[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34119-34126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14495]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 90, 95, and 96
[GN Docket No. 12-354; FCC 15-47]
Commission Seeks Comment on Shared Commercial Operations in the
3550-3700 MHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on three
specific issues related to the establishment of a new Citizens
Broadband Radio Service in the 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band). These
issues are: Defining ``use'' of Priority Access License frequencies;
implementing secondary markets in Priority Access Licenses; and
optimizing protections for Fixed Satellite Services.
DATES: Submit comments on or before July 15, 2015 and reply comments on
or before August 14, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 12-354,
by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
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.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Powell, Attorney Advisor,
Wireless Bureau--Mobility Division at (202) 418-1613 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 12-354, FCC 15-
47, adopted on April 17, 2015 and released April 21, 2015. 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 full text may also be downloaded at:
www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with
disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Comment Filing Instructions
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
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
[[Page 34120]]
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 Section 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 Second 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 Second
FNPRM, and we anticipate these discussions will continue after this
Second 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 Second 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 Second FNPRM contains proposed new 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 Second Further Public Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
On April 21, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission released a
Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(``Report and Order'' and ``Second FNPRM'') in this proceeding to
establish a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz Band.
While the Report and Order set forth a complete set of rules and
policies related to the establishment of the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service, we determined that a few focused issues remained that would
benefit from further record development. We viewed these issues as
opportunities to optimize the rules we had established. In the Second
FNPRM, the Commission sought focused comment to the specific proposals
and questions discussed below. In addition, we encouraged parties to
converge on practical, multi-stakeholder solutions.
II. Background
In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules for
commercial use of 150 megahertz in the 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz
Band). The 3.5 GHz Band is currently used for Department of Defense
Radar services and commercial fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth
stations (space-to-earth). The creation of a new Citizens Broadband
Radio Service in this band will add much-needed capacity to meet the
ever-increasing demands of wireless innovation. As such, it represents
a major contribution toward the Commission's goal of making 500
megahertz newly available for broadband use and will help to unleash
broadband opportunities for consumers throughout the country,
particularly in areas with overburdened spectrum resources.
The Report and Order also adopts a new approach to spectrum
management, which makes use of advances in computing technology to
facilitate more intensive spectrum sharing: Between commercial and
federal users and among multiple tiers of commercial users. This three-
tiered sharing framework is enabled by a Spectrum Access System (SAS).
The SAS incorporates a dynamic spectrum database and interference
mitigation techniques to manage all three tiers of authorized users
(Incumbent Access, Priority Access, and General Authorized Access
(GAA)). The SAS thus serves as an advanced, highly automated frequency
coordinator across the band--protecting higher tier users from those
beneath and optimizing frequency use to allow maximum capacity and
coexistence in the band.
Incumbent users represent the highest tier in the new 3.5 GHz
framework and receive interference protection from Citizens Broadband
Radio Service users. Protected incumbents include the federal
operations described above, as well as FSS and, for a finite period,
grandfathered terrestrial wireless operations in the 3650-3700 MHz
portion of the band. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service itself
consists of two tiers--Priority Access and GAA--both authorized in any
given location and frequency by an SAS. As the name suggests, Priority
Access operations receive protection from GAA operations. Priority
Access Licenses (PALs), defined as an authorization to use a 10
megahertz channel in a single census tract for three years, will be
assigned in up to 70 megahertz of the 3550-3650 MHz portion of the
band. GAA will be allowed, by rule, throughout the 150 megahertz band.
GAA users will receive no interference protection from other Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users. In general, under this three-tiered
licensing framework incumbent users will be able to operate on a fully
protected basis, while the technical benefits of small cells are
leveraged to facilitate innovative and efficient uses in the 3.5 GHz
Band.
[[Page 34121]]
III. Discussion
A. Defining ``Use'' of PAL Frequencies
In the Report and Order, we determined that allowing opportunistic
access to unused Priority Access channels would serve the public
interest by maximizing the flexibility and utility of the 3.5 GHz Band
for the widest range of potential users. Thus, when Priority Access
rights have not been issued (e.g., due to lack of demand) or the
spectrum is not actually in use by a Priority Access licensee, the SAS
will automatically make that spectrum available for GAA use on a local
and granular basis. While there was substantial support in the record
for an opportunistic use approach generally, we saw wide divergence in
the record to-date regarding specific implementation of our ``use-it-
or-share-it'' rule. We thus sought focused comment on specific options,
rooted in the record, for defining ``use'' by Priority Access
licensees.
Engineering Definition. Several commenters provided versions of an
approach that would rely on an engineering definition of ``use,''
effectively leveraging the SAS to define a boundary that would forbid
GAA access near Priority Access CBSDs. Google maintained that an SAS
can enforce Priority Access user protection areas based on information
such as the Priority Access device's location and technical
characteristics. According to Google, the SAS can protect the Priority
Access device from nearby GAA operations including the aggregate effect
of multiple devices operating in the vicinity. Google, at various
points in the record, suggests versions of this approach with differing
levels of complexity, ranging from use of simple distance-based metrics
to methods based on site-specific propagation modeling. Pierre de Vries
offers another variation of this concept, based on ``interference
limits policy,'' specifically the use of defined ``reception limits''
to specify GAA operation that does not degrade the performance of
Priority Access systems.
According to Pierre de Vries, the Commission could specify the
``maximum allowed resulting signal strength at the protected receiver
and let an SAS calculate the allowed GAA transmit power.'' AT&T
suggests that 3GPP standards for TD-LTE channel occupancy could be used
to determine channel usage. Federated Wireless proposes that GAA
devices could provide the SAS with ``spectrum sensing data'' upon
initial operation and at regular intervals as directed by the SAS.
Federated Wireless recommends that an industry group be convened to
develop the details of such a sensing framework, including the
measurement procedure, reporting protocol, and occupancy and evacuation
times. WISPA proposes that ``any CBSD that has not received 300 end-
user packets within each five-minute interval would be deemed by the
SAS to be not `in use.' '' Other commenters, including Microsoft, PISC,
and Shared Spectrum Company suggest that GAA use be permitted in PAL
spectrum until a Priority Access licensee affirmatively requests access
to its PAL from the SAS. InterDigital suggests that evacuation commands
be signaled to GAA users via the SAS, which will allow for flexible
channel evacuation times.
We seek comment on whether we should adopt an engineering
definition of ``use.'' We ask proponents of this approach to develop,
in detail, an engineering methodology along with technical criteria and
metrics that could be readily implemented by multiple, coordinated
SASs. We also ask proponents to address some specific concerns about
the engineering approach.
First, we note Verizon's observation that there may be occasions
when a vacant channel performs a productive use, for example by serving
as a guard band. Is this claim valid given the technical rules we have
adopted in the Report and Order (e.g., for Category A and Category B
CBSDs)? In cases where a vacant channel is serving as a guard band for
high or full power use, could it be usable for localized communications
at lower powers (e.g., a few milliwatts) or indoor operations?
Second, we speculate that it might be possible for Priority Access
licensees to deploy low-cost CBSDs whose main purpose is to trigger SAS
protections. We further observe that policing ``license savers'' has
historically been a very challenging and administratively costly
endeavor for the Commission. How could we prevent such gaming of the
use-or-share rules, while maintaining our goals of technological
flexibility, administrative simplicity, and light-touch regulation?
Third, the prospect of basing determinations of ``use'' on
aggregate interference metrics raises equitable and coordination
challenges with respect to the GAA tier. As discussed above, reliance
on aggregate interference begs the question of which GAA user will be
denied access when the aggregate threshold is exceeded. Therefore, we
are not comfortable delegating this decision to third parties absent
the adoption of an equitable and non-discriminatory methodology. We
seek comment on whether and how aggregate metrics could be used to
facilitate coordination among multiple SASs? Would the use of aggregate
metrics introduce complexities that would outweigh the potential
benefits of using such metrics? If we were to utilize an approach based
on aggregate interference, how could we overcome these significant
concerns? Alternatively, are there simpler, non-aggregate engineering
metrics available that sidestep our concerns, perhaps with slightly
less optimal spectrum utilization?
Economic Definition. An alternative approach presented in the
record is to define ``use'' from an economic perspective for the
purposes of determining GAA access to PAL spectrum. William Lehr, an
economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, proposes that
we ``view the PAL as an option to exclude GAA usage. PAL licensees
would acquire the right to exclude GAA access.'' Under this approach,
actual operation as a PAL licensee would not be a trigger for excluding
GAA use. A PAL licensee would have the right, but not the obligation,
to exercise its option and thus exclude GAA access from the PAL. The
amount ultimately paid by the licensee would depend on whether the
option is exercised and GAA access is correspondingly restricted. Lehr
elaborates that in a simple implementation, ``A winning bidder (with a
bid of P for a PAL) would expect to owe \1/2\ P when the license is
awarded and \1/2\ P when the licensee elects to exercise the option to
exclude. The opportunity to delay payment would provide winning bidders
with an economic incentive to avoid excluding GAA users unless the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the costs of exercising.'' Lehr
argues that the options approach offers multiple benefits, including:
More efficient spectrum usage and expanded access for commercial users;
increased participation of PAL and GAA commercial users by enabling
better matching of PAL costs with network investment requirements and
by expanding access for GAA; simple and low-cost implementation;
reduced potential risk of PAL spectrum hoarding by PAL; and,
flexibility and consistency with future dynamic shared spectrum policy.
He also addresses some potential concerns, including: Enforceability;
auction revenue impact; foreclosure of GAA use; and mispricing of
options payments. Lehr concludes by addressing some additional
implementation details such as the ``reversibility'' of license
[[Page 34122]]
payments and the possibility of trading option rights on a secondary
market.
We seek comment on whether Lehr's economic construction of ``use''
would be appropriate for determining GAA admission to PAL frequencies
as the concept may provide a potential way to avoid some of the
concerns raised above with respect to an engineering approach. At the
same time, the proposal raises other issues, some of which, as noted
above, Lehr discusses in his comments. We seek comment on these
concerns.
First, we seek comment on hoarding. Would the option framework
encourage or discourage hoarding of PAL spectrum? How does the risk of
hoarding using options compare against the risk of hoarding through
deployment of low-cost CBSDs (discussed above) in an engineering-based
approach?
Second, how should we think about the payments and pricing of PALs?
In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on employing its existing
rules to address upfront, down and final payments by winning bidders,
applications for licenses by winning bidders, as well as the processing
of such applications and default by and disqualification of winning
bidders. The Commission sought comment on whether its existing rules
required any revisions in connection with the conduct of an auction of
PALs. We did not receive a sufficient record to determine what payment,
application, and default rule revisions are necessary in adopting a
less traditional approach to licensing the PAL spectrum. For instance,
if we adopt the economic definition of ``use'' proposed above, would a
50/50 split between initial payments and an option ``strike'' price
provide appropriate incentives for PAL use (or non-use)? We also seek
renewed comment on the other payment, application and default questions
raised in the FNPRM in the event that we adopt one of the proposals
discussed above.
Third, how would the options approach fit not only with our
auctions authority under 47 U.S.C. 309(j) but also decades of
experience in holding auctions? Would an option scheme, such as that
proposed here, be sufficiently distinguishable from the Commission's
prior use of installment payments since under this proposal the full
rights in the license would presumably not be perfected until the time
of a second payment? Would the use of a two-payment option, in
practice, lead to complications similar to those experienced in the
past with installment payments? Is the Commission's existing legal
authority sufficient to permit it to adopt auction and payment rules to
implement this option? We note that our auction authority is limited to
the award of an initial ``license'' (or permit), and that the Act
defines a license not as the right to exclude others but rather as an
``instrument of authorization . . . for the use or operation of
apparatus for transmission . . .'' In the case of the options approach,
could economic performance serve as a legally viable substitute for
traditional build out or service-based performance requirements? Are
there any statutory or other legal considerations that the Commission
should consider in revising its existing payment, application and
default rules to accommodate these proposals?
Hybrid Definition. We also seek comment on any hybrid proposals
that combine aspects of the engineering and economic approaches. For
example, Federated Wireless suggests that Priority Access licensees, in
the context of their proposed sensing framework, should pay a ``nominal
usage fee for those periods that the spectrum [is] actively needed.''
Federated maintains that such a usage fee would incentivize Priority
Access licensees to only reserve spectrum that they intend to use.
Could we think of such a usage fee as a form of ``option'' superimposed
on an engineering definition of ``use''? Do we have authority to impose
such a fee and, if so, how would we set the price? How would we define
the unit volume (i.e., quantity) of ``use'' to which a price could be
applied? Could such a framework make use of an auction, with price set
through competitive bidding, rather than a fee? Could the auction
payment be pro-rated across sub-divisions of the license area (e.g.,
Census Block Groups) to account for use in only a portion of the
geography? What would be the simplest and most practical approach to
implementing a hybrid scheme?
B. Implementing Secondary Markets in Priority Access Licenses
In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (79 FR 31247, June 2,
2014) in this proceeding, we sought 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. We emphasized that auctions would
be our initial assignment methodology, but that the secondary market
could provide a viable means of matching supply and demand in units
more granular than our proposed PAL structure. We noted that the
development of one or more spectrum exchanges, operating pursuant to
our secondary market rules, could facilitate a vibrant and deep market
for PAL rights.
Relatively few commenters addressed the significant issues
associated with the potential application of our secondary market rules
to the transfer of PALs. Commenters who did address the issue were
generally supportive of a framework in which PALs can been traded in
the secondary market. These commenters note that the development of a
robust secondary market in the 3.5 GHz Band would be beneficial for
potential Priority Access Licensees. AT&T, for example, believes that
flexibility in the deployment of PALs will be important to both
commercial operators and other Priority Access Licensees as PAL use may
be short term, e.g., coverage for a large event, or longer term, e.g.,
backhaul or access applications. AT&T maintains that partitioning and a
secondary market mechanism will enable Priority Access licensees to
gain access to additional spectrum as future needs arise. Qualcomm and
WISPA support affording PAL licensees the flexibility to disaggregate
or partition their licenses. In addition, WISPA and Spectrum Bridge
argue that prior Commission approval of secondary market transactions
should not be required given the absence of build-out rules for the
band and a streamlined auction process, among other reasons. Instead,
WISPA argues that written notification to the Commission and SAS would
be sufficient to ensure that appropriate contact information is
available in the event of harmful interference. TIA also supports
application of the Commission's secondary market rules and emphasizes
the need for secondary leasing arrangements, which will ``allow
providers to adjust to changing market circumstances in order to
enhance their service quality.'' Federated Wireless, on the other hand,
opposes application of the secondary market rules noting that ``[t]he
development of secondary markets to manage geographical subsets of PALs
takes the control of spectrum management and enforcement out of the
hands of the SAS and the FCC.''
Some commenters support the development of one or more spectrum
exchanges, operating pursuant to our secondary market rules, which
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
[[Page 34123]]
customizable, fluid basis. Cantor proposes a spectrum exchange managed
by an independent third party and modeled on platforms which exist for
the trading of other U.S. Government securities. Cantor envisions that
such a spectrum exchange would integrate the SAS functions in order to
provide market participants with use right information and to resolve
any interference issues that might arise. In addition, Cantor explains
that a spectrum exchange should include: ``(1) Universal access to
information; (2) dynamic transactional access by and among authorized
market participants; (3) real-time reporting of 3.5 GHz spectrum
resource use right utilization; and (4) market maintenance.''
InterDigital suggests that the SAS could act as a spectrum exchange to
manage secondary market transactions. 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.
We believe that it is in the public interest to develop a fuller
record on the implications of applying our secondary market rules to
the 3.5 GHz Band ecosystem. While we agree with commenters on the
record thus far that application of our secondary market rules will
increase liquidity of the spectrum as well as reduce costs and increase
flexibility of use, we seek additional information on how we should
implement the rules with respect to the 3.5 GHz Band. 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. For
example, regarding partitioning and disaggregation, our initial view is
to prohibit such further segmentation of PALs given their relatively
small size (census tracts) and limited duration (three years) as well
as the availability of significant GAA spectrum in all license areas.
Some commenters, however, urge the Commission to allow partitioning and
disaggregation of PALs. We seek comment on this proposal. Would
partitioning and disaggregation of PALs benefit the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service or would such flexibility prove administratively
burdensome and unnecessary given the size and duration of these
licenses? We also seek comment on the potential use of spectrum
exchanges to facilitate the transfer of PALs in the secondary market.
Would such exchanges be mandatory or could the existing Part 1 rules,
in combination with the SAS framework adopted in the Report and Order,
above, be sufficient to allow voluntary development of exchanges to
trade PALs? We are particularly interested in modifications to our
rules that could reduce transaction costs and allow increased
automation of transfer and lease applications. What legal, technical,
or logistical issues should we consider?
For secondary markets purposes, we also seek comment on the
application of our spectrum aggregation limits for PAL licensees.
Should we use the attribution standard applied in our existing rules to
transactions involving mobile wireless licenses for commercial use? We
also seek comment on how this standard can reflect the need for a
streamlined process, potentially through a database administrator, for
transactions involving PALs. In addition, we seek comment on the
application of our spectrum aggregation limit in the context of the
initial licensing of PALs, including how any unique characteristics of
PAL auctions, such as the need for streamlined processing, should be
taken into account in resolving this issue.
C. Optimizing Protections for FSS
1. In-Band Protection of FSS in the 3650-3700 MHz Band
We raise five topics for consideration in the Second FNPRM with
respect to the methodology and parameters for protecting in-band FSS
earth stations, in addition to the adoption of Section 96.17 as
described in section III(G)(2) of the Report and Order.
Calculation Methodology. As noted in the Report and Order, we agree
with Google that the Commission's example methodology in the 3650-3700
MHz proceeding is a useful starting point for coexistence analysis. We
seek comment on the use of this methodology by the SAS to calculate
exclusion distances for CBSDs with respect to individual FSS earth
stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band. Is the methodology accurate? Does
it require further specification?
Propagation Modeling. While we recognize the challenge of effective
propagation modeling for band sharing, we believe that research in
propagation path loss models in recent years has advanced considerably
and offers an increasing array of practical and realistic tools and
methods for predicting path loss and determining practical bounds on
prediction errors. However, despite these advances, there are many
different propagation models, with little integration of these models
across diverse environments. Many existing models have been tailored
for specific and diversely different environments. A research article
by Phillips, Sicker, and Grunwald illustrates the scope of the
challenge as well as the significant benefit of improved statistical
analysis of path loss prediction. They described and implemented ``30
propagation models of varying popularity that have been proposed over
the last 70 years'' and found ``. . . the landscape of path loss models
is precarious . . . we recommend the use of a few well-accepted and
well-performing standard models in scenarios where a priori predictions
are needed and argue for the use of well-validated, measurement-driven
methods whenever possible.'' We agree with this finding and believe
that improved statistical analysis of propagation path loss can lead to
significant improvements in shared spectrum utilization and
interference prediction and mitigation. We propose that all SAS
Administrators use an agreed upon set of propagation modeling methods,
using models that can be tuned with measurements. We seek comment on
what propagation model(s) are best suited for SAS-based protections of
FSS. We solicit measurement results that validate model parameters for
combined short range and long range propagation scenarios, involving
indoor and outdoor propagation channels. What model(s) are the most
accurate in accounting for urban clutter and other environmental
factors such as rain attenuation, ducting, etc., and most suitable for
modeling statistical variations to support analysis--including possible
Monte-Carlo analysis--of many potential interfering sources? In order
to generate the same exclusion distances between CBSDs and any
individual FSS earth stations in 3650-3700 MHz, we expect each SAS to
enforce the same minimum separation distance and we tentatively
conclude that each SAS must use the same propagation model. We seek
comment and objective analysis from anyone who believes otherwise.
Interference Protection Criteria. We agree with commenters that, in
principle, an Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) of aggregate
interference power at the FSS earth station receiver could be an
appropriate interference protection criterion (IPC) for establishing
interference limits of FSS earth stations. However, our equitable and
competitive concerns about using aggregate limits is noted above and
discussed further below. Were we to adopt an aggregate level, we
believe it should be based not only on the theoretical thermal noise
floor (I/N), but should also account for the measurement of receiver
performance degradation when presented with both
[[Page 34124]]
interfering signals and wanted desired signals (C/(I+N)). We seek
comment on the appropriate FSS earth station interference protection
criteria, the appropriate probability of such threshold not being
exceeded, and supporting field measurements to validate such proposals.
Commenters should assume the use of appropriate, commercially available
earth station receiver input filtering to limit the receiver bandwidth
to the authorized spectrum.
We propose that co-channel Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device
(CBSD) and End User Device signal levels up to this threshold be
permissible, at the antenna output after FSS earth station antenna gain
and discrimination per section 25.209(a)(3) of our rules. We propose
that the SAS will calculate the distance, bearing, and elevation
differences between registered FSS earth stations and each CBSD that
requests activation. The SAS will then authorize CBSD activation if it
is at or beyond the permissible distance, and deny CBSD activation if
is less than the permissible distance from the earth station. How
should existing link budget margins be treated in establishing value(s)
for interference protection criteria, where such margins are built in
to FSS earth station link budgets to account for rain attenuation, and
other impairments? What is the statistical and temporal correlation of
environmental effects that may not be independent nor occur
simultaneously (e.g., stable atmosphere anomalous ducting, occurring
naturally at different times than convective atmospheric heavy rain)?
We also invite comment as to whether we can establish a default earth
station protection area based on an assumed minimum earth station
receiving system gain-to-temperature ratio (G/T) and minimum antenna
elevation angle, and what the assumed values of the G/T and elevation
angle should be. CBSD operation outside of such a default protection
area would be assumed not to cause interference to earth stations
receiving in the 3700-4200 MHz band. Such a default protection area
would be adjusted by the SAS to accommodate the actual operating
characteristics of earth stations that are registered in order to
achieve additional protection.
Avoiding Policy Concerns Related to Aggregate Interference
Protection Criteria (IPC). We seek comment on fair and non-
discriminatory methods of adjudicating demands for increased spectrum
use at a location that would result in the IPC for an FSS earth station
receiver being exceeded. SIA has argued that protection zones may be
insufficient if densely deployed CBSD and End User Devices outside of
these areas cause aggregate interference thresholds to be exceeded.
They argue that unless the Commission is prepared to periodically
revisit and enlarge protection zones to address such events, it will
need to either set deployment density constraints or build in a
significant margin in calculating protection zones to account for
aggregate interference. We seek comment on solutions that avoid
discriminatory caps on CBSD service deployment, while protecting FSS
earth stations from harmful interference. For example, are there
probabilistic ``bilateral'' approximations (between an individual CBSD
and an earth station) of an aggregate metric that address our concerns
about the use of aggregate interference protections while also avoiding
worst-case assumptions about interference from unlikely or infeasible
quantities of nearby CBSDs? To the extent that commenters do support an
aggregated EPFD limit, we encourage solutions to avoid a ``land rush''
when balancing service demands that exceed interference limits, if they
occur. How could such IPC criteria be implemented by CBSDs and the SAS?
End User Devices. Recognizing that CBSDs have geo-location
requirements and End User Devices do not, the location of End User
Devices and the propagation channel between such devices and FSS earth
stations to be protected are indeterminate. We expect CBSDs to be
deployed such that terrain, buildings, and other forms of clutter can
be accounted for and will provide a certain amount of propagation loss
between the CBSD and a nearby FSS earth station to ensure incumbent
service protection. However, End User Devices served by such CBSDs may
be portable or mobile and be situated within line-of-sight or near-
line-of-sight propagation, with much less propagation loss between the
End User Device and FSS earth station than the propagation channel from
the CBSD to FSS earth station. The indeterminate location of the End
User Devices and the uncertain propagation channel between them and FSS
earth stations make it challenging to ensure protection of nearby FSS
earth stations. Moreover, assuming worst case line-of-sight propagation
from End User Devices in determining allowable locations for CBSDs can
lead to unnecessarily large protection distances. We seek comment on
reasonable methods for ensuring that the mobility, location, and
orientation of End User Devices are managed effectively to avoid
excessive interference to in-band FSS earth stations, while avoiding a
mandate for geo-location requirements on End User Devices.
2. Out-of-Band Protection of C-Band FSS Earth Stations
As discussed above, we recognize that our stringent out-of-band
emissions limit of 70 + 10 Log (P), i.e., -40 dBm/MHz, for CBSDs leaves
potential room for more optimization. On the one hand, additional
protection may benefit C-Band earth stations when CBSDs or End User
Devices are located nearby. On the other, -40 dBm/MHz may prove overly
stringent in situations where Citizens Broadband Radio Service
operations are distant from FSS earth stations, resulting in reduced
usability of frequencies near the 3700 MHz band edge. We believe the
registration and protection mechanisms of the SAS, in place of an
across-the-board out-of-band limit, could provide a great deal more
flexibility and protection to benefit FSS operators and Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users alike. Therefore, we seek further comment
on whether and how the same IPC used to ensure protection from co-
channel emitters could also be used with respect to out-of-band
interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service to C-Band FSS earth
stations. To the extent that many different stakeholders may find such
an approach appealing, we encourage industry discussions that could
lead to a consensus recommendation.
We seek comment on whether the received power interference
protection criteria for out-of-band FSS earth stations should be the
same or different from co-channel protections. Can a default protection
area be defined based on these criteria and specific assumptions about
FSS earth station receiving system G/T and minimum antenna elevation
angle? For example, a C-Band licensee with an earth station having a
low elevation angle above heavily populated areas may desire protection
beyond that afforded with the required out-of-band emission limit. The
licensee may register the earth station, including the antenna gain
pattern. This information could be used by an SAS to calculate the
requisite protection distance near the main beam to enable closer CBSD
operation in the back of the earth station where there is higher
antenna discrimination and ensure that the IPC is not exceeded.
Moreover, we agree with Google that market incentives may be
feasible to encourage industry to deploy radios with improved (lower)
adjacent emissions and thereby have greater access to spectrum.
However, we do not see how this can be accomplished
[[Page 34125]]
within the current regime of equipment authorization subject to the
Commission's Part 2 requirements. We seek comment on how this can
practically be achieved without burdensome changes to equipment
authorization requirements that do not currently require precise
emission measurements below the regulatory thresholds (i.e., the noise
floor of measurement equipment configurations often mask the emission
performance of a device below the pass/fail regulatory limit). One
possibility would be to define a small number of classes of devices,
that are distinguished by increasingly stringent OOBE limits (e.g.,
Class X complies with -40 dBm/MHz, Class Y with -45 or -50 dBm/MHz,
Class Z with -60 dBm/MHz, etc.). The device class would be tied to the
device's FCC ID, and this information communicated to the SAS, which
could provide protection commensurate with the class of the device. We
seek comment on whether such a scenario would work, and if so, what
levels of OOBE limits should be specified and how would those
correspond to protection distance. At what point would lower OOBE
limits cease to offer additional benefit, due to other effects such as
FCC earth station receiver blocking? We also seek comment on whether we
would need to make changes in our equipment authorization procedures
and changes to adopted SAS rules.
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 Second 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 Second FNPRM, and we anticipate these
discussions will continue after this Second 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 Second
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.
[ballot] 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.
[ballot] 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 envelopes
must be disposed of before entering the building. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
[cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be
available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
To request information in accessible formats (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-
0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be
downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov.
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules adopted and proposed in this document,
respectively. The IRFA is set forth in
[[Page 34126]]
Appendix C of the Report and Order. Written public comments are
requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with
the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to the Report
and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as set forth
above, and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this
Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the FRFA and IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
This Second FNPRM contains proposed new information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment
on the information collection requirements contained in this document,
as required by PRA. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how we might
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-14495 Filed 6-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P