[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31247-31282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: FCC504@fcc.gov 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 
Paul.Powell@fcc.gov.

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 fcc@bcpiweb.com. The 
full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats 
are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to 
fcc504@fcc.gov 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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