAS Workshop). A diverse group of engineers representing
industry stakeholders, trade associations, and academia submitted
technical papers in advance of the workshop and participated in panels
throughout the day. We address many of these submissions in greater
detail below.
The purpose of this FNPRM is to solicit focused comment on specific
proposed rules and other specifically identified open issues. To the
extent that parties require additional background on any of the
proposals we describe in this FNPRM, we encourage them to review prior
releases in this docket, including the NPRM, the Licensing PN, and the
recorded footage of the two workshops.
III. Discussion
With this FNPRM, we seek comment on proposed rules for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. These proposed rules build upon the concepts
and proposals set forth in the NPRM and the Licensing PN, in light of
the record created in this proceeding. Notably, the proposed rules
would:
[[Page 31251]]
Implement the three-tier model proposed in the NPRM;
Establish Exclusion Zones to ensure compatibility between
incumbent federal operations and Citizens Broadband Radio Service
users;
Create an open eligibility authorization system for
Priority Access and GAA operations;
Establish granular, exclusive spectrum rights for the
Priority Access tier, consistent with parameters discussed in the
Licensing PN;
Set a defined ``floor'' for GAA spectrum availability, to
ensure that GAA access is available nationwide (subject to Incumbent
Access tier use);
Set guidelines to allow Contained Access Users to request
up to 20 megahertz of reserved frequencies from the GAA pool for use
within their facilities;
Establish baseline technical rules for fixed or nomadic
base stations operating in the 3.5 GHz Band;
Set guidelines for the operation and certification of SASs
in the band.
We seek detailed comment on these proposals, as well as viable
alternative or supplemental rule provisions that could help to achieve
our stated objectives. We encourage commenters to focus their
submissions on the specific proposed rule text and structure. We
further encourage commenters to identify the specific costs and
benefits associated with any proposal. To the extent possible,
commenters should provide specific data and information, such as actual
or estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit
addressed, including a description of how the data or information was
calculated or obtained, and any supporting documentation or other
evidentiary support.
A. Proposed Regulatory Framework
Below we discuss the proposed Part 96 and its component
subsections, as well as proposed modifications to our existing rules
designed to accommodate the new proposed Citizens Broadband Radio
Service. The discussion parallels the proposed structure of Part 96, as
detailed in Appendix A.
1. Proposed Part 96 Rule Part
a. Subpart A--General Rules
(i) Scope (Sec. 96.1)
We propose to implement the three-tier authorization framework
originally described in the NPRM and further discussed in the Licensing
PN. This proposal is consistent with the framework for the 3.5 GHz Band
originally described in the PCAST Report. Under this framework,
existing primary operations--including authorized federal users and
grandfathered FSS earth stations--would make up the Incumbent Access
tier and would receive protection from harmful interference consistent
with the proposed rules. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service would be
divided into Priority Access and GAA tiers of service, each of which
would be required to operate on a non-interference basis with the
Incumbent Access tier. We also propose that any party that meets basic
eligibility requirements under the Communications Act be eligible to
hold a PAL or, when authorized, operate a CBSD on a GAA basis in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
The proposed three-tier framework enjoys significant support from a
diverse group of commenters, including AT&T, Google, Public Knowledge,
and the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation.
Others, including CTIA--The Wireless Association (CTIA), NSN, and
Qualcomm have argued that a two-tier framework that would prohibit or
segregate GAA users would be a more efficient way to manage the 3.5 GHz
Band.
Some commenters, including some who have also expressed support for
the three-tiered model, argue that the 3.5 GHz Band should be divided
between two and three-tiered authorization schemes, at least on a
transitional basis. Under this concept, as originally described by
Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Wireless Inc. (Verizon), a
portion of the band would be set aside for a ``transitional framework''
sub-band which would be licensed on a more traditional, exclusive-use
basis and would not include GAA users. The remainder of the band could
be split between GAA-only use and the proposed three-tiered sharing
framework. The ``transitional framework'' sub-band could then be phased
out after the three-tier framework is proven to be workable in
practice.
The specific Part 96 rules we propose today would apply the three-
tier authorization model across the entire 3.5 GHz Band, based, at
least in part, on concerns about the impact that Balkanization of this
spectrum may have in terms of limiting the development of a robust and
varied shared spectrum ecosystem in the band. We seek comment on the
proposed section 96.1 and encourage commenters to consider the costs
and benefits of any alternate proposals that they may put forward in
light of the recommendations of PCAST and the Commission's goals for
this band.
(ii) Definitions (Sec. 96.3)
Section 96.3 of the proposed rules sets forth definitions for
various terms included in the proposed Part 96. We seek comment on
these definitions and any additional terms that may need to be defined.
(iii) Eligibility (Sec. 96.5)
We propose that any entity, other than those precluded by section
310 of the Communications Act be eligible to operate a CBSD on a
Priority Access or GAA basis. Issues related to qualifications for
Priority Access, GAA, and Contained Access Users are explored in
greater detail below.
(iv) Authorization Required (Sec. 96.7)
We propose that operators be authorized consistent with this part
prior to operating CBSDs in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The
proposed rules governing authorizations for Priority Access, GAA, and
Contained Access Users are discussed in greater detail below. We seek
comment on this proposed rule and on the proposed changes to Part 1 of
the Commission's rules. We also seek comment on whether the licensing
and authorization methods described herein would require the Commission
to alter its existing rules governing filing, retention, and public
access for licenses and applications in the Wireless Radio Services.
(v) Regulatory Status (Sec. 96.9)
We propose to allow Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to
select whether to provide service on a common carrier or non-common
carrier basis, regardless of whether they operate in the Priority
Access tier, GAA tier, or both. Users that choose to offer services on
a common carrier basis would be required to comply with all of the
Commission's rules applicable to common carriers. This is consistent
with our approach in other licensed services. We seek comment on this
proposal. Specifically, should GAA users be permitted to provide common
carrier services? Could the SAS effectively coordinate and enforce
these individual service selections, subject to appropriate Commission
oversight?
(vi) Frequencies (Sec. 96.11)
We propose to include the 3550-3650 MHz band in Part 96. These
proposed rules could be expanded to include the 3650-3700 MHz band or
other encumbered spectrum bands in the future. We discuss our
supplementary
[[Page 31252]]
proposal to include the 3650-3700 MHz band in greater detail below. We
seek comment on the proposed Sec. 96.11.
(vii) Frequency Assignments (Sec. 96.13)
Consistent with the concepts set forth in the Licensing PN, we
propose to adopt rules governing frequency assignments that would
balance the needs of Priority Access Licensees and GAA users. To foster
a robust GAA ecosystem, a meaningful amount of the 3.5 GHz Band must be
reserved for GAA use in any given geographic area. To that end, we
propose to reserve for GAA use a minimum of 50 percent of the 3.5 GHz
Band in any given census tract--after accounting for any frequencies
reserved for Incumbent Access tier use in the area--with the remainder
to be assigned as PALs. We do not propose to assign GAA users and
Priority Access Licensees to fixed spectral locations (e.g., GAA from
3550-3600 MHz and Priority Access from 3600-3650 MHz). Rather, under
our proposal, the SAS would dynamically assign PAL channels and GAA
bandwidth in real time to promote efficient spectrum use.
Under this proposal, PALs would be assigned in 10 megahertz
channels, consistent with the processes described in section
III(A)(1)(c) below, but we do not propose to establish a fixed channel
size for GAA users. Rather, GAA users would be permitted to operate on
a range of frequencies within the GAA pool, as determined by the SAS.
In addition, in areas in which bandwidth has not yet been assigned to
PALs or where assigned bandwidth is not in actual use by Priority
Access Licensees, such bandwidth would be made available for additional
GAA operations on an opportunistic basis. The SAS would coordinate
Priority Access and GAA operations consistent with its responsibilities
under the proposed rules.
Proportional Assignment of GAA and Priority Access Frequencies. In
response to the Licensing PN, commenters supported a wide range of
potential frequency assignment models for the 3.5 GHz Band, ranging
from rejection of a GAA Tier to fully dynamic assignment of GAA and
Priority Access rights based on demand and network needs. Of those
commenters that supported the proposed three-tier model, AT&T, T-
Mobile, and Google argued that a higher, fixed quantity of spectrum
should be assigned for Priority Access use. Microsoft argued that a
minimum of 50 megahertz of spectrum should be retained for GAA use
while Public Knowledge argued that no less than 50 percent of available
spectrum should be reserved for GAA. WISPA argued that, in rural areas,
70 megahertz of the band should be available for GAA use while in non-
rural areas only 50 megahertz should be reserved.
We seek comment on whether the proposed rule appropriately balances
public interest considerations raised by commenters on this matter.
Does the proposed 50 percent floor for GAA bandwidth provide sufficient
spectrum to foster a robust user ecosystem while ensuring that enough
spectrum is made available for multiple Priority Access Licensees? We
seek comment on the proposed rule, including any costs and benefits of
the proposed approach. We also seek comment on alternative approaches
to the apportioning of available spectrum between the PAL and GAA
tiers.
Dynamic Frequency Assignment. Commenters differed as to whether
frequency assignments should be fixed or dynamically assigned by the
SAS. Notably, Google and WISPA supported dynamic assignment of Priority
Access and GAA frequencies and argued that the SAS would be able to
efficiently and dynamically assign frequencies to appropriate parties.
Commenters including AT&T, T-Mobile, CTIA, and Ericsson argued for
designated, fixed channel assignments, claiming that dynamic frequency
assignments would interfere with network planning and channel
aggregation.
Under our proposal, in place of fixed channel assignments, the SAS
would dynamically assign bandwidth within given geographic areas to
Priority Access Licensees and GAA users in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the proposed rules. The SAS would ensure that
Priority Access Licensees have access to allotted 10 megahertz channels
and that GAA users are provided access to at least 50 percent of the
band. However, the exact spectral location of any given authorization,
whether Priority Access or GAA, would not be fixed. For example, a
licensee might have Priority Access rights for a single PAL, but the
specific channel location assigned to that user would be managed by the
SAS and could be reassigned from time to time (e.g., from 3550-3560 MHz
to 3630-3640 MHz). Individual GAA users would be assigned available
bandwidth of a size and spectral location determined by the SAS (e.g.,
from 3550-3556 MHz or 3662-3673 MHz). The SAS would assign and maintain
appropriate frequency assignments and ensure that lower tier users do
not interfere with higher tier users. To the extent that some level of
regional or national consistency of assignment facilitates the
provision of service, SAS providers would be free to agree upon a
common assignment convention. However, such a convention would not be
specified in the rules, in order to allow the greatest degree of
operational flexibility.
We seek comment on the proposed rule, including the capabilities
that the SAS would have to incorporate to manage operations in the band
consistent with this proposal. Alternately, should we adopt a more
traditional model with static frequency assignments for GAA users and
Priority Access Licensees? What advantages and disadvantages would a
fixed channel assignment model provide as compared to the dynamic
system set forth in the proposed rules?
We also seek comment on our proposal to allow the SAS to assign a
flexible amount of bandwidth to individual GAA users. Should GAA users
instead be assigned a consistent amount of bandwidth (e.g., 10
megahertz) like Priority Access Licensees? What would be the costs and
benefits of such an approach?
GAA Access to Unused Priority Access Channels. The Revised
Framework discussed allowing GAA users to access unused Priority Access
channels on an opportunistic basis. AT&T and T-Mobile supported the
concept of allowing GAA users to make use of unused Priority Access
tier channels so long as use was limited to unassigned and undeployed
channels. Under their proposal, a channel would be unavailable for GAA
once it is assigned to a Priority Access Licensee. Public Knowledge,
The New America Institute, Federated Wireless, and Google as well as a
broad coalition of broadband service providers, manufacturers, trade
associations, and technology companies (Coalition) argued for a more
flexible model that would allow GAA use over Priority Access channels
that are not in actual use. The rule we propose here would allow GAA
use on unused PAL channels to promote efficient and consistent use of
spectrum.
We seek comment on the proposed rule, including any costs and
benefits of the proposed approach. How should ``use'' be practically
and consistently determined in this context? How should the
determination be made in the context of our dynamic frequency
assignment proposal? If an assigned but previously unused PAL channel
is later determined to be ``in use,'' how long should a GAA user be
given to vacate the Priority Access channel? What should be the
triggering event that reserves assignment of a channel for PAL use?
Should the event be based on action by a Priority Access Licensee
[[Page 31253]]
(e.g., initiating service in a portion of the PAL) or by the SAS (e.g.,
assigning a channel to the PAL in response to a request from a Priority
Access licensee)?
b. Subpart B--Incumbent Protections
(i) Protection of Federal Incumbents (Sec. 96.15)
Consistent with the three-tier construct, we propose in Section
96.15 to require that CBSDs may not cause harmful interference to and
must accept interference from authorized federal users in the 3.5 GHz
Band. As an initial matter, we also propose at this time that CBSDs
comply with the geographic Exclusion Zones based on the parameters set
forth in the Fast Track Report to ensure compatibility with federal
operations, and that the SAS ensure that CBSDs do not operate within
Exclusion Zones. We discuss issues related to these requirements in
more detail, including the size of Exclusion Zones and our intention to
revisit the appropriate incumbent protection criteria, in section
III(B)(1) below. We seek comment on these proposed rules.
(ii) Protection of Existing Fixed Satellite Service Earth Stations in
the 3550-3650 MHz Band (Sec. 96.17)
We also propose to protect existing FSS earth stations in the 3.5
GHz Band by requiring that CBSDs not cause harmful interference to
these sites. We discuss broader issues related to these requirements in
more detail in Section III(B)(3)(a) below and seek comment on the issue
of protection for ``out-of-band'' FSS earth stations in section
III(B)(3)(b). We seek comment on these proposed rules.
(iii) Operation Near Canadian and Mexican Borders (Sec. 96.19)
Our proposed rules note that Citizens Broadband Radio Service
operations along the Canadian and Mexican borders would be subject to
international agreements with Mexico and Canada. The SAS would be
required to enforce these requirements. We seek comment on these
proposed rules.
c. Subpart C--Priority Access
We propose not to limit eligibility for the Priority Access tier,
to assign rights based upon targeted PAL parameters, resolve mutually
exclusive license applications via competitive bidding, and to require
access coordination through an SAS. These proposals are generally
consistent with the Revised Framework described in the Licensing PN.
(i) Authorization (Sec. 96.21)
Under our proposed rules, any entity eligible to hold an FCC
license would be eligible to apply for, and hold, a PAL. Commenters
generally support expanding eligibility to the Priority Access tier to
a broader class of users than we proposed in the NPRM. Expanded access
to the Priority Access tier would promote more intensive use of the 3.5
GHz Band and would promote investment in new small cell technologies.
We propose to require all applicants for PALs to demonstrate their
qualification to hold an authorization and demonstrate how a grant of
authorization would serve the public interest. Qualifications would
include those under section 310 of the Act regarding foreign ownership.
The Commission has broad authority to prescribe ``citizenship,
character, and financial, technical, and other qualifications'' for its
licensees. We seek comment on how to apply this authority with respect
to the 3.5 GHz Band, and whether to adopt the same policies in this
respect that the Commission has established for other services. We also
propose that certain of the processes and requirements may be
reasonably automated by SAS Administrators, in accordance with the
Commission's rules. We seek comment on these proposed rules, including
on any limitations posed by our Title III obligations on the scope of
authority that may be delegated to such SAS Administrators.
(ii) Priority Access Licenses (Sec. 96.23)
Our proposed rules stipulate that Priority Access Licensees would
receive interference protection from GAA users but would operate on a
non-interfering basis with respect to Incumbent Users. Conceptually,
the proposed PALs would be ``building blocks'' that an eligible
licensee could aggregate over frequency, time, and geography to meet
diverse spectrum needs. The use of PALs--and interactions between and
among tiers--would be managed by the SAS. This licensing and access
model is consistent with the recommendations of PCAST and would
effectively serve the public interest. We seek comment on these
proposed rules as described in more detail below.
Geography. We propose to authorize PALs at the census tract level
and to permit geographic aggregation across license areas. As explained
in the Licensing PN, census tracts offer a variety of benefits,
including geographic sizes varying by population density, nesting into
other political subdivisions including city lines, and aligning with
other natural features that track population density. Under our
proposal, PAL applicants could target specific geographic areas in
which they need additional coverage and avoid applying for areas that
they do not intend to serve. Our proposal reflects the unique technical
characteristics of small cells to promote a high degree of spectral and
spatial reuse while facilitating flexible, targeted deployment of
CBSDs.
We received a diverse record in response to our proposal to use
census tracts as a licensing area. Some commenters agreed with our
proposal. Others argued that census tracts were inappropriate
geographic license areas because the borders of census tracts
frequently divide streets and their relatively small size would make
co-channel coordination between Priority Access Licensees more
difficult. Other commenters suggest that even smaller geographic areas,
such as census block groups would allow for granular and demand-focused
assignments. Others proposed larger, more traditional license areas
such as counties, EAs, or CMAs. Google suggests license boundaries be
based on proposed network parameters and actual contours, as determined
and enforced by the SAS.
Our census tract proposal occupies a middle ground among these
diverse recommendations, and is designed as an equitable means of
achieving the Commission's public interest goals. Census tracts are
sufficiently granular to promote intensive use of the band and are
large enough, either on their own or in aggregate, to support a variety
of use cases, including small cell base stations and backhaul. We seek
comment on the proposed rule including any potential costs or benefits.
Would adopting alternative geographic license sizes further the public
interest given the Commission's goals and contemplated use cases for
the band? We also seek comment on whether PALs could be deployed on an
even more focused basis, employing a fine grained grid of ``pixels''
(i.e., small, regular geographic regions that can be combined to
approximate, with high resolution, the operational and protection
contours of various system deployments) to promote more targeted and
customizable network deployment. If the Commission adopts census
tracts, or something smaller, as the appropriate geographic license
area, should package bidding or another mechanism that would allow
applicants to bid on larger geographic areas be adopted? To the extent
that commenters believe that the use of census tracts would foreclose a
particular use case for the band, we encourage them to provide
[[Page 31254]]
detailed technical analyses to support their claims.
Channels. As described in the Revised Framework and section III
(A)(1)(a)(vii) above, we propose to authorize PALs to operate over 10
megahertz unpaired channels. While a few commenters argued for larger
or smaller channels, the record generally supports our proposal to
utilize 10 megahertz channels for PALs with the ability to aggregate
multiple channels. Ten megahertz channels provide a flexible, scalable,
practically deployable bandwidth for high data rate technologies that
would permit multiple Priority Access Licensees to operate effectively
in a given geographic area. We seek comment on the proposed rule.
In addition, consistent with the Revised Framework, we propose that
once the Commission has assigned PAL rights to a user, the specific
channels would be dynamically assigned to the PALs by the SAS. As
discussed previously, some commenters argue for fixed channel
assignments. Others, like Google and WISPA support the dynamic
assignment model outlined in the Revised Framework. We should maximize
flexibility in the band to allow the SAS to use channel assignments as
a tool in maximizing efficiency and minimizing interference scenarios.
However, we propose that the SAS be permitted to assign specific
frequencies to Priority Access Licensees upon their request, when
available and on a dynamic basis. To the extent a licensee has PALs in
adjacent census tracts, we propose that the SAS should endeavor to
assign contiguous frequencies across geographic boundaries. In
addition, consistent with the dynamic nature of the proposed channel
assignments, we encourage SAS Administrators to make reasonable efforts
to assign adjacent frequencies to licensees with access rights to
multiple channels in a single census tract. Dynamically assigning
spectrum based upon the demand within a geographic area at a given time
would promote efficient use of the band across wider geographic areas
without compromising flexibility. We seek comment on this proposal.
What effect would such assignment have on spectrum efficiency as
opposed to the use of channel bonding techniques across non-contiguous
spectrum? Would such a rule simplify or complicate the SAS's ability to
manage the spectrum within any given census tract? What effect would
such a rule have on the ability to predict and take measures to prevent
harmful interference among users within the same census tract and users
in nearby census tracts?
Term. We propose to limit license terms to one-year with no
renewal, but allow entities to aggregate up to five consecutive years
of licenses, through competitive bidding. PALs would automatically
terminate at the end of each year. As explained in the Licensing PN, we
believe that this approach would promote flexibility, simplify
administration, and promote fungibility and liquidity in the secondary
market. Allowing applications for multiple years of PALs would provide
Priority Access Licensees with the certainty they may need to make
capital investments in any PAL.
The record related to these licensing concepts was also mixed. Some
commenters agreed with our proposal of one-year terms with the option
to aggregate multiple years. Others argued for license terms shorter
than one year while Microsoft agreed with the one-year proposal but
argued for a prohibition on term aggregation. On the other hand,
several commenters including Ericsson, NSN, and Qualcomm supported a
more traditional licensing model with longer (e.g. 10-year) license
terms.
Under this proposal, licensees would be able to hold up to five-
years of PALs in a given geographic area at any given time. Licensees
holding less than five-years of PALs in a geographic area may apply for
additional PALs in the same geographic area, up to a total (including
their existing PALs) of five-years. For example, a licensee awarded
five-years of PALs through the annual application window in one year
would be allowed to apply for a one year PAL through the annual
application window in the subsequent year.
We note that in response to the Licensing PN, several commenters
argued for a shorter temporal aggregation limit than we propose here.
For example, WISPA suggests a four-year aggregation cap, Public
Knowledge and the New America Foundation suggest a three-year cap,
Motorola Solutions suggests only two years, and Microsoft suggests we
not permit term aggregation (effectively a one-year availability in the
licensing window). AT&T, by contrast, suggests that licensees be
permitted to retain their authorizations indefinitely for areas in
which they have deployed equipment and provided service within one
year. By combining short-term licenses with a multi-year application
window, our proposal for one-year licenses with term aggregation
balances the competing public interest concerns expressed in the
record. We seek comment on the proposed one-year, non-renewable license
terms and aggregation limit, including any costs and benefits.
(iii) Application Window (Sec. 96.25)
We propose to accept applications for PALs annually and to make up
to five consecutive years of PALs available in any given application
window. We seek comment on the proposed rule including any potential
costs or benefits.
(iv) Assignment of Licenses (Sec. 96.27)
We propose to adopt a geographic area license scheme for the
Priority Access tier, which permits the filing and acceptance of
mutually exclusive applications. Section 309(j) of the Communications
Act requires that the Commission assign initial licenses through the
use of competitive bidding when mutually exclusive applications for
such licenses are accepted for filing, except in the case of certain
specific statutory exemptions. Although the NPRM asked whether a
licensing scheme for PALs should include a ``mission critical''
eligibility criterion that might involve such exemptions, under our
current eligibility proposal such exemptions would not appear
applicable here. Consistent with the Commission's policy that
competitive bidding places licenses in the hands of those that value
the spectrum most highly, we believe that it would be in the public
interest to adopt a licensing scheme for PALs which allows the filing
of mutually exclusive applications that, if accepted, would be resolved
through competitive bidding. Accordingly, in section III(A)(2)(b)
below, we seek comment on a number of proposals regarding competitive
bidding rules that would apply to resolve any mutually exclusive
applications accepted for PALs in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
(v) Aggregation of Priority Access Licenses (Sec. 96.29)
OTI, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge argue that when
mutual exclusivity exists no licensee should hold more than 20
megahertz of spectrum in a given license area. They argue that the
limitation would allow future entrants and new competitors to enter the
market. We propose to allow licensees to hold up to three PALs in one
census tract at one time (i.e., 30 megahertz in one census tract at any
time). Given the unique circumstances of this band and the proposed
rules, it would be difficult to apply the Commission's traditional
competitive review process with respect to proposed transfers of
licenses in the band. In this specific instance, a clear aggregation
[[Page 31255]]
limit, applicable to all PAL licensees in the band, could promote
competitive access to the band while avoiding the need for case-by-case
review of license transfers. This approach should facilitate a liquid
``spot market'' in PALs, as described further in section III(A)(2)(c),
below. We seek comment on the proposed rule. Should we set a higher or
lower allowance? Should aggregation allowances only apply when mutual
exclusivity exists? Is an aggregation limit necessary when interested
parties also have access to GAA spectrum, along with other bands that
can be used for Wi-Fi and other similar services? Should aggregation
limits change if the band is partially encumbered by Incumbent Users?
What are the costs and benefits of higher or lower allowances? Are
there other methods to promote competition, incentivize investment and
innovation, and ensure spectrum availability for diverse uses?
d. Subpart D--General Authorized Access
(i) Authorization and General Authorized Access Use (Sec. 96.31 and
Sec. 96.33)
As explained above, we propose to reserve a floor of at least 50
percent of available bandwidth in the 3.5 GHz Band in each census tract
for GAA use, with additional frequencies to be made available on an
opportunistic basis when not in use by Priority Access Licensees. As
described in the NPRM and Licensing PN, GAA devices would be licensed-
by-rule as under Section 307 of the Communications Act to promote rapid
deployment by a wide range of users at low cost and with minimal
barriers to entry. GAA users would be required to use only certified,
Commission-approved CBSDs and register with the SAS. Consistent with
the proposed rules governing CBSDs, devices operating on a GAA basis
would be required to provide the SAS with all information required by
the rules--including operator identification, device identification,
and geo-location information--upon initial registration and as required
by the SAS. GAA users would also be required to comply with the
instructions of the SAS and avoid causing harmful interference to
Priority Access Licensees and Incumbent Access tier users. Similar to
unlicensed operations, GAA users would have no expectation of
interference protection from other Citizens Broadband Radio Service
users. Are there other licensing paradigms that the Commission should
consider? If so, commenters are requested to provide a detailed
analysis of the pros and cons of the approach.
As discussed previously, commenters took a variety of positions
with regard to the portion of the band that should be used for GAA as
well as our proposals to allow dynamic and opportunistic use of unused
Priority Access channels. Some commenters also objected to our proposal
to authorize the GAA tier on a license-by-rule basis. These positions
are discussed in greater detail in sections III(A)(1)(a)(vii) and
III(A)(2)(a). Our proposals would ensure widespread availability of GAA
frequencies for the broadest possible class of users and applications.
We seek comment on the proposed rules including potential costs and
benefits.
(ii) Contained Access Facilities (Sec. 96.35)
As we noted in the NPRM and Licensing PN, a wide variety of
critical services in the United States have current and future spectrum
needs and there is currently insufficient spectrum to allocate
exclusive bandwidth to all such services. While we believe that broad
eligibility for use of the 3.5 GHz Band will produce significant public
interest benefits, we continue to believe that ``the high spatial reuse
characteristics of low-power 3.5 GHz transmissions, combined with
access management facilitated by the SAS, should allow the 3.5 GHz Band
to be utilized on a shared, licensed basis by a variety of critical
users to provide high quality services to localized facilities.'' To
that end, the Licensing PN sought comment on whether it would be in the
public interest to allow critical users to receive interference
protections, akin to Priority Access users, within a limited portion
(e.g., 20 megahertz) of the GAA pool inside the confines of their
facilities.
Commenters responding the Licensing PN diverged as to how the
Commission should treat critical facilities. Commenters including T-
Mobile and Spectrum Bridge support allowing critical access users to
reserve spectrum on a highly localized basis. Motorola Solutions argues
that critical facilities should be assigned 20 to 30 megahertz of the
3.5 GHz Band and be permitted to utilize that spectrum for indoor or
outdoor applications, while UTC asserts that the entire Priority Access
Tier should be reserved for critical access facilities. Google argues
that preferential treatment for critical facilities should be limited
to ``available spectrum'' and that such users should not be able to
evict users that have already deployed network facilities. In addition,
PCIA argues that the Commission should provide for the deployment of
both critical and non-critical localized indoor networks.
We propose to allow Contained Access Users, such as hospitals,
public safety organizations, and local governments to request up to 20
megahertz of reserved frequencies from the GAA pool for indoor use
within their facilities in furtherance of the public interest. These
frequencies may be used only for private internal radio services and
may not be made available to the general public. Other GAA users would
not be permitted to utilize the reserved frequencies within designated
Contained Access Facilities (CAFs). Except for the ability to prohibit
third-party use in CAFs, Contained Access Users availing themselves of
the reserved channels would still operate on a GAA basis and would have
no special rights with respect to interference from Incumbent Users and
other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. We also propose that
Contained Access Users must undertake reasonable efforts to safeguard
against harmful interference from GAA transmissions originating outside
the CAF. The ``reasonable efforts'' requirement would therefore ensure
that Contained Access Users take advantage of RF isolation intrinsic to
the CAF, along with any other potential interference ``self-help''
measures, to protect the RF environment within the CAF. Potential
Contained Access Users would be required to receive approval from the
Commission to be eligible to utilize reserved frequencies. The public
interest would be served by giving designated Contained Access Users
the ability to utilize reserved frequencies indoors, within CAFs in
this fashion. Moreover, the limited geographic and spectral impact of
this proposal will allow for the effective coexistence of Contained
Access Users, Incumbent Users, and other Citizens Broadband Radio
Service operators.
We seek comment on the proposed rule including any costs or
benefits. Specifically, what types of entities should be considered
qualified Contained Access Users? Does this proposal adequately address
the spectrum needs of Contained Access Users? Would this proposal
effectively address a demonstrated spectrum need for certain users that
would not otherwise be addressed by the proposals in this FNPRM? Should
this proposed framework be limited to Contained Access Users or
expanded to include other types of facilities, including outdoor
facilities? Would the SAS be able to effectively manage spectrum use by
a large number of facilities? How would the SAS limit the operation of
other GAA users within CAF premises?
[[Page 31256]]
Would this plan unacceptably encumber GAA spectrum? We ask that
commenters provide detailed technical and/or economic analysis to
support their arguments.
e. Subpart E--Technical Rules
(i) Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices General Requirements
(Sec. 96.36)
To enable the SAS to authorize and effectively coordinate the use
of shared spectrum in the 3.5 GHz Band, CBSDs must transmit certain
operational and identification information to the SAS. In the NPRM,
Licensing PN, and SAS Papers PN we sought comment on the types of
information that CBSDs should be required to transmit. Commenters took
a wide range of positions with regard to information transmission
requirements for CBSDs. Elements of these proposals have been
incorporated into proposed rule 96.36. Specifically, we propose that
CBSDs must provide the SAS with the following information: (1)
Geographic location (within 50 meters horizontal and 3 meters vertical); (2) antenna height above ground level
(meters); (3) requested authorization status (Priority Access or
General Authorized Access); (4) unique FCC identification number; (5)
user contact information; and (6) unique serial number. This
information must be communicated when the CBSD initially registers at
the SAS and at regular intervals thereafter. We also propose that CBSDs
must follow directions and updates sent by SAS in a timely manner. For
managed networks, while it is likely that information exchanges between
CBSDs and the SAS would be aggregated through a proxy such as a network
access manager, the proposed requirements would still be applicable to
all CBSDs operating in the band.
Geo-location and Reporting Capability. For the SAS to predict and
evaluate potential interference and spectrum availability accurately it
must have accurate location information for all CBSDs. We propose that
all CBSDs must accurately report the location of each of their antennas
to within 50 meters (horizontal) and 3 meters
(vertical). The proposed horizontal geo-location requirement is
consistent with a similar requirement in the TVWS rules. We also
propose that CBSDs report their location to the SAS within 60 seconds
of a change in location exceeding the accuracy requirement. We seek
comment on these proposals, including potential costs and benefits. Is
this degree of accuracy feasible with current technology? Should we
require greater accuracy? What effect do the accuracy requirements have
on actual spectrum efficiency and the SASs ability to manage
interference potential among different users? Would the proposed geo-
location requirement place undue burden on equipment manufacturers or
SAS operators? Is such a requirement reasonable to control the
interference environment among users? Is there a different timeframe
for reporting that should be used?
Interoperability. To facilitate our proposed dynamic approach to
frequency assignment, we propose to require CBSDs to be interoperable
across all frequencies from 3550-3700 MHz. This would ensure that all
CBSDS and End User Devices certified to operate in the band would be
capable of sending and receiving information regardless of the
frequencies assigned by the SAS. It also anticipates the possible
inclusion of the 3650-3700 MHz band. Several commenters also supported
band-wide device interoperability. We seek comment on this proposal
including any potential costs and benefits. What effects would such a
requirement have on equipment cost and design? What are the
implications of equipment that may only work over a portion of the band
and may not be able to tune to channels as assigned by the SAS? To what
extent would an interoperability requirement promote consumer choice,
given the characteristics of this service? To what extent should we
seek to align the proposed interoperability requirement with existing
international harmonization efforts for the 3.5 GHz Band (e.g., 3GPP
Bands 42 and 43)? Similarly, how are current coexistence efforts among
products conforming to multiple industry standards (e.g., 3GPP, IEEE
802.11 series) affected by the proposed interoperability requirement?
Registration with SAS. As set forth in greater detail below, we
also propose that CBSDs be permitted to operate only if authorized by
the SAS and if they follow frequency assignments and power limitations
set by SAS. We propose that CBSDs must move their transmission to
another channel or stop operation in the band as directed by SAS within
a reasonable time. We seek comment on the appropriate time for CBSDs to
respond to instructions from the SAS. Is sixty seconds a reasonable
response timeframe or could a shorter response period be imposed? How
does the timeframe affect the overall spectrum efficiency within the
band? What effect would this timeframe have on the ability of the SAS
to manage potential interference?
Interference Reporting. Some commenters suggested that, to enable
the SAS to tune or update its predictive models and also address real
time interference issues, CBSDs should be required to provide the SAS
with signal level measurements in their band or other adjacent
frequency channels as requested by SAS. Many technologies already
support this capability to allow radio resource management within a
network. This capability could be a valuable tool for managing
interference and promoting productive coexistence between multiple
operators in the 3.5 GHz Band. We propose to require CBSDs to measure
and report on their local signal level environment as set forth in the
proposed rules. We seek comment on this proposal. What effect would the
incorporation of such capability have on the cost of equipment? How
should such a requirement be structured? Over what bandwidth or over
how many channels should such measurements be reported? Does the
Commission need to adopt measurement guidelines or procedures
specifying how such measurements should be taken to ensure consistency
in reporting among users?
Security. During the SAS Workshop many commenters also emphasized
the importance of end-to-end security for communications among CBSDs,
End User Devices, and the SAS. We are mindful of the need to provide
robust security for Federal information, personally identifiable
information, and sensitive business information that may be transmitted
between these devices and the SAS. To that end, we propose a security
requirement for all communications between authorized SASs and CBSDs.
We also propose to adopt comprehensive procedures to test and certify
CBSDs and associated end user devices for operation in this band and to
require the SAS to disconnect any device whose proper operation has
been compromised. We seek comment on these proposed security measures.
We ask commenters to suggest appropriate security protocols and discuss
how these protocols would effectively safeguard sensitive information
transmitted among the SAS, CBSDs, and End User Devices. If not, what
additional measures should we adopt? Are there other enforcement
mechanisms that can be put in place to ensure proper security of
devices?
(ii) End User Devices General Requirements (Sec. 96.37)
We propose that mobile, portable, or fixed End User Devices may
operate only if they can positively receive and decode an authorization
signal transmitted by a CBSD, including the frequencies and power
limits for their operation. This requirement would effectively prevent
End User Devices
[[Page 31257]]
from unauthorized operation in the 3.5 GHz Band and ensure that such
devices operate only according to the instructions transmitted from the
SAS to the CBSD. We seek comment on this proposed rule.
General Radio Requirements (Sec. 96.38)
Digital Modulation. We propose that systems operating in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service use digital modulation techniques. We
seek comment on this proposed rule.
Conducted and Emitted Power Limits. To prevent harmful interference
among users of the 3.5 GHz Band, we propose to establish appropriate
and flexible power limits for CBSDs and End User Devices when operating
in this band. In the Licensing PN, we sought comment on limiting CBSD
emitted power to 24 dBm. We also sought comment on a 6 dBi antenna gain
for installations requiring an external antenna. With negligible cable
and insertion loss, this makes the maximum effective isotropically
radiated power (EIRP) 1W or 30 dBm. We noted that these are consistent
with the values commonly assumed in various studies for small cell base
stations. We also indicated that the maximum operational EIRP of
individual base stations might be reduced by the SAS to prevent
interference and promote efficient network operation. In addition, we
assume that End User Devices would have configurable maximum power
levels below typical 24 dBm values and support for some form of power
control.
Commenters diverged greatly with regard to the maximum allowable
power for devices operating in the band, with many supporting variable
power limits for different use cases. For instance, CommScope supported
a 24 dBm maximum transmit power for base stations with low gain
antennas. T-Mobile supported a maximum transmit power of 24 dBm for GAA
users and 37 dBm for Priority Access devices. Verizon advocated a
maximum transmit power of 30 dBm for outdoor Priority Access base
stations, while noting that 24 dBm might be appropriate for GAA indoor
uses. Similarly, Motorola Solutions, BliNQ, and Qualcomm supported
maximum transmit power of 30 dBm for at least some use cases. WISPA
encouraged the Commission to allow higher power operations in rural
areas of the country.
Commenters also supported a wide range of allowable antenna gains
for base stations--from 6 dBi through 29 dBi--and maximum allowable
power levels for different transmitters within that range. For the
combination of transmit power and antenna gain, commenters proposed a
range of EIRP from low 30 dBm to high 47 dBm for different use cases.
Motorola Solutions, Qualcomm, and CommScope (for lower than 12 dBi
antenna gain) suggested a maximum EIRP of 30 dBm. Some, including
Google (36 dBm), CommScope (37 dBm for equal or higher than 12 dBi
antenna gain), and Verizon (47 dBm) argued for higher maximum EIRP
figures.
We also received transmit power recommendations from parties who
would like to utilize the 3.5 GHz Band for point-to-point and backhaul
service. BLiNQ argued that a maximum EIRP allowance of 43 dBm would
help enable non-line-of-sight (NLOS) backhaul applications as well as
other important services, such as rural point-to-point communications.
CommScope also recommended 54 dBm EIRP for point-to-point backhaul and
Verizon suggested that 53 dBm EIRP would be appropriate for outdoor
point-to-point service.
It is important to establish flexible rules that would allow for a
wide variety of innovative services to be deployed in the 3.5 GHz Band
and we are encouraged that many commenters share this view. Ensuring
that the band is available for multiple use cases should encourage
rapid network deployment, promote the development of a robust device
ecosystem, and help to ensure the long-term viability of the band.
Therefore, we propose to adopt different transmit power levels to
accommodate a range of Citizens Broadband Radio Service use cases.
Except for fixed point-to-point radio systems addressed below, we
propose to adopt a 24 dBm (per 10 megahertz) peak transmit power for
CBSDs that are not operating in rural areas. For devices with a 6 dBi
antenna gain, we propose a maximum aggregate EIRP of 30 dBm for CBSDs
located in non-rural areas. The power spectral density for such
transmit power would be 14 dBm/MHz. We also propose to adopt 30 dBm
(per 10 megahertz) peak transmit power for CBSDs that operate in rural
areas. With 17 dBi antenna gain, we propose a maximum aggregate EIRP of
47 dBm for CBSDs located in rural environments. The power spectral
density for such transmit power would be 20 dBm/MHz. These proposed
transmit power limits are generally consistent with recommendations in
the record. These proposed maximum transmit power levels would help
promote productive use of the band.
For fixed point-to-point radio systems, we propose a 30 dBm (per 10
megahertz) peak transmit power limit for CBSDs. With a 23 dBi antenna
gain, we propose a maximum aggregate EIRP of 53 dBm for CBSDs. We
propose that the maximum allowable peak transmit power in this
paragraph be reduced by 1 dB for every 1 dB that the directional gain
of the antenna exceeds 23 dBi. The power spectral density for such
transmit power would be 20 dBm/MHz.
We also propose that maximum EIRP for End User Devices not exceed
23 dBm in 10 megahertz bandwidth. We also propose that CBSDs and End
User Devices limit their operating power to the minimum necessary for
successful operation.
We note that NTIA did not consider these proposed use cases or
technical criteria in calculating the Fast Track Exclusion Zones. What
effects would these additional use cases have on the size of the
Exclusion Zones?
We seek comment on these proposed rules. Are the proposals in this
section appropriate for the variety of use cases possible in the 3.5
GHz Band? Would these proposals further the public interest by
promoting efficient and innovative use of spectrum resources? Should
the proposed definition of ``rural environments'' be altered due to the
use of small cells and in light of the fact that these systems are
proposed to be deployed in areas smaller than counties? In light of the
flexible approach to EIRP limits proposed herein, should we consider
allowing higher power operations in the 3.5 GHz Band? We encourage
commenters to support their positions with detailed technical and cost
benefit analyses taking into account the various interference scenarios
that may exist in this band among different CBSDs and among CBSDs and
Incumbent Users.
Received Signal Strength Limits. To perform proper frequency
assignments and interference management, it is important for the SAS to
have a baseline threshold for the maximum signal level from CBSDs at
the border of their service area. Therefore, Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users should ensure that the aggregate signal level from their
CBSDs as well as transmissions from their associated End User Devices
at the edge of their authorized service areas remain at levels that
would not harm other CBSDs in the same or higher tiers. For small cell
networks, the industry standards and studies have shown 20 dB and 55 dB
of interference rise over noise to be acceptable for picocells and
femtocells respectively. Based on these industry standards, and taking
into account reasonable distance between authorized use operations, we
propose a signal level threshold of--80 dBm measured by a 0 dBi
isotropic antenna in a 10
[[Page 31258]]
megahertz bandwidth anywhere along PAL service area boundaries between
different Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. We also propose to
allow neighboring users to coordinate a higher signal level threshold.
We seek comment on this proposed rule. How should this signal level be
determined? Over what bandwidth should the signal threshold be
measured? The proposal implies that this signal level would need to be
met at all points along the PAL service boundary at ground level and
all heights above ground level. Is such a requirement feasible? Should
there be a single point at which this signal level should be enforced?
What is the effect of this proposal on operation of CBSDs and on the
interference potential within the band? How feasible would it be for
the SAS to calculate and enforce such a limit?
Emission Limits. In the NPRM we sought comment on whether to adopt
out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits or other requirements to protect
services in adjacent bands from harmful interference. We also asked for
comment on the appropriate OOBE limits for small cells in the 3.5 GHz
Band and the interference protection threshold limits of relevant
services. Several commenters highlighted the importance of protecting
incumbent and adjacent band services but differed as to the specific
protection criteria. Some commenters presented co-existence analysis
and protection distances based on long-standing 43 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE
limits. Issues specifically related to OOBE that could affect the
operations of earth stations in the C-Band are addressed in detail in
section III(B)(3)(b). We also seek comment on whether to specify
particular OOBE limits.
The Commission's rules generally limit the amount of radio
frequency (RF) power that may be emitted outside of, or in a range of
frequencies outside of, the assigned frequencies/channel(s) of an RF
transmission. Moreover, the Commission has previously concluded that in
certain circumstances, attenuating transmitter OOBEs to at least 43 +
10 log (P) dB is appropriate to minimize harmful electromagnetic
interference between operators. This limit has served well as a basis
for development of industry standards which may impose tighter limits
in certain cases. For Priority Access and GAA operations in the 3.5 GHz
Band, we propose to apply the limit of 43 + 10 log (P), which is
equivalent to -13 dBm/MHz, to all emissions outside of channel
assignments and frequency authorizations by SAS in the 3.5 GHz Band. We
seek comment on this limit and whether it should be more stringent
(i.e., at a lower power spectral density) given the state-of-the art of
modern radio technologies, and the potential gains in spectral
efficiency and minimizing interference coupling distance between
neighboring radios operating in the 3.5 GHz Band.
Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, we recognize the need for
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations to protect incumbent and
dissimilar radio services with sensitive weak signal receivers such as
in-band and out-of-band FSS earth stations and DoD radar systems. These
incumbent radio service operations may be within and adjacent to the
3.5 GHz Band. Protection thresholds for weak signal receivers and
minimizing the interference coupling distance to these receivers from
new 3.5 GHz Band transmitters may require greater out-of-band
attenuation (lower than -13 dBm/MHz) than can be achieved within the RF
filter pass-band of 3.5 GHz Band radios. Striking the proper balance
between the emission limits of CBSDs and End User Devices, along with
the protection thresholds of incumbent receivers, may require more
stringent OOBE limits in certain circumstances. We also recognize that
there has been considerable technological advancement in transmitter
and receiver device technologies deployed in the mobile broadband
industry over recent years, such that more stringent OOBE limits may be
practical without undue burden to manufacturers and operators.
For example, the current LTE standards for the use in PCS requires
mobiles in 1850-1915 MHz to meet a limit of -50 dBm/MHz in 1930-1995
MHz. The current capabilities for mobile broadband manufacturers will
support this level of tolerance for interference. Given that other
mobile broadband service operations may already be imposing OOBE at the
-40 dBm/MHz level, we propose this limit specifically for CBSD
emissions above 3680 MHz and below 3520 MHz. We recognize that a more
stringent limit would enable closer proximity of neighboring service
operations. We seek comment as to whether this limit should be more
stringent at -50 dBm/MHz.
In general, while OOBE limits to 40 dBm/MHz are reasonable and not
burdensome, a spectral transition gap immediately above and below the
edges of the 3.5 GHz Band may be necessary given the limitations of RF/
radio filter technology, in stepping down from an in-band limit of -13
dBm/MHz to an out-of-band emission limit of -40 dBm/MHz. Some current
research indicates that a transition gap of approximately 1 percent of
the band edge frequency may be within the state-of-the-art of existing
radio/filter technologies. Therefore, we propose a transition gap of 30
MHz above 3650 MHz and 30 MHz below 3550 MHz, for setting the OOBE
attenuation levels to -40 dBm/MHz. We seek comment on the size of this
transition gap, whether it is in the range of existing RF filter
technology, and whether the gap could be smaller through the use of
more narrow RF filters in CBSD and user devices (e.g., two RF filters
over 3550-3650 MHz, one covering the lower 50 MHz and the other
covering the upper 50 MHz).
Reception Limits. Priority Access Licensees may be authorized for
operation in the same geographic area, with other Priority Access
Licensees authorized to operate in adjacent or near-adjacent channels.
The potential for interference between two or more Priority Access
Licensees depends on both the transmitter and receiver performance of
the respective radio systems, because unwanted RF energy received by a
CBSD can be caused by both the emissions from an adjacent licensee
spilling into the desired frequencies of operation, as well as the
imperfections of radio receivers. Establishing an RF field strength/
power spectral density that PAL receivers would need to accept from
nearby licensed transmitters, would effectively define the spectrum
rights between PALs, and enable the SAS to assign these rights with
clear obligations between respective licensees. We seek comment on this
approach.
While the Commission's rules in this regard are technology neutral,
we note the signal strength levels of undesired interfering signals in
widely adopted industry standards for receiver performance (e.g., 3GPP
LTE). We recognize the in-band and out-of-band blocking characteristics
and adjacent channel selectivity of modern radio receivers that must
perform over a high dynamic range of RF power levels. We note that the
interfering signal mean power, for acceptable Home Base Station (HeNB;
Femtocell) adjacent channel selectivity and blocking, ranges in the
relevant 3GPP standards between -28 dBm and -15 dBm (in all LTE channel
bandwidths) with moderately high wanted signal power. The 3GPP
interfering signal power for acceptable LTE User Equipment adjacent
channel selectivity and blocking performance, in many cases is -30 dBm
or above. Therefore, we propose a power spectral density limit of -30
dBm/10 megahertz as the interference limit that CBSDs operating on a
Priority Access basis must accept, not to be exceeded with greater than
99 percent probability,
[[Page 31259]]
unless the affected user agrees to a higher or lower limit and
communicates such agreement to the SAS. Establishing a probability
threshold is important because worst-case conditions for highly
transient and unlikely RF interference events would otherwise establish
an excessive constraint on neighboring radio service operations. Would
such a scheme be feasible for the SAS to administer? That is, how
difficult would it be for the SAS to track, manage and enforce
agreements between different users? What mechanism would be used to
communicate such agreements to the SAS? How would an SAS be assured
that all affected users are in agreement?
As described previously, GAA users must not cause harmful
interference to and must accept harmful interference from Incumbent
Users and Priority Access Licensees. Therefore, we propose that a GAA
CBSD be required to change its operational frequencies, lower its
transmit power, or cease transmitting in accordance with instructions
from the SAS if its operations are causing harmful interference to
higher tier users. We seek comment on this proposal and any operational
details necessary to ensure that the requirement is complied with. What
is an acceptable response time for GAA CBSDs to comply with
instructions from the SAS? How frequently should CBSDs be required to
query the SAS regarding the status of their operations or should CBSDs
only query the SAS when they change location in excess of the accuracy
requirements and otherwise adjust operations only when receiving
instructions from the SAS? What are the implications for spectrum
efficiency and network traffic for various communication requirements
between CBSDs and the SAS?
We seek comment on these proposed rules. We also seek comment on
methods and procedures that may be employed by Priority Access
Licensees or the SAS to enforce these thresholds. We encourage
commenters to provide detailed technical and cost benefit analyses
analyses to support their proposals.
In addition, as we noted in the Licensing PN, the TAC has been
studying spectrum interference policy and receiver standards in
general, and it recommends that the Commission consider forming one or
more multi-stakeholder groups to study such standards and interference
limits policy at suitable service boundaries, such as those related to
the 3.5 GHz Band. The Wireless Innovation Forum, in its comments to the
Licensing PN, recommended that the FCC encourage the formation of
industry led multi-stakeholder groups, proposed key characteristics of
such a process, and committed to establishing such a multi-stakeholder
process to develop recommendations for the 3.5 GHz Band and other band
opportunities. Consistent with the recommendations of the TAC, we
encourage and suggest industry action to charter a technical group of
stakeholders to develop industry coordination agreements and protocols,
including technical options and methods for managing spectrum access
that would improve access to and make efficient use of the 3.5 GHz
Band. What should the scope and charter be of such a multi-stakeholder
group? What should be the governance structure of such a group?
f. Subpart F--Spectrum Access System
The overall effectiveness of our proposals depends largely on the
development and implementation of a robust SAS. We therefore propose to
codify several high-level SAS requirements in the Part 96 rules.
Following the TVWS database model, we expect that industry participants
will take it upon themselves to develop technical implementations of
these requirements and, where applicable, to develop industry-wide
standards.
Our proposed rules also assume that multiple SAS Administrators
and, consequently, multiple SASs would be authorized to operate in the
3.5 GHz Band, much as multiple databases have been authorized in the
TVWS context, to ensure that consumers are provided with a robust set
of choices in the marketplace. We seek comment on what techniques could
be used to effectively coordinate multiple SASs in the band. What other
implementation challenges arise from the possibility of multiple SAS
providers? Are they solvable? We seek comment on the proposal to
authorize multiple SAS providers. In responding to the questions and
proposed rules in this section, we ask commenters to consider the
implications of multiple authorized SASs and to address these issues in
their filings.
We also intend to institute a comprehensive approval process for
SASs and SAS Administrators that closely follows the multi-step process
used to test, certify, and approve TVWS databases and administrators.
In the TVWS context, prospective database administrators were invited
to submit proposals outlining how their systems would meet the
Commission's requirements for database operators and provide
information sufficient to show that they have the technical expertise
to administer a database and a viable business plan for operating a
database for a five-year term. OET then reviewed these proposals and
approved the proposals of those operators that met the requirements.
Approved operators were then required to attend mandatory workshops to
ensure compliance with the rules, meet milestone dates set by OET for
reporting and compliance, and submit to rigorous real-world testing of
all database elements prior to making their services available to the
public. By following the precedent set in the TVWS proceeding, we can
ensure that the technical solutions and developed by prospective SAS
Administrators are consistent with the letter and spirit of our high-
level rules, especially with regard to the protection of Incumbent
Access tier users.
(i) Spectrum Access System Purposes and Functionality (Sec. 96.43)
We sought comment on the essential high level requirements of the
SAS in both the Licensing PN and the NPRM. In addition, in recognition
of the complexity of the proposed SAS framework, OET and the Bureau
held a workshop to discuss the operational and functional parameters of
the SAS. The workshop and associated technical papers were organized
according to the following focus areas: (1) General Responsibilities
and Composition of the SAS; (2) SAS Functional Requirements; (3) SAS
Monitoring and Management of Spectrum Use; and (4) Issues Related to
the Initial Launch and Evolution of the SAS and Band Plan.
While commenters and workshop presenters submitted a diverse set of
positions regarding the necessary features of the SAS, most agreed that
an effective SAS would need to be more dynamic and responsive than the
current TVWS database. Moreover, many commenters agreed that the FCC
should set only baseline parameters and guidelines for the SAS and
should allow industry stakeholders to develop detailed policies and
standards to facilitate operation consistent with the Commission's
rules. Some commenters that supported a two-tiered licensing model also
advocated a simplified, ``binary'' SAS that would only inform Priority
Access Licensees whether or not they could operate in a given area or
frequency range without causing harmful interference to incumbents.
Other commenters opposed giving the SAS the ability to dynamically
assign channels or modify the maximum allowable transmit power for
CBSDs.
After thorough review of the record and using the TVWS rules as a
guide,
[[Page 31260]]
we propose that authorized SASs would perform the following core
functions:
Determine the available frequencies at a given geographic
location and assign them to CBSDs;
Determine the maximum permissible radiated transmission
power level for CBSDs at a given location and communicate that
information to the CBSDs;
Register and authenticate the identification information
and location of CBSDs;
Enforce Exclusion Zones to ensure compatibility between
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and incumbent federal
operations;
Protect Priority Access Licensees from harmful
interference from General Authorized Access Users;
Reserve the use of GAA channels for use in a CAF;
Ensure secure transmission of information between the SAS
and CBSDs.
Under our proposal, each SAS would provide nationwide service. Each
SAS would also collect and retain all information provided by CBSDs and
Incumbent Users according to the proposed rules and enforce robust
security protocols to protect such information. If multiple SASs are
authorized, each SAS would be responsible for sharing this information
with other authorized SASs to ensure effective coordination of
operations within the band. The proposed rules outline the essential
requirements for a successful SAS and would promote innovation and
productive use of the 3.5 GHz Band. Further, these rules represent the
lightest regulatory approach possible to accomplish the core objectives
of the SAS.
We seek comment on these proposed rules. Specifically, do the
proposed rules accurately describe the necessary functions of an SAS?
What additional elements, if any, should be included in the SAS? What
responsibilities should SASs (and SAS Administrators) have to maximize
use by and minimize interference among GAA users, notwithstanding any
absence of interference protection rights that may be extended to such
users under our rules? How should the Commission most appropriately
discharge its Title III responsibilities in supervising these and other
functions that may be delegated to the SASs and SAS Administrators? Are
the proposed rules unduly burdensome for potential SAS Administrators?
Could a compliant SAS be built and operated using existing or ``in
development'' technology?
In addition, under this proposal multiple SASs could be authorized,
much as multiple databases have been authorized in the TVWS context, to
ensure that consumers are provided with a robust set of choices in the
marketplace. We seek comment on what techniques could be used to
effectively coordinate multiple SASs in the band? What other
implementation challenges could arise from the possibility of multiple
SAS providers? Are they solvable? We seek general comment on the
proposal to authorize multiple SAS providers.
(ii) Information Gathering and Retention (Sec. 96.44)
To protect Incumbent Users and effectively coordinate Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users, we propose that the SAS retain
information on all operations within the 3.5 GHz Band. For CBSDs, such
information would include all data that they are required to transmit
to the SAS pursuant to the proposed Sec. 96.36. For incumbent FSS
operators, the SAS would maintain a record of the location of protected
earth stations as well as the direction and look angle of all earth
station receivers and any other information needed to perform its
functions. For incumbent federal users, the SAS would include only the
geographic coordinates of the Exclusion Zones. We seek comment on these
proposed rules and alternative approaches.
With regard to federal operations, if Exclusion Zones are altered
or other incumbent protection criteria implemented in future phases of
this proceeding, the SAS may eventually need to gather and manage a
significant amount of data on federal operations. Much of this
information is likely to be sensitive or classified and would require
additional safeguards that may not be necessary to protect non-federal
information. Some commenters raised the possibility of establishing a
separate database to store sensitive federal information and instruct
registered SASs on the required protection contours for federal
operations. We seek comment on whether a separate database should be
established for federal information. Would such a database be more
efficient and secure than entrusting federal information to each
registered SAS? What additional security measures should be required
for a database holding sensitive federal information? Who should
maintain such a database? We will continue to work with NTIA and
incumbent federal users to develop this aspect of the SAS requirements.
Some commenters have argued that the SAS should be required to
incorporate spectrum sensing information from CBSDs or other remote
beaconing and sensing sites to accurately detect incumbent usage models
and respond to the interference environment. We seek comment on whether
such capabilities would be helpful for the operation of the SAS.
(iii) Registration and Authorization of Citizens Broadband Radio
Service Devices (Sec. 96.45)
In addition to gathering required information from CBSDs, the SAS
would confirm and verify the identity of any CBSD seeking to use the
3.5 GHz Band prior to authorizing its operation. The SAS would also
prevent CBSDs from operating within any Exclusion Zones. We seek
comment on these proposed rules.
(iv) Frequency Assignment (Sec. 96.46)
As discussed in section III(A)(1)(a)(7) above, under our proposal,
assignment of PAL channels and GAA frequencies in the 3.5 GHz Band
would be a dynamic process. The SAS would be responsible for
determining the available and appropriate frequencies at a location
using the location information supplied by CBSDs, compliance with
Exclusion Zones, the authorization status and operating parameters of
CBSDs in the surrounding area, and such other information necessary to
ensure effective operations of CBSDs. The SAS would also take into
consideration any channel requests submitted by CBSDs as well as
geographic and spectral efficiency considerations. We also propose that
the SAS be able to provide a list of available frequencies in a given
area and confirm that any CBSDs causing harmful interference to an
Incumbent User have been deactivated or reassigned upon request. We
seek comment on these proposed rules.
(v) Security (Sec. 96.47)
We propose to require that the SAS employ protocols and procedures
to ensure that all communications and interactions between the SAS and
CBSDs are accurate and secure and that unauthorized parties cannot
access or alter the SAS or the list of frequencies sent to a CBSD.
These protocols and procedures would be reviewed and approved by the
Commission before the SAS Administrator could be certified. We seek
comment on these proposed rules and on any additional safeguards needed
to protect sensitive federal information.
[[Page 31261]]
(vi) Spectrum Access System Administrators (Sec. 96.48)
Drawing on our experience with the TVWS, we propose that SASs be
operated only by designated SAS Administrators that have been approved
by the Commission. As noted above, this approval process will be
essential to determining that the SAS can meet the regulatory
requirements, without having to provide overly prescriptive and
detailed rules about its implementation.
To this end, we propose that SAS Administrators be required to:
Maintain a regularly updated database that contains the
information described in the proposed rules;
establish a process for acquiring and storing in the
database necessary and appropriate information from the Commission's
databases;
establish and follow a process for ensuring compatibility
between Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and Incumbent Users,
including enforcement of Exclusion Zones;
establish and follow processes for registering and
coordinating Priority Access Licensees and GAA users;
establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure
that Incumbent Users are protected from harmful interference from
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators;
establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure
that Priority Access Licensees are protected from harmful interference
from Priority Access and GAA users;
establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure
that all communications and interactions between the SAS and CBSDs are
accurate and secure;
make its services available on a non-discriminatory basis;
respond in a timely manner to verify, correct or remove,
as appropriate, data in the event that the Commission or a party brings
claim of inaccuracies in the SAS to its attention;
securely transfer the information in the SAS to another
designated entity in the event it does not continue as the SAS
administrator at the end of its term;
cooperate with other SAS Administrators to develop a
standardized process for coordinating and exchanging required
information;
provide a means to make public information available to
the public in an accessible manner;
establish protocols to maintain appropriate security
clearances and other security measures as may be determined by the
Commission for access to and storage of required federal incumbent
information if required in future phases of this proceeding.
Under our proposed rules, SAS Administrators would be authorized to
provide service for a five-year term, which could be renewed at the
Commission's discretion. We further propose that the Bureau review
applications for certification and establish procedures for reviewing
the qualifications of prospective SAS Administrators. What conflict of
interest requirements, competitive or other selection process,
technical qualifications, or other standards should govern this
process? Do other models involving Commission selection of third-party
assistance provide useful insights into these questions?
We seek comment on this proposal. Do the proposed rules establish
appropriate qualifications for SAS Administrators? What procedures
should the Bureau adopt to select SAS Administrators, ensure that they
are qualified to perform their duties, and ensure that SASs are able to
perform the functions required by the proposed rules. What steps should
the Commission take to ensure that SAS Administrators are properly
supervised and operating within the bounds of the law? Commenters
should provide a detailed analysis, including economic costs and
benefits, of any alternate or supplemental approach they propose.
(vii) Spectrum Access System Administrator Fees (Sec. 96.47)
We propose to allow SAS Administrators to collect reasonable fees
from Priority Access Licensees and General Authorized Access users for
use of the SAS and associated services. We based this proposal on a
similar rule adopted for TVWS database administrators. We seek comment
on this proposed rule. We also seek comment on whether SAS
Administrators should be permitted to collect fees from all Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users. Specifically, should SAS Administrators
be permitted to collect fees from GAA users? Or should fees be
collected only from Priority Access Licensees? Would limiting fees to
Priority Access Licensees effectively promote diverse and innovative
use of the GAA service tier? What role, if any, should the Commission
play in resolving any disputes or other issues regarding the collection
of any such fees by the SAS Administrators?
2. Modifications to Existing Rule Parts
In addition to the proposed new Part 96, we also seek comment on
any necessary amendments to existing rule parts, as discussed below.
a. Table of Frequency Allocations (Sec. 2.106)
In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on the allocation
structure that should be used to accommodate the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service. The NPRM proposed to retain the primary allocation for
existing federal radar systems in the 3.5 GHz Band, while also
proposing to allocate that band for non-federal fixed and mobile use.
The NPRM observed that this proposed structure is consistent with
international allocations for use of the 3.5 GHz Band, and also appears
consistent with requirements for the allocation of flexible use
spectrum under Section 303(y) of the Communications Act. However, the
NPRM sought comment on what allocation scheme would best accomplish the
goals set forth in that NPRM, and also inquired how that scheme should
account for potential Federal fixed and mobile use of the band.
The NPRM also proposed to restrict primary non-federal FSS earth
station use in the 3600-3650 MHz band to the FSS earth stations
licensed or applied for as of the effective date of the Report and
Order in this proceeding. Additionally, the NPRM noted the existence in
the 3.5 GHz Band of federal allocations for Aeronautical Radio
Navigation Service and mobile ground-based radars, and stated that the
Commission would work with NTIA regarding the continued need for those
allocations. Moreover, the NPRM noted the existence of a non-Federal
secondary allocation for radiolocation services, and requested comment
on what existing 3.5 GHz band allocations should be maintained.
Finally, the NPRM sought comment on the potential for interference to
and from existing and future international operations in the 3.5 GHz
Band.
There was limited comment on the allocation proposals per se,
although the great majority of commenting parties support shared
federal/non-federal use of the 3.5 GHz Band for new broadband
technologies. This suggests implicit support for adopting an allocation
structure that will allow for this type of use. Of the commenters that
explicitly discuss the allocation proposals, the Utilities Telecom
Council, Edison Electric Institute, and National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association contend that a non-federal fixed and mobile
allocation of the 3.5 GHz Band would spur innovation and investment in
new wireless technologies with little or no impact on incumbent uses,
including federal radar systems, and
[[Page 31262]]
support the proposal to restrict FSS earth station use of the 3600-3650
MHz band to the FSS earth stations licensed or applied-for as of the
effective date of the Report and Order in this proceeding. SIA,
however, expresses concern about the impact on FSS earth stations and
contends that, if there are any small cell operations in allowed in the
3.5 GHz Band, they should be permitted only on a secondary basis.
We propose to add new primary fixed and land mobile allocations to
the 3.5 GHz Band to permit commercial use of the band consistent with
our accompanying licensing and service rule proposals. The adoption of
a United States allocation structure that permits that band to be used
for fixed and land mobile services on a primary basis is also
consistent with the approach the Commission has previously taken when
it has determined that uses of other bands for new broadband purposes
was in the public interest. Moreover, the proposed allocation is
consistent with the Region 2 International allocation for the band. We
do not think it serves the public interest to pursue a secondary fixed
and mobile allocation, as suggested by SIA, and we will continue to
propose that FSS earth stations be restricted to those that were
licensed or applied for as of the effective date of the Report and
Order in this proceeding. As we observed in the NPRM, our proposed
treatment of FSS earth stations is the same as what has previously been
implemented in the 3650-3700 MHz band. Additionally, we note that FSS
earth stations are authorized to use other nearby spectrum at 3.7-4.2
GHz on a primary basis. For these reasons, providing the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service a primary allocation offers important new
opportunities to make robust use of our spectrum resources, and we
propose appropriate technical rules to protect existing incumbent FSS
operations.
We further observe that, with respect to the GAA tier, some
commenting parties express a preference for an unlicensed (Part 15)
framework, rather than the NPRM's proposed licensed-by-rule framework.
We nevertheless propose to adopt a primary fixed and land mobile
allocation across the entire band. Doing so could afford us the
flexibility to adopt a licensing framework for all Citizens Broadband
Radio Service tiers that will ensure that these operations are
prioritized over existing secondary users in the band. This could also
help ensure that quality spectrum is available for GAA users. We seek
comment on this proposal and other licensing frameworks.
In addition to proposing to add fixed and land mobile allocations
to the 3.5 GHz Band in the non-Federal Table, we propose to remove the
secondary radiolocation service allocation from that band in the non-
Federal Table and to add three US footnotes (US106, US107, and US433,
respectively) to: (1) Permit 3.5 GHz Band non-federal stations in the
radiolocation service that were licensed or applied for prior to the
effective date of any Report and Order we adopt in this proceeding to
continue to operate on a secondary basis until the end of the
equipment's useful lifetime; (2) limit primary FSS use of the 3600-3650
MHz band to earth stations authorized prior to, or granted as a result
of an application filed prior to, the effective date of any Report and
Order we adopt in this proceeding, and constructed within 12 months of
initial authorization; and specify that FSS use of that band for all
other earth stations will be on a secondary basis to non-federal
stations in the fixed and land mobile services; (3) both specify
provisions for 3.5 GHz Band federal use of the aeronautical
radionavigation (ground-based) and radiolocation services, and provide
for continued federal use in light of new non-federal fixed and mobile
operations in the band; and (4) prohibit federal use of airborne radar
systems in the 3.5 GHz Band. We seek comment on these proposals,
including whether the potential effects on federal incumbents would
serve the public interest.
We also note that the NPRM sought comment on allowing federal fixed
and mobile use in the band. Should we consider permitting federal fixed
and mobile operations in the 3.5 GHz Band? If so, how should such uses
be effectively implemented and managed? What, if any, implications
would federal fixed and mobile use have for non-federal use of the
band?
b. Procedures for Priority Access Licenses Subject to Assignment by
Competitive Bidding (Sec. 1.2101 et seq.)
If we adopt our proposed geographic area licensing approach for
PALs that would permit the filing and acceptance of mutually exclusive
applications, we will be required to resolve such applications through
competitive bidding consistent with the mandate of Section 309(j) of
the Communications Act. Accordingly, we seek comment on a number of
proposals relating to competitive bidding for PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band.
(i) Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules (Sec. 1.2101 et
seq.)
We consider here changes to the Commission's general competitive
bidding rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of the Commission's rules
that may be necessary or desirable to conduct an auction of initial
PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band. We propose to employ the general competitive
bidding rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q to resolve any mutually
exclusive applications received for initial PALs. The Commission's
competitive bidding rules provide a framework from which the Commission
develops final procedures--through a series of public notices with
opportunities for comment--for the particular competitive bidding
processes that it conducts. The public notice process allows both the
Commission and interested parties to focus and provide input on certain
details of the auction design and the auction procedures after the
rules have been established and the remaining procedural issues are
better defined. Our experience with spectrum license auctions
demonstrates the value of this approach and therefore, we anticipate
following a similar approach here. Under this proposal, any
modifications that the Commission may adopt for its Part 1 general
competitive bidding rules in the future would apply to an auction of
PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band. In addition, consistent with our long-
standing approach, auction-specific matters such as the competitive
bidding design and mechanisms, as well as minimum opening bids and/or
reserve prices, would be determined through these public notices. We
seek comment on this approach, including the costs and benefits of this
approach. We also seek comment on whether any of our Part 1 rules would
be inappropriate or should be modified for an auction for licenses in
the 3.5GHz Band.
(ii) Applications Subject to Competitive Bidding
To date, the Commission has considered two or more parties seeking
to bid for a particular license to present mutually exclusive
applications for the license, irrespective of whether each party
subsequently bids for the license. Where only one party seeks a
particular license offered in competitive bidding, that license will be
removed from the competitive bidding process and the Commission will
consider that party's non-mutually exclusive application for the
license through a process separate from the competitive bidding. This
has worked well with respect to defined
[[Page 31263]]
licenses that have parameters such as frequency and geography defined
apart from and in advance of competitive bidding.
Here we have proposed that the Commission, on an annual basis,
would open windows for applications for available PALs. To accommodate
the ability of licensees to aggregate consecutive one-year terms, the
Commission may offer multiple consecutive years of PAL rights
simultaneously. At the close of such a window, the Commission would
hold an auction to assign PALs where there are mutually exclusive
applications pending. Consistent with the Commission's approach in
other spectrum auctions, mutual exclusivity would be triggered when
more applications are submitted than can be accommodated
geographically, temporally, and spectrally. Under our proposed
licensing framework in which we assign PALs in an auction that offers
generic (non-frequency-specific) blocks, we propose to determine that
mutual exclusivity exists when the total number of applicants for a PAL
in a specific geographic area for a given year exceeds the total number
of PALs available in that geographic area for that year. We seek
comment on this proposal.
(iii) Bidding Process Options
Competitive Bidding Design Options. The Commission's current rules
list types of auction designs from which the Commission may choose when
conducting competitive bidding for spectrum licenses. These options
include sequential and simultaneous auctions, single and multiple round
auctions, and auctions with combinatorial bidding. Since the
Commission's Part 1 competitive bidding rules were originally adopted,
auction design has evolved and continues to evolve in new directions,
sometimes combining several of these listed auction design elements and
sometimes utilizing different elements.
In the Broadcast Incentive Auction Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
the Commission proposed to revise the current list of auction design
options set forth in Sec. 1.2103 of the rules. In particular, the
Commission proposed a rule that provides for the establishment of
specific auction procedures governing bid collection, assignment of
winning bids, and the determination of payment amounts in spectrum
license auctions. Such auctions may use one or more rounds of bidding
and/or contingent stages of bidding; and may incorporate bids or offers
that simply specify a price for an item, that indicate demand for an
item at a specified price, or that are more complex. We anticipate that
procedures established to implement these broad auction design elements
would take into account sound economic principles and practice and the
needs of the Commission and the bidders. We seek comment on whether, in
light of the licensing proposals set forth in this FNPRM, we should
adopt any other or additional revisions to Sec. 1.2103 in addition to
those proposed in the Broadcast Incentive Auction proceeding. Given the
large number of license areas and relatively short license terms
envisioned for PALs, are there any auction mechanisms that would
enhance the Commission's ability to effectively manage the use of the
Priority Access tier?
In, Sec. 1.2104 of the Commission's current rules sets forth
various mechanisms that can be used in connection with any system of
competitive bidding for Commission licenses. For example, the rules
enable the Commission to determine how to sequence or group the
licenses offered; whether to utilize reserve prices, minimum opening
bids and minimum or maximum bid increments; whether to establish
stopping or activity rules; and how to determine payments required in
the event of bid withdrawal, default, or disqualification. We note,
however, that Sec. 1.2104 does not attempt to list exhaustively all
potential aspects of the Commission's procedures for competitive
bidding.
The Commission recently proposed to amend the current stopping rule
contained in Sec. 1.2104 to permit the Commission to establish
stopping rules before or during multiple round auctions in order to
terminate the auctions not only within a reasonable time, but also in
accordance with the goals, statutory requirements, and rules for the
auction, including the reserve price or prices. The revised stopping
rule would thereby allow us to adopt criteria to determine, prior to
terminating the auction, whether such requirements have been met. We
seek comment on whether we should adopt any other revisions to Sec.
1.2104, in addition to those proposed in the Broadcast Incentive
Auction proceeding?
Payment Rules. Our existing competitive bidding rules also
establish additional procedures regarding the competitive bidding
process. More specifically, our existing rules address applications to
participate in competitive bidding, communications among applicants to
participate, reporting requirements, upfront payments from competitive
bidding participants, down and final payments by winning bidders, and
applications for licenses by winning bidders, as well as the processing
of such applications and default by and disqualification of winning
bidders. We seek comment on whether these existing rules require any
revisions in connection with the conduct of an auction of PALs.
Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should revise any of
our payment rules to take into consideration the proposed short license
term for PALs, and the potential for applicants to become winning
bidders for licenses that do not become effective until a year or more
after the initial PAL? For instance, should we revise our upfront
payment requirement to better safeguard the Commission against defaults
by a winning bidder on consecutive years of a PAL? Should we require a
winning bidder for consecutive years of a PAL to make a larger down
payment to better safeguard the Commission from defaults in subsequent
years? Currently, unless otherwise noted by public notice, the
Commission's rules require that within 10 business days after being
notified that it is a high bidder on a particular license the winning
bidder must submit its down payment necessary to bring its total
deposits up to twenty (20) percent of its winning bid(s) or it will be
deemed to have defaulted. Should we increase the down payment
percentage here to be forty (40) percent of the winning bid(s)?
Similarly, unless otherwise specified by public notice, auction winners
are required to pay the balance of their winning bids in a lump sum
within ten (10) business days following the release of a public notice
establishing the payment deadline. Here, we could collect the down
payment required for each PAL at the close of the auction, including
PALs for consecutive years, but final payment(s) would not be due until
we are ready to grant a particular PAL at the beginning of the
subsequent license term. Alternatively, in order to provide further
incentives for the productive use of spectrum, could the further
payment be required upon initiation of service in specific PAL? Will
retaining down payments on deposit for consecutive PALs, particularly
if the down payment obligation for such PALs is increased, help the
Commission safeguard against the potential of default in subsequent
years? Are there any statutory or other legal considerations that the
Commission should consider in designing payment rules to accommodate
these proposals?
We also seek comment on whether we should revise our default rule
to ensure that if a winning bidder wins PALs in a licensing area for
consecutive years
[[Page 31264]]
and defaults on a payment obligation for a PAL in that area, it loses
its ability to be granted a license for any winning bids for PALs in
that area in any subsequent year, and is considered to be in default on
those winning bids? Would such a default provision ensure that a
winning bidder could not game the results of an auction by bidding upon
consecutive year PALs only to seek to selectively pay for some but not
others of those bids at a later date? In situations where the
Commission has determined that a bidder's default might have a greater
potential to detrimentally impact the integrity of an auction, it has
adopted a higher default percentage to serve as deterrent against such
an outcome. If we hold an auction that offers individual PALs for
several consecutive years, should we hold a winning bidder for such
licenses who defaults on its winning bids responsible for a larger
default payment? What percentage of the defaulted bid should be
assessed as the additional payment portion of the default payment
obligation? Should the amount of the additional payment be greater than
the percentage prescribed in our rules for defaults on combinatorial
bids?
Would such a default rule adequately safeguard the Commission
should a winning bidder file bankruptcy between the close of an auction
and the date of a future payment obligation? Commenters should address
in particular the application of the Bankruptcy Code's requirement that
an agency ``may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license
. . . or other similar grant to,'' or ``discriminate with respect to
such a grant against,'' a debtor or a bankrupt ``solely because'' it
``has not paid a debt that is dischargeable'' in bankruptcy. In other
contexts, the Commission has addressed its potential financial risks
arising out of the bankruptcy of a winning bidder by requiring
appropriate letters of credit for each winning bid. However, these bids
were for Mobility Fund Phase I financial support rather than for
spectrum licenses, and thus did not pose the risk of being unable to
re-auction and put to more efficient use the spectrum licensed to an
entity that later files for bankruptcy. Would the Commission be
restricted by the bankruptcy laws in its efforts to recover and re-
auction spectrum won by a defaulting bidder that had filed for
bankruptcy? Would the costs of obtaining a letter of credit be
reasonable in light of the expected value of the spectrum? Would a
payment bond be equally effective in giving financial security to the
Commission and protecting the Commission from a winning bidder's
bankruptcy? Could bids be aggregated for purposes of issuing a letter
of credit, without jeopardizing the Commission's ability to recover the
auction amounts and any reasonable penalty associated from default?
Would the benefits of our proposed annual payment mechanism outweigh
the risks in bankruptcy and the associated costs?
Further, we seek comment regarding whether we should amend any of
our other Part 1 rules to accommodate our proposals for assigning PALs
and facilitate more frequent auctions and the dynamic auction
mechanisms that may be required? For example, are there any changes
that we should make to the auction application process or the
information that we collect from applicants to participate in an
auction of PALs? Do we need to amend any of our rules regarding
prohibited communications for an auction that offers generic spectrum
blocks? In considering our proposed licensing model, are there any
particular aspects of the administration of auctions of PALs with which
SAS Administrators or another third party could be effective in
assisting the Commission, consistent with its statutory
responsibilities?
Bidding Credits. In authorizing the Commission to use competitive
bidding, Congress mandated that the Commission ``ensure that small
businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members
of minority groups and women are given the opportunity to participate
in the provision of spectrum-based services.'' One of the principal
means by which the Commission furthers these statutory goals is the
award of bidding credits to small businesses. To award these bidding
credits, the Commission defines eligibility requirements for small
businesses on a service-specific basis, taking into account the capital
requirements and other characteristics of each particular service in
establishing the appropriate threshold. Bidding credits have proven an
effective means to allow small businesses to compete with larger, more
well-established companies. However, we also note that in deciding
whether to offer bidding credits, the Commission takes into account
both the nature of the service and the nature of the parties most
likely to be interested in using the spectrum.
Many of our proposals for PALs envision more flexible and dynamic
auction and licensing mechanisms for effective and administratively
streamlined management of the Priority Access tier. We anticipate that
the robust licensing and spectrum access models we propose could serve
to ensure that small businesses are given the opportunity to
participate in the provision of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
We therefore seek comment on whether awarding bidding credits in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service would be necessary to ensure the
participation of small businesses in competitive bidding. Would our
proposals to offer numerous licenses within relatively small geographic
licensing areas, and our proposals to cap the number of licenses any
particular entity may hold in a license area adequately promote the
dissemination of licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including
small businesses and rural telephone companies? Likewise, will the one-
year license term and the size of the license area we propose make it
more likely that small businesses will be able to effectively compete
for a PAL and the opportunity to participate in the provision of
Priority Access service? Do the unique characteristics of this service
reduce the likelihood that small businesses will face barriers in
gaining accessing to capital? We request that commenters address the
expected capital requirements for service in this band and other
characteristics of the service. We invite commenters to use comparisons
with other services for which the FCC has already established auction
procedures as a basis for their comments regarding whether we should
adopt small business size standards and bidding credits for PALs and if
so, the appropriate small business size standards. Moreover, to the
extent that commenters propose provisions to ensure participation by
minority-owned or women-owned businesses, they should address how such
provisions should be crafted to meet the relevant standards of judicial
review.
We note that under our existing Part 1 rules, a winning bidder for
a PAL will be eligible to receive a bidding credit for serving a
qualifying tribal land within that market, provided that it complies
with the applicable competitive bidding rules. We seek comment on
whether any revisions to our rules governing eligibility for or
implementation of Tribal land bidding credits are necessary for PALs.
In addition, the Commission currently has under consideration various
provisions and policies intended to promote greater use of spectrum
over tribal lands. We seek comment regarding whether any rules and
policies adopted in that proceeding should apply to any licenses that
may be issued through competitive bidding in a PAL auction. We also
note that the award of bidding credits can be an
[[Page 31265]]
administratively intensive process, requiring verification of
eligibility and other aspects of the application. We seek comment on
whether the relative costs of this process are greater in the context
of highly granular PALs as compared to more traditional FCC licenses
for large geographic areas and license terms. We also seek comment on
the degree to which the administrative process for bidding credits
might be reasonably automated to reduce transaction costs.
Commission Notices. Upon the conclusion of spectrum license
auctions, the Commission typically issues a public notice declaring the
bidding closed and identifying the winning bidders. We propose to do so
for the PAL auction. We invite comment on this proposal and ask
commenters to address whether there are any other issues we should
consider with respect to notifying auction participants and the public
of the auction results.
c. Secondary Markets
We seek comment on the extent to which our existing secondary
market rules (both for license transfers and for leases) might be
appropriately modified with respect to the secondary market for PALs in
the 3.5 GHz Band. Commenters had varied opinions about the frequency
with which we should conduct auctions for PALs. Some commenters argued
for more frequent auctions so as to accommodate changes in market
demand for PALs. Others noted that the development of a robust
secondary market in the 3.5 GHz Band would be beneficial for potential
Priority Access Licensees. We emphasize that, while auctions are a mode
of initial assignment, the secondary market could provide a viable
means of matching supply and demand in units more granular than our
proposed PAL structure. Indeed, we are interested in the possibility
that one or more spectrum exchanges, operating pursuant to our
secondary market rules, could facilitate a vibrant and deep market for
PAL rights. Such an exchange could improve the ability of individual
licensees to obtain micro-targeted (in geography, time, and bandwidth)
access to priority spectrum rights narrowly tailored to their needs on
a highly customizable, fluid basis. We note that any spectrum exchange
would be subject to the requirements of Section 310(d) of the
Communications Act and other relevant statutory provisions. To the
extent that commenters agree with this concept, we request specific and
focused comment on any necessary changes to our Part 1 rules to
facilitate the secondary market for PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band. We are
particularly interested in modifications that could reduce transaction
costs and allow increased automation of transfer and lease
applications. What would such a spectrum exchange entail? What legal,
technical, or logistical issues could be raised by this proposal?
B. Other Issues
In addition to the proposed rules described above, several other
issues implicated by this proceeding would benefit from additional,
focused comment. We seek further, focused comment on the following
issues, and request that commenters provide suggested rules or other
specific approaches to implement any proposals they put forward:
Interference protection for federal incumbents;
Interference protection for CBSDs from federal radar
transmissions;
Interference protection for in-band FSS operations;
Interference protection for FSS earth stations in the C-
Band; and
The potential integration of the 3650-3700 MHz band into
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
1. Protections for Federal Incumbent Access Tier Users
In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on measures that
would optimize the use of spectrum while protecting both incumbent
operations and prospective users of the band. Incumbent operations of
this band include high-powered DoD radar systems using ground-based,
shipboard, and airborne platforms, as well as non-Federal FSS earth
stations used for receive-only, space-to-earth operations and feeder
links.
In its Fast Track Report, NTIA concluded that geographic separation
and frequency offsets could be used to minimize interference between
commercial networks and ground-based, airborne, and shipborne radar
systems currently operating in the 3.5 GHz Band. However, NTIA's
analysis indicated that it would be necessary to put in place extensive
exclusion zones to prevent incumbent operations and broadband wireless
systems from causing interference to each other. NTIA concluded that
effective exclusion zone distances around ground-based and airborne
radar systems would extend approximately one to 60 kilometers, coupled
with frequency offsets of 40 or 50 megahertz, while exclusion zones
around certain high-power shipborne Naval radars would require over-
land separation distances of several hundred kilometers. NTIA
acknowledged, however, that its analysis assumed deployment of high
power, macrocell networks, and stated that its conclusions would
require revision to the extent the Commission proposes to implement
systems with different technical characteristics.
In the NPRM, the Commission noted that the large exclusion zones
and limited signal propagation in the 3.5 GHz Band weighed against the
use of macrocell deployment in the band. Instead, the Commission stated
that the use of the 3.5 GHz Band could be significantly increased
through spectrum sharing and application of small cell technology. The
Commission therefore proposed the creation of the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service premised on (1) technical rules that focused on the use
of low-powered small cells, and (2) the use of a dynamic SAS to manage
users of the band. In light of the small cell deployment model, the
Commission noted that some of the assumptions made in the Fast Track
Report's analysis regarding the requisite exclusion zone distances
would not apply and would need to be revisited. The Commission
indicated that it may be possible to reduce any exclusion zones through
technical and operational parameters for small cells in combination
with an effective SAS and other interference mitigation techniques. The
Notice therefore requested technical analysis as to how application of
small cell and access management technologies may impact interference
to and from incumbent 3.5 GHz Band users as well as the size of
exclusion zones necessary to ensure compatibility with incumbent and
prospective users of the band.
Many of the comments filed in response to the Notice supported the
tentative conclusion that the size of Exclusion Zones as estimated by
NTIA should be re-evaluated given the proposal to apply the small cell
model. We note that the Exclusion Zones were a condition for the
Executive Branch agreeing to provide access to this spectrum for non-
federal use. As a starting point for continued analysis and discussion,
we propose to implement the geographic Exclusion Zones proposed in the
Fast Track Report. Nevertheless, preliminary studies have been
performed on the potential effects of small cells on radar operations,
with additional studies planned, that could lead to a reduction in
Exclusion Zones in the near future. We also note that the rules
proposed in this FNPRM contemplate additional uses other than small
cells, with varying maximum transmit power levels and antenna
[[Page 31266]]
gains, which must factor into the consideration of Exclusion Zones.
We are continuing our dialogue with NTIA and the federal agencies
on this matter and, if possible, plan to reduce the Exclusion Zone
distances from the instant proposal based on the Fast Track Report,
which distances, we emphasize, we propose as a starting point for
further analysis. We intend to work collaboratively and expeditiously
with NTIA and other relevant federal agencies on this project. We
emphasize that important technical studies involving federal agencies,
industry, and academia are underway and will likely provide data that
will be informative in determining whether and to what extent the size
of the Exclusion Zones can be reduced. If there are further
developments that would enable a reduction in the size of the Exclusion
Zones, we encourage participants to file them in the record to ensure
that there is sufficient opportunity for public comment prior to
issuance of a Report & Order in this proceeding. We will also consider
any data and studies submitted in this proceeding in our ongoing
discussions with NTIA and other federal agencies on this topic.
Additionally, in the NPRM, the Commission stated that GAA use could
be allowed in areas where small cell operations would not cause harmful
interference to Incumbent Access tier users but where signals from
incumbent users could possibly interfere with GAA uses. However, the
NPRM noted that Priority Access users, which have quality-of-service
expectations, would only be permitted where CBSD operations would not
interfere with incumbent operations, and where harmful interference
would not be reasonably expected from Incumbent Access tier operations.
It may eventually be practicable to authorize coordinated operations
for GAA--and possibly Priority Access--tier users inside the proposed
Exclusion Zones. We anticipate such use would involve a level of
dynamic access to the spectrum and would be authorized through the SAS.
However, adding this kind of dynamic element to the SAS raises many
technical and operational questions that are not ripe for resolution at
this time. Accordingly, we will explore the topic of dynamic
coordinated access within the Exclusion Zones (i.e., converting
Exclusion Zones to protection zones) in future phases of this
proceeding. We seek comment on allowing Citizens Broadband Radio
Service operations within currently designated Exclusion Zones and
encourage commenters to submit technical analyses to support their
positions.
2. Protections for Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices From
Federal Radar Systems
While the proposed Exclusion Zones will prevent interference from
radar systems into CBSDs, the possibility of future CBSD operations in
close proximity to high power federal radar systems may require that
Priority Access Licensees and GAA users take reasonable measures to
protect their CBSDs from these high powered operations. Radar systems
operating at the power levels described in the NTIA Fast Track Report
could lead to peak field strengths in excess of 180 dBuV/m (~33 dBm) at
line of sight distances of approximately 1 km. We also recognize that
modern receiver technologies incorporate Surface Acoustic Wave/Bulk
Acoustic Wave filters that may have peak input power limits in the
range of 10 dBm to 33 dBm. To ensure that end users are not adversely
affected by the hard failure of receiver components due to interference
from such radars, we propose that CBSDs must be capable accept
interference in authorized areas of operation up to a peak field
strength level of 180 dBuV/m. We seek comment on these proposals and
ask that commenters support their proposals with detailed technical
analyses. How would such a requirement impact the design and cost of
equipment for this band? Alternatively, are there measures that
licensees can take to minimize the potential of receiving interference
from federal incumbent operations?
In addition to the high-power interference effects discussed in the
previous paragraph, pulsed radar signals can also cause degradation of
CBSD receiver performance. NTIA recently performed measurements to
examine the impact of pulsed radar signals on digital receiver
performance. Three receiver parameters were examined: (1) Data
throughput rates; (2) block error rates; and (3) internal noise level.
These performance parameters were measured as a function of radar pulse
parameters and the incident power level of radar pulses. We seek
comments on how the NTIA report can be used to develop thresholds for
CBSD receivers to be used in assessing potential interference from
federal incumbent operations.
3. Protections for Fixed Satellite Service Earth stations
a. Earth Stations in the 3.5 GHz Band
As noted in the NPRM, the Commission has licensed primary FSS earth
stations to receive on frequencies in the 3600-3650 MHz band in 37
locations. Currently, FSS earth station facilities in 32 cities are
authorized to receive in the 3625-3650 MHz sub-band, and Vizada, Inc.
operates two gateway earth stations (located northeast of Los Angeles
and New York City) that provide feeder links for Inmarsat's L-band
mobile-satellite service system. While the Commission directed the
International Bureau to cease accepting applications for new earth
stations in the 3.5 GHz Band in an order accompanying the NPRM, these
existing stations would be included in the Incumbent Use tier and
afforded protection from lower-tier operations in the proposed
Citizen's Broadband Radio Service.
The NPRM also sought extensive comment on appropriate interference
protection and mitigation strategies for incumbent FSS earth stations.
Specifically, the NPRM sought comment on whether geographic protection
zones would be necessary to protect existing FSS earth stations from
harmful interference. Commenters offered a variety of perspectives on
these questions in the record.
Notably, SIA filed several comments and letters arguing that the
Commission should allow small cell operations in the 3.5 GHz Band only
if it can show that in-band and C-Band satellite services will be
protected from interference and asking the Commission to lift the
freeze on earth station applications in the band. SIA also submitted a
technical analysis that indicated that in-band FSS earth stations would
require protection distances of up to 107.4 km to mitigate long-term
interference and 487 km to mitigate short-term interference.
On September 3, 2013, Google made an ex parte submission addressing
potential interference from proposed Citizens Broadband operations into
existing in-band and out-of-band satellite earth stations. With regard
to grandfathered FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band, Google asserts
that these earth stations can be protected by the SAS through a
combination of coordination, spectral separation, and protection zones.
Google also asserts that SIA's submission overstates the potential for
interference from CBSDs into in-band FSS earth stations. According to
Google, these overstatements are largely due to inappropriate
assumptions about terrain, small cell emissions output, and typical
small cell power levels as well as a reliance on an ITU interference
protection standard that was not intended to apply in this context.
[[Page 31267]]
Harris Corporation filed comments encouraging the Commission to
extend the Incumbent Access tier to include satellite earth stations
and incumbent teleport stations in the adjacent 3650-3700 MHz band and
limit mobile and itinerant commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band. Baron
Services, Inc. (Baron) also filed comments encouraging the Commission
to adopt rules that would protect S-band weather radar systems with
equipment authorizations in the 3.5 GHz Band. To accomplish this, Baron
suggests that the Commission enforce substantial exclusion zones around
S-band radar installations and impose strict OOBE limits on Citizens
Broadband Radio Service base stations and handsets. As stated above,
the proposed Citizens Broadband Radio Service would be co-primary with
existing incumbent operations and would supersede existing secondary
uses of the band in the table of allocations. At this time, as stated
above, we do not believe that it would be in the public interest to
grant Incumbent Access tier status to current or planned non-federal
secondary radiolocation operations in the band.
We propose to require CBSDs to avoid causing harmful interference
to currently operational grandfathered FSS earth stations. It may be
possible to minimize or eliminate geographic protection areas around
FSS earth stations by incorporating detailed information on the ``look
angles'' of FSS earth stations, the emissions characteristics of CBSDs
and End User Devices, detailed regional topographical information, and
other relevant variables into the SAS. An analytic model of expected
aggregate power-flux density could be used by the SAS to authorize
operations to ensure that aggregate power-flux density interference
limits are not exceeded, over a specified probabilistic function. Can a
Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function (CCDF) of the aggregate
power flux density be used for this purpose? We seek comment on the
necessity of geographic protection areas and, if necessary, the size of
such areas. We also seek comment on additional or alternative
mitigation strategies that could be employed to prevent harmful
interference to FSS earth stations from CBSDs. What criteria should the
SAS incorporate to ensure that FSS earth stations are protected while
maximizing the areas available for Citizens Broadband Radio Service
operations? How would the SAS manage this data?
We also seek comment on protection approaches other than protection
areas. For example, we are interested in whether field strength, power-
flux density, or some other technical metric, measured in relation to
the earth station's technical configuration (antenna characteristics,
etc.) might provide FSS earth stations with adequate protections while
maximizing the available geographic area and bandwidth for Citizens
Broadband Radio Service Users. To the extent such an approach is
dependent upon operation of the SAS, we seek comment on what
functionalities would need to be required by rule and what
functionalities could be specified through other means (e.g., industry
standards, multi-stakeholder groups, etc.). Again, we request that
parties provide specific and actionable suggestions in providing
comments on this issue, including the potential costs and benefits of
these approaches.
b. Earth Stations in the C-Band
In addition to protections for FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz
Band, we sought comment on the degree to which the performance of FSS
receivers in the C-Band could be affected by Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users. We also sought comment on methods for mitigating
potential harmful interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service
operations into these receivers. Parties submitted multiple comments,
presentations, and technical analyses related to this issue. These
submissions relied on very different assumptions about CBSDs, the
capabilities of the SAS, receiver performance, and other technical
criteria and, as a result, commenters reached very different
conclusions regarding the need for protection for C-Band earth
stations.
Notably, a coalition of media companies and trade organizations,
including Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., Time Warner Inc., Viacom Inc.,
the Walt Disney Company, CBS Corporation, and the National Association
of Broadcasters (NAB) (jointly, Content Interests) filed jointly to
encourage the Commission to study the potential for interference into
C-Band satellite operations before considering commercial operations in
the 3.5 GHz Band. Their filings included technical reports from
Comsearch and Alion Science and Technology (Alion) that concluded that
C-Band earth stations would require significant geographic protection
from CBSDs. Alion asserts that separation distances ranging from 600
meters to 9 Km would be required to protect C-Band earth station
locations with appropriate filters installed while unfiltered sites
would require 19 to 33 Km separation distances. The separation
distances would increase to 14 to 28 Km for filtered sites if the full
3550-3700 MHz band is utilized.
The Comsearch Report largely comports with Alion's findings.
Comsearch noted that the 43 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE limit proposed in the
NPRM is equivalent to OOBE of -13 dBm/MHz (-43 dBW/MHz), the same as
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and LTE-Advanced (LTE-
A) baseline ``Category A'' limits. Comsearch suggests that adopting the
ITU's more stringent ``Category B'' limit for OOBE would significantly
reduce required protection zones around C-Band earth stations.
According to Comsearch, interference could occur at a range of up to
47.6 km from C-Band receivers with typical separation distances of 5.1
km if Category A devices are authorized by the Commission. The typical
separation distance would be reduced to 0.7 km if devices are limited
to Category B emission limits.
SIA's comments also addressed protection criteria for C-Band earth
stations. SIA's technical analysis indicated that C-Band earth stations
would require protection zones of up to 36.4 km to protect them from
OOBE in the 3.5 GHz Band. SIA also asserts that simply determining the
size of these protection zones is insufficient to ensure protection of
existing FSS operations and that the Commission must ensure that these
protection zones are effectively enforced.
Google also made multiple submissions, including a detailed
technical analysis, addressing potential interference from proposed
Citizens Broadband operations into C-Band earth stations. Google
asserts that emissions from small cells in the 3.5 GHz Band would cause
minimal interference issues to C-Band receivers and that any potential
interference would come from operations in close spatial and spectral
proximity to those earth stations. Moreover, Google claims that the
look angle of C-Band earth stations can have a significant effect on
potential interference from OOBE and that protection zones can be
significantly reduced by including the positions of these receivers in
the SAS. While SIA disagrees with many of Google's conclusions, they
agree that relevant data related to CBSDs and earth stations could be
programmed into the SAS to allow for real-time calculation of required
protection distances.
According to Google's studies, accounting for the elevation angle
of C-Band dishes coupled with appropriate placement of Citizens
Broadband devices can further reduce the required
[[Page 31268]]
separation distances and areas around C-Band earth stations. Using
Google's assumptions, the maximum required protection distance for any
C-Band earth station would be 1.67 km (with an excluded area of only
.55 km) for an earth station with a 5 degree elevation. The average
protection area for a typical earth station would be approximately
0.285 km. Google asserts that these shaped exclusion zones could be
managed and enforced by the SAS and that the same techniques could be
applied to grandfathered earth stations in the 3600-3650 MHz band.
Google also asserts that, due to differences in international C-
Band allocations, many C-Band earth stations in the U.S. ``listen'' to
transmissions well outside of their authorized spectrum allocations.
Indeed, Google claims that many such earth stations ``listen'' for
transmissions as low as 3400 MHz, a full 300 megahertz below their
authorized allocation. The ITU studies cited by SIA consider these
equipment specifications in reaching their conclusions about harmful
interference from commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz Band. Google
asserts that existing C-Band operators should not be afforded special
protections for equipment that listens well beyond their licensed
allocation. Moreover, according to Google, many C-Band earth stations
can effectively mitigate interference from commercial operations in the
3.5 GHz Band by utilizing readily available, low-cost filters. Indeed,
Google asserts that C-Band operators already utilize similar filters to
protect themselves from Federal radar operations on the 3500-3700 MHz
band.
While the proposed Part 96 rules do not necessarily address all
concerns about potential interference into C-Band earth stations raised
in the record, they do include stricter-than-normal out of band
emission limits for CBSDs/user devices, and a spectrum access framework
utilizing a dynamic SAS. The SAS can calculate the expected aggregate
power flux density at in-band station locations attributable to
authorized CBSDs and End User Devices, and authorize operations to
ensure that interference protection criteria are not exceeded. We
propose an equivalent power flux density (EPFD), which would be the sum
of the power flux densities produced at a geostationary satellite
system receive Earth station, by CBSD and End User Devices in the area
of that earth station. The EPFD would be calculated to take into
account the off-axis discrimination of the Earth station receiving
antenna assumed to be pointing in its nominal direction. We seek
comment as to whether CBSD and End User Device emission limits based on
EPFD and SAS authorization controls would adequately address concerns
over potential interference with C-Band earth stations, or whether
additional protections are necessary.
The ``look angle'' of FSS earth stations would have a significant
impact on the potential for interference from CBSDs, particularly those
located at moderate angles (e.g., >15[deg]) from the axis of the FSS
earth station main lobe. We seek comment on the effect of the ``look
angles'' of FSS earth stations for potential interference from CBSDs,
including any potential costs and benefits. Would the SAS be able to
effectively monitor and manage information on FSS earth station ``look
angles'' to calculate EPFD interference limits, and dynamically adjust
any potential protection areas around these earth stations accordingly?
We also seek comment on additional mitigation strategies that could
be employed to prevent harmful interference to earth stations and
reduce or eliminate the need for geographic separation between CBSDs
and C-Band earth stations. Specifically, to what degree could filters
be utilized to reduce or eliminate harmful interference? Are current
commercially available filters sufficient? What would be the likely
cost of installing filters in C-Band and 3.5 GHz Band FSS earth
stations?
4. Enforcement Issues
We acknowledge that the proposals in this FNPRM may raise unique
enforcement issues for the Commission. Managing real time interactions
between a large number of potential Priority Access Licensees and GAA
Users while ensuring that Incumbent Users are protected from harmful
interference could present novel enforcement challenges for the
Commission to address. Our proposals, including SAS specifications,
CBSD technical requirements, and security protocols would help address
some of these issues and facilitate secure and consistent access to the
3.5 GHz Band for all authorized users. Regardless of the degree of
automation incorporated into the SAS, the Commission retains ultimate
responsibility for ensuring that its rules are enforced. We seek
comment on additional enforcement techniques and protocols that could
be implemented, inside or outside the SAS, to address the unique
enforcement concerns raised by the proposals set forth in this FNPRM.
5. Extension of Part 96 Rules to 3650-3700 MHz Band
In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on a supplemental
proposal to include the adjacent 3650-3700 MHz band in the proposed
regulatory regime. As noted in the NPRM, incorporating this additional
50 megahertz would create a 150 megahertz contiguous block of spectrum
that could be used by existing licensees in the 3650-3700 MHz band--as
well as new licensees--to expand the services that they are already
providing. Subsequently in the Licensing PN the Commission sought
comment on extending the Revised Framework to the 3650-3700 MHz band,
and asked what provisions would need to be made for existing operators
and how much transition time would be required.
Commenters generally support the proposal to create a 150 megahertz
contiguous block of spectrum, while a few commenters oppose changing
the existing framework for the 3650-3700 MHz band. In addition, WISPA
believes that existing 3650-3700 MHz users should get priority access
protection and have five years to transition to the new framework.
There could be long term gains and significant public interest
benefits to extending the rules proposed here to the 3650-3700 MHz
band, both in terms of terms of spectrum efficiency and availability,
and economies of scale for equipment across the full 150 megahertz.
However, we recognize the significant investment that incumbent 3650-
3700 MHz licensees have made. Should we incorporate 3650-3700 MHz into
the regulatory scheme proposed in this FNPRM, we would seek to do so in
a way that would maximize the benefits to all potential licensees,
while minimizing the costs to incumbent licensees.
If we extend these proposed rules, we propose to grandfather
existing 3650-3700 MHz operations for a period of five years after the
effective date of the proposed rules. More specifically, we would treat
each incumbent 3650-3700 MHz nationwide licensee (Grandfathered
Wireless Broadband Provider) as an Incumbent User within the service
contours of its registered base stations or fixed access points during
the transition period. During the transition period, existing licensees
would be permitted to operate stations in accordance with the technical
rules in part 90, subpart Z, if any have been authorized, and would
have priority over GAA and Priority Access users in the 3650-3700 MHz
band. During this period, Grandfathered Wireless
[[Page 31269]]
Broadband Providers would be required to avoid causing harmful
interference to federal users and grandfathered FSS earth stations, in
accordance with existing part 90 rules. After the transition period,
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Providers would be required to protect
incumbent operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band consistent with any
applicable protection criteria the Commission develops in conjunction
with NTIA, DoD, and other stakeholders. Because the Grandfathered
Wireless Broadband Provider would continue to operate under part 90
rules and would not operate equipment that is authorized by the SAS,
GAA use would not be permitted to interfere with the service contour of
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Providers during the transition
period.
At the end of the transition period Grandfathered Wireless
Broadband Providers would have the option, available to all eligible
3.5 GHz Band users, to apply for PALs or to operate on a GAA basis
consistent with part 96 rules. During the transition period,
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Provider with overlapping service
contours would be required to coordinate with one another as currently
required by part 90, subpart Z.
We seek comment on this proposed approach to incorporating the
3650-3700 MHz band into the regulatory scheme described in this FNPRM.
In particular, we seek comment on whether the five year transition
period proposed is appropriate. What are current equipment upgrade
cycles for fixed and mobile equipment in the 3650-3700 MHz band? Given
upgrade cycles, what is the incremental cost of upgrading a 3650-3700
MHz system to one that can operate consistent with the proposed Part 96
rules over a five year period? How do these costs weigh against the
possibility of upgrading to equipment that could access a full 150
megahertz on a PAL or GAA basis? We seek comment on our proposal to
protect the service contour of existing licensees. More specifically
what criteria should be used to define the existing service contour?
What criteria should be used to define interference to the existing
contour from GAA users? We also seek comment on whether there are other
grandfathering and transition mechanisms that we should consider.
We also seek comment on how the band should be assigned to GAA and
Priority Access tier users after the transition period. Under the
proposed rules, a minimum of 50 percent of available bandwidth would be
made available for GAA use at any given time in any given geographic
area. Would this formulation still be in the public interest if the
supplemental proposal is adopted? Notably, Microsoft suggested that a
minimum of 50 megahertz of spectrum should be reserved for GAA uses at
all times. If we adopt the supplemental proposal, should we guarantee a
fixed spectrum floor for GAA (i.e., 50 megahertz) and make the
remainder of the spectrum available as PALs? We encourage commenters to
consider the costs and benefits of any proposals they put forth.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Rules
This proceeding shall continue to 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). In proceedings governed by
section 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.
We note that our ex parte rules provide for a conditional exception
for all ex parte presentations made by NTIA or Department of Defense
representatives. This FNPRM raises significant technical issues
implicating federal and non-federal spectrum allocations and users.
Staff from NTIA, DoD, and the FCC have engaged in technical discussions
in the development of this FNPRM, and we anticipate these discussions
will continue after this FNPRM is released. These discussions will
benefit from an open exchange of information between agencies, and may
involve sensitive information regarding the strategic federal use of
the 3.5 GHz Band. Recognizing the value of federal agency collaboration
on the technical issues raised in this FNPRM, NTIA's shared
jurisdiction over the 3.5 GHz Band, the importance of protecting
federal users in the 3.5 GHz Band from interference, and the goal of
enabling spectrum sharing to help address the ongoing spectrum capacity
crunch, we find that this exemption serves the public interest.
B. Filing Requirements
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
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: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by
filing paper copies.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
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.
[cir] 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. All hand deliveries
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
[[Page 31270]]
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. The filing
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
[cir] 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.
[cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be
available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
To request information in accessible formats (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-
0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be
downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov.
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the
Commission prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
relating to the NPRM. No parties filed comments responding to that
IRFA. We seek comment on how the proposed rules set forth herein could
affect the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the
same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this FNPRM as
set forth on the first page of this document and have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
Our previous IRFA set forth the need for and objectives of our
proposed rules; the legal basis for the proposed action; a description
and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed
rules would apply; a description of projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements for small entities; steps taken to
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities and
significant alternatives considered; and a statement that there are no
federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rules. Those descriptions remain unchanged by our FNPRM,
except that we now propose unrestricted eligibility for Priority Access
use of the 3.5 GHz Band.
Our FNPRM does, however, provide greater detail on some of the
specific reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements on
which we are now seeking comment. For example, it proposes
qualifications requirements, and requirements to designate whether
users have selected common carrier status. It proposes specific
requirements for interactions with the SAS. It would require devices to
be interoperable across all frequencies from 3550 MHz to 3700 MHz. It
proposes Exclusion Zones to ensure compatibility between incumbent
federal operations and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users,
application window procedures for PALs, and limits on the geographic
areas, time periods, and numbers of PALs that may be acquired, as well
as auction procedures that would govern mutually exclusive applications
therefor. It proposes a 24 dBm (per 10 megahertz) peak transmit power
limit for CBSDs in non-rural areas, and 30 dBm (per 10 megahertz) for
rural areas. For fixed point-to-point radio systems, it proposes a 30
dBm (per 10 megahertz) peak transmit power limit. It proposes a maximum
EIRP for End User Devices of 23 dBm (per 10 megahertz), and a -80 dBm
signal level threshold as measured by a 0 dBi isotropic antenna in 10
megahertz anywhere along any PAL service area boundaries. It proposes
OOBE of 43 + 10 log (P) dB, and 70 + 10 log (P) dB for emissions below
3520 MHz and above 3680 MHz. In the 3.5 GHz NPRM, the Commission also
asked for comment on other alternatives, such as utilizing a two-tiered
authorization framework, establishing a license-by-rule approach to
Priority Access, and utilizing an alternative ``licensed light''
framework akin to the authorization model currently used for the 3650-
3700 MHz band. This FNPRM also seeks comment on alternatives, including
static rather than dynamic frequency assignments and prescribed GAA
bandwidths.
D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
This FNPRM contains proposed new and modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this FNPRM, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, we seek specific comment on how we might ``further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.''
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common
carriers, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 2
Communications equipment, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 90
Business and industry
47 CFR Part 95
Radio
47 CFR Part 96
Citizens Broadband Radio Service, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 90, 95,
and 96 as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), 309, 1403, 1404, and 1451.
0
2. Section 1.901 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.901 Basis and purpose.
These rules are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The purpose of these rules is to
establish the requirements and conditions under which entities may be
licensed in the Wireless Radio Services as described in this part and
in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97 and 101 of
this chapter.
0
3. Section 1.902 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.902 Scope.
In case of any conflict between the rules set forth in this subpart
and the rules set forth in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87,
90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of title 47, chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations, the rules in part 1 shall govern.
0
4. Section 1.907 is amended by revising the definitions for ``Private
[[Page 31271]]
Wireless Services,'' ``Wireless Radio Services,'' and ``Wireless
Telecommunication Services'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1.907 Definitions.
* * * * *
Private Wireless Services. Wireless Radio Services authorized by
parts 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 that are not Wireless
Telecommunications Services, as defined in this part.
* * * * *
Wireless Radio Services. All radio services authorized in parts 13,
20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97 and 101 of this chapter,
whether commercial or private in nature.
Wireless Telecommunications Services. Wireless Radio Services,
whether fixed or mobile, that meet the definition of
``telecommunications service'' as defined by 47 U.S.C. 153, as amended,
and are therefore subject to regulation on a common carrier basis.
Wireless Telecommunications Services include all radio services
authorized by parts 20, 22, 24, 26, and 27 of this chapter. In
addition, Wireless Telecommunications Services include Public Coast
Stations authorized by part 80 of this chapter, Commercial Mobile Radio
Services authorized by part 90 of this chapter, and common carrier
fixed microwave services, Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS),
Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), and Digital Electronic
Message Service (DEMS), authorized by part 101 of this chapter, and
Citizens Broadband Radio Services authorized by part 96 of this
chapter.
0
5. Section 1.1307 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect,
for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2)(i) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the
Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter;
the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this
chapter; the Personal Communications Services (PCS) pursuant to part 24
of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part
25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services
pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth
stations only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized
Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, or the 3650 MHz
Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the
Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), or the Medical Device
Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio) pursuant to part 95 of this
chapter; or the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of
this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF
exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in
Sec. Sec. 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
6. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
7. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as
follows:
0
a. Revise pages 39 and 40.
0
b. In the list of United States (US) Footnotes, add footnotes US105,
US107, and US433.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 31272]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JN14.001
[[Page 31273]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JN14.002
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
* * * * *
United States (US) Footnotes
* * * * *
US105 In the band 3550-3650 MHz, non-Federal stations in the
radiolocation service that were licensed
[[Page 31274]]
or applied for prior to [effective date of Report and Order] may
continue to operate on a secondary basis until the end of the
equipment's useful lifetime.
US107 In the band 3600-3650 MHz, the following provisions shall
apply to earth stations in the fixed-satellite service (space-to-
Earth):
(a) Earth stations authorized prior to, or granted as a result of
an application filed prior to, [effective date of Report and Order],
and constructed within 12 months of initial authorization may operate
indefinitely on a primary basis. Applications for new earth stations or
modifications to earth station facilities shall not be accepted, except
for changes in polarization, antenna orientation or ownership.
(b) The assignment of frequencies to new earth stations shall be
authorized on secondary basis to non-Federal stations in the fixed and
land mobile services.
* * * * *
US433 In the band 3550-3650 MHz, the following provisions shall
apply to Federal use of the aeronautical radionavigation (ground-based)
and radiolocation services and to non-Federal use of the fixed and land
mobile services:
(a) Airborne radar systems shall not be authorized.
(b) Non-Federal stations in the fixed and land mobile services
shall not be authorized within [XXX km] of the territorial sea
baseline.
(c) Ground-based radar systems operate at the following fixed
sites: [RESERVED]. Non-federal operations shall not be permitted within
[XX km] of these fixed sites.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 2.1091 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 2.1091 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile
devices.
* * * * *
(c)(1) Mobile devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio
Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular
Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the
Personal Communications Services pursuant to part 24 of this chapter;
the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this
chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to
part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station
devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized
Mobile Radio Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service
pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are subject to routine
environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment
authorization or use if:
* * * * *
0
9. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable
devices.
* * * * *
(c)(1) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone
Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal
Communications Service (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the
Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter;
the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27
of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station devices
only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio
Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband
Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the Wireless Medical
Telemetry Service (WMTS) and the Medical Device Radiocommunication
Service (MedRadio), pursuant to subparts H and I of part 95 of this
chapter, respectively, unlicensed personal communication service,
unlicensed NII devices and millimeter wave devices authorized under
Sec. Sec. 15.253(f), 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of
this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part
96 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for
RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use.
* * * * *
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
10. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161,
303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
0
11. Section 90.103 is amended by revising the ``3500 to 3650'' entry in
the Megahertz portion of the Radiolocation Service Frequency Table in
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.103 Radiolocation Service
* * * * *
Radiolocation Service Frequency Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency or band Class of station(s) Limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Megahertz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
3500 to 3550................... do..................... 12
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 95--PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES
0
9. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 154, 303.
0
10. Section 95.401 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 95.401 (CB Rule 1) What are Citizens Band Radio Services?
* * * * *
(h) Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The rules for this service,
including technical rules, are contained in part 96 of the Commission's
rules. Only
[[Page 31275]]
Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices authorized on a General
Authorized Access basis, as those terms are defined in Sec. 96.3, are
considered part of the Citizens Band Radio Services.
0
11. Section 95.601 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 95.601 Basis and purpose.
This section provides the technical standards to which each
transmitter (apparatus that converts electrical energy received from a
source into RF (radio frequency) energy capable of being radiated) used
or intended to be used in a station authorized in any of the Personal
Radio Services listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section
must comply. This section also provides requirements for obtaining
certification for such transmitters. The Personal Radio Services to
which these rules apply are:
(a) The GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service)--subpart A;
(b) The Family Radio Service (FRS)--subpart B;
(c) The R/C (Radio Control Radio Service)--subpart C;
(d) The CB (Citizens Band Radio Service)--subpart D;
(e) The Low Power Radio Service (LPRS)--subpart G;
(f) The Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS)--subpart H;
(g) The Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio)--
subpart I;
(h) The Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS)--subpart J; and
(i) Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service On-Board Units
(DSRCS-OBUs)--subpart L.
0
12. Add part 96 to read as follows:
PART 96--CITIZENS BROADBAND RADIO SERVICE
Subpart A--General Rules
Sec.
96.1 Scope
96.3 Definitions
96.5 Eligibility
96.7 Authorization required
96.9 Regulatory status
96.11 Frequencies
96.13 Frequency assignments
Subpart B--Incumbent Protection
96.15 Protection of Federal Incumbents
96.17 Protection of existing Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) Earth
Stations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band
96.19 Operation near Canadian and Mexican Borders
Subpart C--Priority Access
96.21 Authorization
96.23 Priority access licenses
96.25 Application window
96.27 Competitive bidding procedures
96.29 Aggregation of priority access licenses
Subpart D--General Authorized Access
96.31 Authorization
96.33 General authorized access use
96.35 Contained Access Facilities (CAFs)
Subpart E--Technical Rules
96.36 Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) general
requirements
96.37 End user general requirements
96.38 General radio requirements
96.39 Equipment authorization
96.41 RF safety
Subpart F--Spectrum Access System
96.43 Spectrum access system purposes and functionality
96.44 Information gathering and retention
96.45 Registration and authorization of Citizens Broadband Radio
Service Devices
96.46 Frequency assignment
96.47 Security
96.48 Spectrum access system administrators
96.49 Spectrum access system administrator fees
Authority: Sections 4(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 307.
Subpart A--General Rules
Sec. 96.1 Scope.
(a) This section sets forth the regulations governing use of
devices in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Citizens Broadband
Radio Service Devices (CBSDs) may be used in the frequency bands listed
in Sec. 96.11. The operation of all CBSDs shall be coordinated by one
or more authorized Spectrum Access Systems (SASs).
(b) The Citizens Broadband Radio Service includes Priority Access
and General Authorized Access tiers of service. Priority Access
Licensees and General Authorized Access Users shall be authorized to
operate only outside of the Exclusion Zones detailed in Sec. 96.15 and
must not cause harmful interference to Incumbent Users, including
authorized federal users and the fixed satellite service (FSS) sites
set forth in Sec. Sec. 96.15 and 96.17. General Authorized Access
Users must not cause harmful interference to Priority Access Licensees
and must accept interference from Priority Access Licensees, consistent
with Sec. 96.33.
Sec. 96.3 Definitions.
Census tract: Census tracts are relatively permanent statistical
subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity that are updated by local
participants prior to each decennial census as part of the Census
Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program. Census tracts are
defined by the United States Census Bureau and current census tract
maps can be found at https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/2010tract.html.
Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD): Fixed or Portable
Base stations, or networks of such base stations, that operate on a
Priority Access or General Authorized Access basis in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service consistent with this rule part. Does not
include End User Devices.
Contained Access Facility (CAF): An indoor or otherwise physically
contained location used by Contained Access Users for the express
purpose of performing core mission operations.
Contained access use: Private internal radio services, not made
commercially available to the public, employed by Contained Access
Users.
Contained access user: Qualified government and non-government
entities entitled to protection within CAFs in furtherance of a mission
that supports the public interest.
End user device: A fixed, portable, or mobile device authorized and
controlled by an authorized CBSD. These devices may not be used as
intermediate service links or to provide service to other End User
Devices.
Exclusion zone: A geographic area wherein no CBSD shall operate.
Exclusion Zones shall be enforced and maintained by the SAS.
Fast track report: National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, ``An Assessment of the Near-Term Viability of
Accommodating Wireless Broadband Systems in the 1675-1710 MHz, 1755-
1780 MHz, 3500-3650 MHz, 4200-4220 MHz, and 4380-4400 MHz Bands''
(October 2010).
General authorized access user: An authorized user of CBSDs
operating on a General Authorized Access basis, as set forth in this
part.
Geo-location capability: The capability of a CBSD to determine its
geographic coordinates within the level of accuracy specified in Sec.
96.36 (i.e., 50 meters horizontally and 3 meters vertically). This
capability is used by a SAS to determine frequency availability and
maximum power limits for CBSDs.
Incumbent user: A federal entity or fixed satellite service
operator authorized to operate on a primary basis on frequencies
designated in Sec. 96.11.
Priority Access License (PAL): A license to operate on a Priority
Access basis, consistent with Sec. 96.21, et seq.
Priority Access Licensee: A holder of one or more PALs. Priority
Access Licensees shall be entitled to protection from harmful
interference from General Authorized Access Users and other
[[Page 31276]]
Priority Access Licensees within the defined limits of their PAL,
consistent with the rules set forth in this part.
Rural area: For purposes of this part, a Rural Area is defined as a
county (or equivalent) with a population density of 100 persons per
square mile or less, based upon the most recently available Census
data.
Spectrum Access System (SAS): A system that maintains records of
all authorized services and devices in the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service frequency bands, is capable of determining the available
channels at a specific geographic location, provides information on
available channels to CBSDs that have been certified under the
Commission's equipment authorization procedures, determines and
enforces maximum power levels for CBSDs, and enforces protection
criteria for Incumbent Users and Priority Access Licensees, and
performs other functions as set forth in Sec. 96.43, et seq. Spectrum
Access System shall also refer to multiple Spectrum Access Systems
operating in coordination and in accordance with this rule part.
SAS Administrator: An entity authorized by the Commission to
operate an SAS in accordance with the rules and procedures set forth in
Sec. 96.48.
Sec. 96.5 Eligibility.
Any entity, other than those precluded by section 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to
be a Priority Access Licensee or General Authorized Access User under
this part, except as set forth in Sec. 96.35.
Sec. 96.7 Authorization required.
(a) CBSDs must be used and operated consistent with the rules in
this part.
(b) Authorizations for PALs may be granted upon proper application,
provided that the applicant is qualified in regard to citizenship,
character, financial, technical and other criteria established by the
Commission, and that the public interest, convenience and necessity
will be served. See 47 U.S.C. 301, 308, 309, and 310. The holding of an
authorization does not create any rights beyond the terms, conditions,
and period specified in the authorization and shall be subject to the
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
Sec. 96.9 Regulatory status.
Priority Access Licensees and General Authorized Access Users are
permitted to provide services on a non-common carrier and/or on a
common carrier basis. An authorized Citizens Broadband Radio Service
user may render any kind of communications service consistent with the
regulatory status in its authorization and with the Commission's rules
applicable to that service.
Sec. 96.11 Frequencies.
The Citizens Broadband Radio Service shall be authorized in the
3550-3650 MHz frequency band.
Sec. 96.13 Frequency assignments.
(a) A minimum of fifty percent of the bandwidth, rounded to the
nearest 10 megahertz, available for Citizens Broadband Radio Service
users in a given census tract must be reserved for General Authorized
Access use. The remaining bandwidth shall be made available to Priority
Access Licensees, consistent with the procedures in subpart C of this
rule part.
(b) Each PAL shall be authorized to use a 10 megahertz channel as
set forth in Sec. 96.23.
(c) Any frequencies designated for Priority Access that are not in
use by a Priority Access Licensee may be utilized by General Authorized
Access Users.
(d) The SAS shall assign particular authorized users to specific
frequencies, which may be reassigned by the SAS.
Subpart B--Incumbent Protection
Sec. 96.15 Protection of Federal Incumbents.
(a) CBSDs must not cause harmful interference to and must accept
harmful interference from federal users authorized to operate on
frequencies set forth in Sec. 96.11.
(1) To ensure compatibility between incumbent federal operations
and Citizens Broadband Radio Service user, an Exclusion Zone consistent
with the recommendations of the Fast Track Report shall be maintained
around terrestrial federal radiolocation sites and the coastline. This
Exclusion Zone shall be enforced by the SAS.
(2) The SAS must immediately suspend operation of any CBSDs found
to be causing harmful interference to Incumbent Users until such
harmful interference can be resolved.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 96.17 Protection of existing FSS Earth Stations in the 3550-3650
MHz band.
(a) CBSDs shall not cause harmful interference to the FSS earth
stations listed in the chart:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth station No. State City Call sign Coordinates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. CA Livermore............ KA232 37[deg]45'40.0'' N, 121[deg]47'53.0'' W
2................................. CA Malibu............... E980066 34[deg]04'52.6'' N, 118[deg]53'52.9'' W
KA273 34[deg]04'50.3'' N, 118[deg]53'46.4'' W
KA91 34[deg]04'49.7'' N, 118[deg]53'43.9'' W
KB32 34[deg]04'51.0'' N, 118[deg]53'44.0'' W
3................................. CA Mountain Home........ KA86 37[deg]45'01.7'' N, 121[deg]35'38.8'' W
4................................. CA Napa................. E950307 38[deg]14'43.7'' N, 122[deg]16'50.9'' W
5................................. CA Nuevo................ E010206 33[deg]47'46.1'' N, 117[deg]05'15.1'' W
E020169 33[deg]47'46.5'' N, 117[deg]05'15.0'' W
E020314 33[deg]47'46.0'' N, 117[deg]05'14.0'' W
E020315 33[deg]47'45.0'' N, 117[deg]05'15.0'' W
6................................. CA Salt Creek........... KA371 38[deg]56'20.2'' N, 122[deg]08'48.0'' W
KA372 38[deg]56'21.0'' N, 122[deg]08'49.2'' W
KA373 38[deg]56'22.3'' N, 122[deg]08'49.6'' W
7................................. CA San Ramon............ E6241 37[deg]45'39.7'' N, 121[deg]47'56.8'' W
8................................. CA Santa Paula.......... KA31 34[deg]24'05.0'' N, 119[deg]04'26.0'' W
KB34 34[deg]24'05.0'' N, 119[deg]04'29.4'' W
KA249 34[deg]24'05.0'' N, 119[deg]04'29.4'' W
E980136 34[deg]24'06.0'' N, 119[deg]04'21.8'' W
9................................. CA Somis................ KA318 34[deg]19'31.0'' N, 118[deg]59'41.0'' W
10................................ CA Sylmar............... KA274 34[deg]19'04.0'' N, 118[deg]29'00.0'' W
E6148 34[deg]18'55.0'' N, 118[deg]29'12.0'' W
11................................ CT Southbury............ KA312 41[deg]27'06.3'' N, 073[deg]17'21.4'' W
KA313 41[deg]27'06.3'' N, 073[deg]17'16.4'' W
[[Page 31277]]
WA28 41[deg]27'05.0'' N, 073[deg]17'21.0'' W
WB36 41[deg]27'05.3'' N, 073[deg]17'19.4'' W
WB36 41[deg]27'05.1'' N, 073[deg]17'19.0'' W
12................................ FL Medley............... E960068 25[deg]51'19.0'' N, 080[deg]19'52.0'' W
13................................ FL Miami................ KA407 25[deg]48'35.0'' N, 080[deg]21'10.0'' W
KA412 25[deg]48'35.0'' N, 080[deg]21'11.0'' W
14................................ GUM Pulantat............. KA28 13[deg]25'00.0'' N, 144[deg]44'57.0'' E
15................................ GUM Yonagu............... KA326 13[deg]25'05.2'' N, 144[deg]45'05.7'' E
16................................ HI Haleiwa.............. E080059 21[deg]40'10.4'' N, 158[deg]01'59.4'' W
KA25 21[deg]40'14.6'' N, 158[deg]02'03.1'' W
17................................ HI Kapolei.............. E010016 21[deg]20'08.0'' N, 158[deg]05'25.0'' W
E980250 21[deg]20'12.6'' N, 158[deg]05'21.1'' W
E100091 21[deg]20'10.2'' N, 158[deg]05'18.0'' W
E030087 21[deg]20'09.0'' N, 158[deg]05'25.0'' W
18................................ HI Paumalu.............. KA265 21[deg]40'27.0'' N, 158[deg]02'16.0'' W
KA266 21[deg]40'15.5'' N, 158[deg]02'06.1'' W
KA267 21[deg]40'14.1'' N, 158[deg]02'06.1'' W
KA270 21[deg]40'24.0'' N, 158[deg]02'16.0'' W
19................................ MD Clarksburg........... KA260 39[deg]13'05.0'' N, 077[deg]16'12.0'' W
KA275 39[deg]13'07.0'' N, 077[deg]16'12.0'' W
KA259 39[deg]13'05.6'' N, 077[deg]16'12.4'' W
KA263 39[deg]13'04.4'' N, 077[deg]16'13.9'' W
KA264 39[deg]13'05.2'' N, 077[deg]16'13.9'' W
20................................ MD Hagerstown........... KA262 39[deg]35'57.0'' N, 077[deg]45'23.0'' W
E030071 39[deg]35'57.9'' N, 077[deg]45'17.3'' W
E030082 39[deg]35'57.9'' N, 077[deg]45'21.4'' W
E030100 39[deg]35'59.6'' N, 077[deg]45'21.4'' W
E030101 39[deg]35'59.6'' N, 077[deg]45'17.4'' W
E030103 39[deg]35'59.1'' N, 077[deg]45'18.4'' W
E000296 39[deg]35'54.0'' N, 077[deg]45'35.0'' W
KA261 39[deg]35'57.0'' N, 077[deg]45'22.0'' W
E100118 39[deg]35'55.0'' N, 077[deg]45'22.0'' W
21................................ ME Andover.............. E000700 44[deg]38'01.2'' N, 070[deg]41'51.3'' W
KA386 44[deg]37'58.2'' N, 070[deg]41'55.3'' W
KA349 44[deg]37'58.2'' N, 070[deg]41'54.0'' W
22................................ NJ Franklin............. E6777 41[deg]07'04.0'' N, 074[deg]34'33.0'' W
23................................ NY Hauppauge............ E950436 40[deg]49'15.4'' N, 073[deg]15'48.4'' W
24................................ PA Catawissa............ E980493 40[deg]53'39.3'' N, 076[deg]26'19.8'' W
25................................ PA Roaring Creek........ KA444 40[deg]53'35.9'' N, 076[deg]26'22.6'' W
WA33 40[deg]53'37.5'' N, 076[deg]26'21.8'' W
26................................ PR Humacao.............. E872647 18[deg]09'05.0'' N, 065[deg]47'20.0'' W
27................................ PR San Juan............. E050314 18[deg]24'23.9'' N, 066[deg]01'46.6'' W
28................................ TN Nashville............ E960050 36[deg]14'05.7'' N, 086[deg]45'21.4'' W
E960073 36[deg]14'05.7'' N, 086[deg]45'19.4'' W
E970010 36[deg]14'06.2'' N, 086[deg]45'20.4'' W
29................................ VA Alexandria........... KA81 38[deg]47'36.0'' N, 077[deg]09'59.0'' W
E970267 38[deg]47'38.0'' N, 077[deg]09'46.0'' W
30................................ VA Bristow.............. E000696 38[deg]47'02.4'' N, 077[deg]34'21.9'' W
E000152 38[deg]47'01.6'' N, 077[deg]34'24.3'' W
E000726 various
31................................ VA Sterling............. E030336 38[deg]59'07.0'' N, 077[deg]26'45.0'' W
32................................ VA Quicksburg........... E000589 38[deg]43'45.4'' N, 078[deg]39'25.1'' W
E990175 38[deg]43'45.4'' N, 078[deg]39'24.2'' W
33................................ WA Brewster............. KA294 48[deg]08'50.5'' N, 119[deg]41'33.2'' W
E960222 48[deg]08'51.0'' N, 119[deg]41'29.0'' W
E120128 48[deg]08'50.0'' N, 119[deg]41'28.0'' W
34................................ WA Yacolt............... KA221 45[deg]51'46.4'' N, 122[deg]23'44.3'' W
KA323 45[deg]51'45.5'' N, 122[deg]23'43.8'' W
35................................ WV Albright............. KA413 39[deg]34'07.0'' N, 079[deg]34'45.0'' W
36................................ WV Etam................. KA378 39[deg]16'50.0'' N, 079[deg]44'13.0'' W
WA21 39[deg]16'48.0'' N, 079[deg]44'14.0'' W
37................................ WV Rowlesburg........... KA351 39[deg]16'52.1'' N, 079[deg]44'10.7'' W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) These operational restrictions shall be enforced by the
Spectrum Access System authorized pursuant to Sec. 96.48.
(2) These protection criteria shall only apply to FSS earth
stations that are in actual use. FSS earth station licensees must
inform SAS Administrators of their operational status annually, no
later than 30 days before the end of the preceding calendar year.
(3) CBSDs may operate within areas that may cause harmful
interference to FSS earth stations listed in this section provided that
the licensee of the FSS earth station and an SAS Administrator mutually
agree on such operation and the terms of any such agreement are
provided to SAS and can be enforced by the SAS.
(b) [Reserved.]
[[Page 31278]]
Sec. 96.19 Operation near Canadian and Mexican borders.
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operation in the 3550-3650 MHz
band is subject to current and future international agreements with
Mexico and Canada. The terms of these agreements shall be enforced by
the SAS.
Subpart C--Priority Access
Sec. 96.21 Authorization.
(a) In general, applications for PALs must:
(1) Demonstrate the applicant's qualifications to hold an
authorization;
(2) State how a grant would serve the public interest, convenience,
and necessity;
(3) Contain all information required by FCC rules and application
forms;
(4) Propose operation of a facility or facilities in compliance
with all rules governing the Citizens Broadband Radio Service; and
(5) Be amended as necessary to remain substantially accurate and
complete in all significant respects, in accordance with the provisions
of Sec. 1.65 of this chapter.
(b) Authorization processes and requirements may be reasonably
automated by SAS Administrators approved by the Commission in
accordance with Sec. 96.48. The Commission shall oversee these
processes consistent with its responsibilities under the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended.
(c) CBSDs used for Priority Access must register with the SAS and
comply with its instructions consistent with Sec. 96.36.
Sec. 96.23 Priority access licenses.
(a) Frequencies shall be made available for Priority Access use,
consistent with Sec. 96.13.
(b) Priority Access Licensees shall be protected from harmful
interference from CBSDs operated by other Priority Access Licensees and
General Authorized Access Users, consistent with the technical rules
and interference avoidance criteria set forth in Sec. Sec. 96.36 and
96.38. Priority Access Licensees must protect Incumbent Users from
harmful interference, consistent with Sec. Sec. 96.15 and 96.17.
(c) PALs shall have the following parameters:
(1) Geography: Each PAL shall consist of a single census tract, as
defined in the 2010 census.
(i) Contiguous Geographic Areas: The SAS shall make reasonable
efforts to assign geographically contiguous PALs held by the same
licensee to the same frequencies.
(ii) [Reserved.]
(2) Channels: Each PAL shall consist of a 10 megahertz channel
within the frequency range set forth in Sec. 96.13. Channels shall be
assigned by the SAS and the exact frequencies of specific assigned
channels may be changed at the SAS Administrator's discretion, in
coordination with other SAS Administrators. Priority Access Licensees
may request a particular channel or frequency range but will not be
guaranteed a particular assignment.
(i) Contiguous Channel Frequencies: The SAS shall make reasonable
efforts to assign multiple channels held by the same Priority Access
Licensee to contiguous frequencies.
(ii) [Reserved.]
(3) License Term: Each PAL shall be issued for one year. Each PAL
shall automatically terminate at the end of its one-year term and may
not be renewed. However, Priority Access Licensees may reapply for
subsequent authorizations in the same census tract, subject to the
limitations set forth in Sec. 96.25. Priority Access Licensees may
hold consecutive PALs up to the maximum established in Sec. 96.25.
(d) CBSDs operating under a PAL authorization must register with an
SAS and comply with its instructions in accordance with Sec. Sec.
96.36, 96.45, and 96.46.
(e) Unused PAL channels shall be made available for assignment by
the SAS for General Authorized Access use provided:
(1) General Authorized Access operation on unused PAL channels must
obey the same field strength limits established in Sec. 96.38 with
respect to any operational areas within the PAL assignment; and
(2) Generally Authorized Access Users shall have no expectation of
interference protection from any other users and shall operate on a
non-interfering basis with respect to Priority Access Licensees and
Incumbent Users, consistent with Sec. Sec. 96.15, 96.17, and 96.23.
Sec. 96.25 Application window.
(a) Applications for PALs will be accepted annually. The annual
application window and application process will be announced by the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau via public notice.
(b) The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may make up to five
consecutive years of any PAL available through the same application
window. Applicants may apply for PALs up to five years in advance of
the effective license date.
Sec. 96.27 Competitive bidding procedures.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for PALs are subject to
competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set
forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise
provided in this subpart.
Sec. 96.29 Aggregation of priority access licenses.
Priority Access Licensees may aggregate up to three channels in any
single census tract.
Subpart D--General Authorized Access
Sec. 96.31 Authorization.
(a) Any party meeting the eligibility requirements set forth in
Sec. 96.5 is authorized to operate a CBSD on a General Authorized
Access basis by this rule without an individual station license.
(b) CBSDs used for General Authorized Access must register with the
SAS and comply with its instructions consistent with Sec. Sec. 96.36,
96.45, and 96.46.
Sec. 96.33 General authorized access use.
(a) Frequencies shall be made available for General Authorized
Access use consistent with the Sec. 96.13.
(b) General Authorized Access Users shall be permitted to utilize
frequencies assigned to PALs when such frequencies are not in use, as
determined by the SAS.
(c) Frequencies that are available for General Authorized Access
Use shall be made available on a shared basis and shall not be assigned
for the exclusive use of any party.
(d) General Authorized Access Users shall have no expectation of
interference protection from other General Authorized Access Users and
shall avoid causing harmful interference to Priority Access Licensees
and Incumbent Users, consistent with Sec. Sec. 96.15, 96.17, and
96.23.
Sec. 96.35 Contained Access Facilities (CAFs).
(a) Commission approved Contained Access Users may request an
assignment of up to 20 megahertz of frequencies reserved for GAA use
from the SAS to be reserved for Contained Access Use inside a CAF.
(1) The requestor must certify to the SAS that it will use the
reserved frequencies for Contained Access Use within each specifically
requested location.
(2) [Reserved.]
(b) Such reserved frequencies shall not be available for use by
other General
[[Page 31279]]
Authorized Access Users within the physical confines of the CAF,
provided:
(1) The requestor undertakes reasonable efforts to safeguard
against harmful interference from General Authorized Access
transmissions originating outside the CAF; and
(2) All other rules applicable to General Authorized Access Users
apply to CAF use of the reserved frequencies, including, but not
limited to the requirements that that there shall be no expectation of
interference protection from other General Authorized Access Users and
that CAF users shall not cause harmful interference to Priority Access
Licensees and Incumbent Users, consistent with Sec. Sec. 96.15, 96.17,
and 96.23.
Subpart E--Technical Rules
Sec. 96.36 Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) general
requirements.
(a) Geo-location and reporting capability. (1) The CBSD shall be
able to determine its geographic coordinates (referenced to the North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)) to an accuracy of 50 meters
horizontal and 3 meters elevation. Such geographic
coordinates shall be reported to SAS at the time of first activation
from a power-off condition.
(2) A CBSD must re-establish its position and report that position
within 60 seconds to the SAS each time it is activated from a power-off
condition.
(3) A CBSD must check its location at least once every 60 seconds
while in operation and report to SAS any location changes exceeding
50 meters horizontal and 3 meters elevation
within 60 seconds of such location change.
(b) Interoperability. All CBSDs must be capable of operating on any
frequency from 3550-3700 MHz as instructed by the SAS.
(c) Registration with SAS. A CBSD must register with and be
authorized by an SAS prior to its initial service transmission. The
CBSD shall provide the SAS with its geographic location, antenna height
above ground level (meters), requested authorization status (Priority
Access or General Authorized Access), unique FCC identification number,
and unique serial number. If any of this information changes, the CBSD
shall update the SAS within 60 seconds. A CBSD shall only operate at or
below the maximum power level and within locations/areas permitted by
the SAS on the frequencies authorized by the SAS.
(1) A CBSD must query the SAS regarding frequency availability at
10 minute intervals and it must also receive any incoming commands from
the SAS about any changes to power limits and frequency availabilities.
CBSD operation must cease within 60 seconds if the SAS indicates that
an assigned frequency is no longer available or as otherwise instructed
by the SAS.
(2) [Reserved.]
(d) Interference reporting. CBSDs shall report to an SAS if they
experience interference in exceeding a threshold as set by an SAS. Such
interference reporting may be based on received interference signal
strength in the same and adjacent channels, packet error rates or other
common standard metrics as set by SAS.
(e) Security. CBSDs shall incorporate adequate security measures
sufficient to ensure that they are capable of communicating with
respect to lists of available frequencies only with SASs operated by
approved SAS Administrators, and that communications between CBSDs and
SASs, between individual CBSDs, and between CBSDs and mobile devices
are secure to prevent corruption or unauthorized interception of data.
(1) For purposes of obtaining operational limits and availabilities
and their updates, CBSDs shall only contact SASs operated by SAS
Administrators approved by the Commission in accordance with Sec.
96.48.
(2) All communications between CBSDs and SASs are to be transmitted
using secure methods that protect the systems from corruption or
unauthorized modification of the data.
(3) Communications between a CBSD and all End User Devices for
purposes of obtaining operational power and frequency assignments shall
employ secure methods that protect the system from corruption or
unauthorized modification of the data.
(4) An SAS shall be protected from unauthorized data input or
alteration of stored data. To provide this protection, the SAS
Administrator shall establish communications authentication procedures
sufficient to ensure that the data that the CBSDs receive is from an
authorized source.
(f) Device security. All CBSDs and End User Devices must contain
security features sufficient to protect against modification of
software by unauthorized parties. Applications for certification of
CBSDs and End User Devices must include an operational description of
the technologies and measures that are incorporated in the device to
comply with the security requirements of this section. In addition,
applications for certification of CBSDs and End User Devices must
identify at least one of the SAS databases operated by a designated SAS
database administrator that the device will access for channel/
frequency availability and affirm that the device will conform to the
communications security methods used by such databases.
(g) Airborne operations. Airborne operations by CBSDS and End User
Devices are prohibited.
Sec. 96.37 End user devices general requirements.
Mobile, portable or fixed End User Devices may operate only if they
can positively receive and decode an authorization signal transmitted
by a CBSD, including the frequency channels and power limits for their
operation.
Sec. 96.38 General radio requirements.
The requirements in this section apply to CBSDs and their
associated End User Devices, unless otherwise specified.
(a) Digital modulation. Systems operating in the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service must use digital modulation techniques.
(b) Conducted and emitted power limits. Unless otherwise specified
in this subsection, the maximum conducted output power, maximum
transmit antenna gain, maximum Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power
(EIRP), and maximum Power Spectral Density (PSD) of any CBSD and End
User Device must comply with the limits shown in the table below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
conducted Maximum EIRP Maximum
output power (dBm/10 conducted PSD
(dBm/10 megahertz) (dBm/MHz)
megahertz)**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End User Device................. All..................... n/a 23 n/a
CBSD............................ Baseline*............... 24 30 14
CBSD............................ Rural Areas............. 30 47 20
[[Page 31280]]
CBSD............................ Fixed Point to Point 30 53 20
System (PTP).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Baseline is all cases not qualified under rural or fixed PTP.
** Maximum Conducted Output Power (as defined in paragraph (b)(4) of this section).
(1) For fixed point-to-point radio systems, the maximum conducted
output power in paragraph (b) of this section must be reduced by 1 dB
for every 1 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 23dBi.
(2) CBSDs shall limit their operating power to the minimum
necessary for successful operations.
(3) CBSDs shall include transmit power control capability and the
capability to adjust maximum EIRP in response to instructions from an
SAS (either directly or through an intermediary system). Applicants for
PAL or General Authorized Access use of the band must include a
description of these two functionalities for all CBSDs and End User
Devices.
(4) Maximum Conducted Output Power is defined as the total transmit
power delivered to all antennas and antenna elements averaged across
all symbols in the signaling alphabet when the transmitter is operating
at its maximum power control level. Power must be summed across all
antennas and antenna elements. The average must not include any time
intervals during which the transmitter is off or is transmitting at a
reduced power level. If multiple modes of operation are possible (e.g.,
alternative modulation methods), the maximum conducted output power is
the highest total transmit power occurring in any mode.
(c) Received signal strength limits. CBSD transmissions shall be
managed such that the median signal strength at any location on the
boundary of a co-channel PAL shall not exceed -80 dbm as measured by a
0 dBi isotropic antenna in 10 megahertz unless the affected licensees
or incumbents agree to a different field strength and communicate that
to SAS.
(d) 3.5 GHz emissions and interference limits--(1) General
protection levels. Except as otherwise specified, for channel and
frequency assignments made by the SAS to CBSDs operating in the 3550-
3650 MHz band, the power of any emission outside the fundamental
emission (whether in or outside of the authorized band) shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power (P) by at least 43 + 10
log10(P) dB.
(2) Additional protection levels. Notwithstanding the foregoing
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the power of any emissions below 3520
MHz and above 3680 MHz shall be attenuated below the transmitter power
(P) in watts by at least 70 + 10 log10(P) dB.
(3) Measurement procedure. (i) Compliance with this provision is
based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution
bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. However, in the 1 megahertz bands
immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee's authorized frequency
channel, a resolution bandwidth of no less than one percent of the
fundamental emission bandwidth may be employed. A narrower resolution
bandwidth is permitted in all cases to improve measurement accuracy
provided the measured power is integrated over the full reference
bandwidth (i.e., 1 MHz or 1 percent of emission bandwidth, as
specified). The emission bandwidth is defined as the width of the
signal between two points, one below the carrier center frequency and
one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions
are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter power.
(ii) When measuring unwanted emissions to demonstrate compliance
with the limits, the CBSD and End User Device nominal carrier
frequency/channel shall be adjusted as close to the licensee's
authorized frequency block edges, both upper and lower, as the design
permits.
(iii) Emission power measurements shall be performed with a peak
detector in maximum hold.
(4) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes
harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require
greater attenuation than specified in this section.
(e) Reception Limits. (1) Priority Access Licensees must accept
adjacent channel and in-band blocking interference (emissions from
other Priority Access users transmitting between 3550 and 3650 MHz) up
to a power spectral density level not to exceed -30dBm/10 megahertz
with greater than 99% probability, unless the affected licensees agree
to a higher or lower power spectral density limit and communicate with
the terms of such agreement to the SAS.
(2) General Authorized Access operations are subject to the
conditions that they cause no harmful interference to Incumbent Users
or Priority Access Licensees and they can claim no protection from
interference received from Incumbent Users or Priority Access
Licensees. The operator of a General Authorized Access CBSD shall be
required to cease operating the device upon notification by a SAS that
the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume
until the condition causing the harmful interference has been
corrected.
(3) PA and GAA Licensees must accept interference in authorized
areas of operation from federal radar systems up to a peak field
strength level of 180 dBuV/m.
Sec. 96.39 Equipment authorization.
(a) Each CBSD or End User Device utilized for operation under this
part and each transmitter marketed as set forth in Sec. 2.803 of this
chapter must be of a type which has been certificated for use under
this part.
(b) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in
these services must request equipment authorization following the
procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. Equipment
authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an
applicant for a station authorization by following the procedures set
forth in part 2 of this chapter.
Sec. 96.41 RF safety.
Licensees and manufacturers are subject to the radio frequency
radiation exposure requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b),
1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.
Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices
operating under this section must contain a statement confirming
compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and
unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
[[Page 31281]]
Subpart F--Spectrum Access System
Sec. 96.43 Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.
The SAS serves the following purposes:
(a) To determine and provide to CBSDs the available channels/
frequencies at their location;
(b) To determine the maximum permissible transmission power level
available to CBSDs at a given location and communicate that information
to the CBSDs;
(c) To register the identification information and location of
CBSDs;
(d) To retain information on and enforce Exclusion Zones in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 96.15 and 96.17;
(e) To protect Priority Access Licensees from harmful interference
from General Authorized Access Users consistent with Sec. 96.23;
(f) To reserve the use of GAA channels for use in a CAF consistent
with Sec. 96.35; and
(g) To ensure secure transmission of information between the SAS
and CBSDs.
Sec. 96.44 Information gathering and retention.
(a) The SAS shall maintain information on registered CBSDs, FSS
locations listed in Sec. 96.17, and Exclusion Zones.
(1) For CBSDs, such information shall include all information
required by Sec. 96.36.
(2) For incumbent FSS operators, the SAS shall maintain a record of
the location of protected earth stations as well as the direction and
look angle of all earth station receivers and any other information
reasonable necessary to perform its functions under this part.
(b) [Reserved.]
Sec. 96.45 Registration and authorization of Citizens Broadband Radio
Service Devices.
(a) An SAS must collect required information from CBSDs in
accordance with the provisions of this part. CBSDs composed of a
network of base and fixed stations may employ a subsystem for
aggregating and communicating all required information with the SAS.
(1) The SAS must also verify that the FCC identifier (FCC ID) of a
device seeking access to its services is valid. A list of devices with
valid FCC IDs and the FCC IDs of those devices is to be obtained from
the Commission's Equipment Authorization System.
(2) The SAS shall not permit CBSDs within Exclusion Zones to
register or operate within the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
(b) [Reserved.]
Sec. 96.46 Frequency assignment.
(a) The SAS will determine the available and appropriate channels/
frequencies at a given location using the geographic information
supplied by CBSDs, the frequency assignment data for Incumbent Users in
the SAS, the authorization status and operating parameters of CBSDs in
the surrounding area, and such other information necessary to ensure
effective operations of CBSDs consistent with this part.
(1) Upon request from the Commission or a CBSD, the SAS shall
confirm whether frequencies are available in a given geographic area.
(2) Upon request from the Commission, the SAS shall confirm that
CBSDs in a given geographic area and frequency band have been shut down
in response to a request from an Incumbent User.
(b) [Reserved.]
Sec. 96.47 Security.
(a) The SAS shall employ protocols and procedures to ensure that
all communications and interactions between the SAS and CBSDs are
accurate and secure and that unauthorized parties cannot access or
alter the SAS or the list of frequencies sent to a CBSD.
(b) Communications between CBSDs and the SAS, between individual
CBSDs, and between different SASs, shall be secure to prevent
corruption or unauthorized interception of data. An SAS shall be
protected from unauthorized data input or alteration of stored data.
(c) An SAS shall verify that the FCC identification number supplied
by a CBSD is for a certified device and may not provide service to an
uncertified device.
Sec. 96.48 Spectrum access system administrators.
The Commission will designate one or more entities to administer
the SAS. The Commission may, at its discretion, permit the functions of
an SAS, such as a data repository, federal information database,
registration, and query services, to be divided among multiple
entities; however, it shall designate one or more specific entities to
be an SAS Administrator responsible for coordination of the overall
functioning of an SAS and providing services to operators in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Each SAS Administrator designated by
the Commission shall:
(a) Maintain a regularly updated database that contains the
information described in Sec. 96.44;
(b) Establish a process for acquiring and storing in the database
necessary and appropriate information from the Commission's databases
and synchronizing the database with the current Commission databases at
least once a day to include newly licensed facilities or any changes to
licensed facilities;
(c) Establish and follow a process for registering and protecting
the Incumbent Users and enforcing the protection criteria set forth in
Sec. Sec. 96.15 and 96.17;
(d) Establish and follow a process for registering and coordinating
Priority Access Licensees;
(e) Establish and follow a process for registering and coordinating
General Authorized Access Users;
(f) Establish and follow protocols and procedures sufficient to
ensure that Incumbent Users are protected from harmful interference
from Priority Access Licensees and General Authorized Access Users
consistent with Sec. Sec. 96.15 and 96.17;
(g) Establish and follow protocols and procedures sufficient to
ensure that Priority Access Licensees are protected from harmful
interference from spectrally or geographically adjacent Priority Access
Licensees and from General Authorized Access Users;
(h) Establish and follow protocols and procedures sufficient to
ensure that all communications and interactions between the SAS and
CBSDs are accurate and secure and that unauthorized parties cannot
access or alter the SAS or the information transmitted from the SAS to
CBSDs;
(i) Make its services available to Priority Access Licensees and
General Authorized Access Users on a non-discriminatory basis;
(j) Provide service for a five-year term. This term can be renewed
at the Commission's discretion;
(k) Respond in a timely manner to verify, correct or remove, as
appropriate, data in the event that the Commission or a party brings
claim of inaccuracies in the SAS to its attention. This requirement
applies only to information that the Commission requires to be stored
in the SAS;
(l) Secure transfer the information in the SAS, along with the IP
addresses and URLs used to access the system, and a list of registered
CBSDs, to another designated entity in the event it does not continue
as the SAS administrator at the end of its term. It may charge a
reasonable price for such conveyance;
(m) If more than one SAS is developed, the administrators shall
cooperate to develop a standardized process for providing on a daily
basis or
[[Page 31282]]
more often, as appropriate, the data collected pursuant to Sec. 96.44;
(n) Provide a means to make all information that the rules require
the SAS to collect available to the public in a reasonably accessible
fashion; and
(o) Coordinate with other SAS Administrators including, to the
extent possible, sharing information, facilitating non-interfering use
by CBSDs connected to other SASs, maximizing available General
Authorized Access frequencies by assigning PALs to similar channels in
the same geographic regions, and other functions necessary to ensure
that available spectrum is used efficiently consistent with this part.
Sec. 96.49 Spectrum access system administrator fees.
(a) An SAS Administrator may charge Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users a reasonable fee for provision of the services set forth
in Sec. 96.43, et seq.
(b) The Commission, upon request, will review the fees and can
require changes in those fees if they are found to be excessive.
[FR Doc. 2014-11732 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P