Proposed Rule2021-23335
4.9 GHz Band
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 29, 2021
Effective
November 29, 2021
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Eighth Further Notice), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) seeks comment on the structure of the 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) band in an effort to maximize public safety use while exploring options that could spur innovation, improve coordination, and drive down costs in the band.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 207 (Friday, October 29, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 207 (Friday, October 29, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59934-59947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23335]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 90
[WP Docket No. 07-100; FCC 21-106; FR ID 54623]
4.9 GHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Eighth
Further Notice), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or
FCC) seeks comment on the structure of the 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) band
in an effort to maximize public safety use while exploring options that
could spur innovation, improve coordination, and drive down costs in
the band.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before November 29,
2021; and reply comments on or before December 28, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WP Docket No. 07-100,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent 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.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express,
and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC
20554.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large
[[Page 59935]]
print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ceaefefb9bcb8cceaefefa2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81e7e2e2b4b1b5c1e7e2e2afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a>
or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Jonathan Markman of the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-7090 or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#367c595857425e5758187b57445d5b57587650555518515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="602a0f0e011408010e4e2d01120b0d010e200603034e070f16">[email protected]</span></a>, or Thomas Eng of the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau, Policy and Licensing Division, at (202) 418-
0019 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9fcbf7f0f2feecb1daf1f8dff9fcfcb1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="65310d0a0804164b200b02250306064b020a13">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of Commission's Eighth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in WP Docket No. 07-100; FCC 21-
106, adopted on September 30, 2021 and released on October 1, 2021. The
full text of the Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including all appendices, is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center,
45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from
the Commission's website at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-106A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-106A1.pdf</a>. Alternative formats are available for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by
sending an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92d4d1d1a7a2a6d2f4f1f1bcf5fde4">[email protected]</a> or calling the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY).
Synopsis
I. Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Overview
1. In this Eighth Further Notice, we propose to revisit the
structure of the 4.9 GHz band to maximize public safety use while
exploring options that could spur innovation, improve coordination, and
drive down costs in the band. Specifically, we seek to establish a
nationwide framework for coordinating access to the band. We believe
that a comprehensive and integrated approach that emphasizes public
safety needs represents a superior path to unlocking the potential of
the 4.9 GHz band rather than pursuing a state-centered approach that
could lead to a patchwork of incompatible uses. Similarly, we believe a
nationwide approach will promote a robust equipment market, drive down
prices and costs, spur innovation, and increase the likelihood of
interoperable communications and consistent interference protection. We
also explore potentially allowing non-public safety use of the band to
encourage a more robust and innovative equipment market, provided that
non-public safety use can occur without causing harmful interference to
public safety operations in the band. As part of this vision, we seek
comment on how best to meet the needs of public safety in this band and
on establishing a database that would contain consistent and reliable
information about what spectrum is available and where and how it is
being used. Our goal is to provide greater certainty and predictability
to stakeholders seeking to plan and invest in 4.9 GHz deployments and
enable spectrum users to coordinate shared use of the band to avoid
conflicts. In addition, we seek comment on a range of technical issues,
eligibility issues, and other measures intended to increase use of the
band.
2. We note that this proceeding has an extensive record, which we
intend to draw upon as needed to develop a cohesive set of nationwide
rules to maximize use of the band, including protection for public
safety operations. We encourage commenting parties to assist us by
providing input on the new ideas proposed herein and by submitting
additional new proposals or by modifying previous proposals. To the
extent that commenters wish to reiterate any proposals that have been
previously introduced into the record, commenters should demonstrate
that the proposals align with our approach and priorities for the band
as described in this Eighth Further Notice. We preserve our flexibility
to consider and adopt proposals from prior stages of this proceeding
that the Commission has not specifically rejected.
B. Ensuring Public Safety Use of the Band
3. As noted above, the band is currently home to 3,541 licensees.
We recognize that these licenses represent a significant investment of
scarce public safety resources, so as we explore ways to enhance the
usage of the band, we are cognizant that we must protect these
investments.
1. Protection for Public Safety Licensees
4. We seek comment in this Eighth Further Notice on how to ensure
public safety licensees have efficient and interference-free access to
the band. Numerous commenters have addressed this issue, and several
have expressed support for various approaches to protecting public
safety licensees from interference. For instance, the National Public
Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) argues that interference
protection, whether ``done manually or through some potential future
automated frequency coordination approach,'' must be incorporated into
the management of the band to protect incumbents ``against interference
and signal degradation.'' We agree, and we tentatively conclude that
incumbent public safety licensees as well as future public safety users
should be protected from harmful interference, both in the near term
and on a forward-looking basis, subject to other requirements and
conditions that we may adopt in this proceeding.
5. NPSTC recommends ``use of the threshold degradation approach in
the ANSI/TIA-10 [American National Standards Institute/
Telecommunications Industry Association] standard to minimize
interference to incumbent fixed operations,'' which NPSTC notes
``encompass many of the public safety operations'' in the band. We seek
comment on the feasibility of NPSTC's proposal to use the TIA-10
standard to minimize interference to incumbents that deploy fixed
facilities. Are there alternatives to the TIA-10 standard which could
be used to guard against interference between licensees deploying fixed
point-to-point (P-P) links and point-to-multipoint (P-MP) hubs? Under
Part 90, contour overlap analysis is often the basis for determining if
an applicant's proposed facilities would likely cause interference to
an incumbent operator. Would contour overlap analysis requirements be
useful for certain 4.9 GHz band deployments, and if so, what service
and interference contour values would be appropriate? We also seek
comment on what standards would be appropriate for incumbents deploying
non-fixed, geographic-area operations or ad-hoc temporary operations.
Commenters are encouraged to address how their proposals would support
our tentative conclusion to protect both existing and future public
safety licensees in the band as well as interact with potential new
non-public safety operations in the band, with specific attention to
the licensing and sharing models addressed below.
2. Licensing Database
6. In the Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Sixth
Further Notice) (83 FR 20011), the Commission stated that it believed
many concerns public safety users have about the 4.9 GHz band could be
addressed if more complete technical information were available to all
affected parties. We therefore seek comment on collecting more granular
data on 4.9 GHz operations in our licensing database and combining that
with a formal
[[Page 59936]]
coordination structure to improve interference mitigation efforts and
bolster public safety confidence in the band. Today, licensees in the
4.9 GHz band only provide our Universal Licensing Service (ULS)
database with control points and geographic area of operations. More
robust information on public safety operations in the band could help
improve predictability for public safety operations and facilitate
robust, non-interfering access to the band for non-public safety
entities. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that additional
information is required, and we seek comment on whether to continue
using ULS or to transition to a third-party licensing database to
accommodate the additional information. For instance, in the Sixth
Further Notice, the Commission proposed to maintain ULS as the
comprehensive licensing database for the 4.9 GHz band and proposed to
modify ULS as necessary to accept the necessary licensing data. Since
ULS can readily accommodate additional information, we seek comment on
these proposals. We seek comment on requiring incumbents and future
applicants to supply complete microwave path data for links, and to
license base stations (currently authorized under the geographic
license scheme) on a site-by-site basis.
7. In the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission proposed ``to
require incumbent licensees and new applicants to provide technical
information that will enhance frequency coordination and help mitigate
the possibility of interference, while permitting more new users.'' We
seek comment on this proposal to require incumbents and future
applicants in the 4.9 GHz band to submit more information in ULS. Would
collecting this data improve the level of interference protection
licensees receive in the band? We seek comment on whether collecting
this data would create a more predictable and transparent spectrum
environment for any current and future users of the band, including
potential non-public safety users. To what extent does not having this
data currently listed in ULS lead to additional interference or
uncertainty in the band? In particular, should licensees specify
channels they are using for their operations? In the Sixth Further
Notice, the Commission also proposed to add the 4.9 GHz band to the ULS
microwave schedule for P-P, P-MP, and proposed to ``uncouple base and
mobile stations from geographic licenses and instead require that base
and mobile technical parameters be entered on the existing location and
technical data schedules.'' We seek comment on these ULS schedule
proposals and ask commenters to address whether ULS's existing
schedules are sufficient for collecting the additional data.
8. What is the burden on incumbents and applicants who would need
to submit detailed site-based information, and does the benefit of
having additional technical data listed in ULS outweigh that burden?
For instance, the Commission estimates the average burden for each
applicant completing FCC Form 601 and associated schedules to be 1.25
hours, which includes ``the time to read the instructions, look through
existing records, gather and maintain required data, and actually
complete and review the form or response.'' Is this estimate accurate
for incumbents or new applicants who would need to submit the
additional technical information described above with their Form 601
application? What is the interplay of these potential new data
collection requirements with potential sharing mechanisms, discussed
below, that would facilitate shared public safety and non-public safety
use of the band?
9. Are there alternatives to collecting additional technical data
in ULS for the 4.9 GHz band? For instance, would a database managed by
a third party offer advantages over requiring incumbents and new
applicants to submit additional information via ULS? If so, what are
those advantages and what would be the cost of having a third party
administrator manage a database to collect the information needed to
increase interference protection in the 4.9 GHz band? How would the
transition from ULS to a third-party database be implemented? Who would
pay that cost and how would those costs impact public safety given that
public safety entities are subject to no filing fees in ULS? In other
words, would a third-party managed database increase costs on public
safety licensees in the band and would those costs outweigh any derived
benefits? Commenters that support the use of a third party band manager
are encouraged to consider how such a system could work with the
various methods of introducing non-public safety operations to the band
described below. If we were to pursue this option, who would be
suitable to manage the database? How should we select the
administrator?
10. Regardless of whether ULS or a third-party database is used to
collect technical detail on 4.9 GHz deployments, incumbent licensees
with geographic licenses would need time to submit the requisite
information. In the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission proposed
giving incumbent geographic licensees one year to identify in ULS P-P
links, P-MP hubs, fixed receivers, base stations, and mobiles that are
not currently licensed site-by-site. The Commission sought comment on
whether the status of a license should become secondary if the
incumbent licensee does not meet the one-year deadline. Most parties
commenting on this issue concurred with this time period. We seek
comment on whether a one-year timetable is still appropriate for
incumbent geographic licensees to submit technical data on their
deployments into a database, and whether any deterrent, such as the
risk of forfeiting primary status, is needed to ensure compliance. On
the other hand, given that the purpose of collecting additional
technical data is to provide increased interference protection to
incumbent licensees, does this benefit provide sufficient incentive for
licensees to comply with a timetable requirement?
3. Interoperability
11. The record generated in response to the Sixth Further Notice
demonstrates that the public safety community employs this band for a
wide variety of uses. As we strive to develop a national framework for
this band, we seek to encourage uses that enable collaboration and
mutual aid between multiple licensees, for instance, in response to
larger incidents and emergencies. To that end, we seek comment on
whether to adopt any technical standards for the 4.9 GHz band that
would promote interoperability in the band. In other private land
mobile radio (PLMR) frequency bands used by public safety, the
Commission designates certain channels for interoperability
communications, and in some instances, it also specifies technical
requirements for equipment designed to transmit on those channels. The
goal is to ensure that public safety officials from different agencies
can communicate on designated interoperability channels regardless of
the make or model of their radio equipment.
12. We seek comment on whether any interoperability requirements
are needed for the 4.9 GHz band. For example, should we designate a
band segment or certain channels in the band for interoperable
communications? If so, how much spectrum would sufficiently address
public safety needs and how should interoperable spectrum be
administered to optimize those resources for their primary purpose? For
example, should state interoperability coordinators, regional planning
[[Page 59937]]
committees, or individual agencies administer the use of interoperable
4.9 GHz spectrum? In addition, if we were to set aside spectrum for
public safety interoperability purposes, should we also specify
technical standards for equipment intended to operate on those
channels? Would such a requirement invigorate or stifle innovation and
equipment options? Parties discussing interoperability for the 4.9 GHz
band should explain if and how the benefits of any such requirements
outweigh associated costs. How should interoperability requirements
apply to non-public safety entities if we expand eligibility for the
band beyond public safety (as discussed below)? What technical and
licensing conditions should apply to non-public safety licensees to
ensure interoperable and interference-free operations? How could the
introduction of non-public safety operations into the band help foster
a broader interoperable device marketplace? Should we allow the
marketplace to adopt voluntary interoperability standards in lieu of
requirements specified in the Commission's rules? If so, how could a
voluntary industry standard promote interoperability between all
eligible users of the band?
4. Public Safety Priority and Preemption
13. An important element of public safety spectrum use,
particularly where spectrum is shared with non-public safety users, is
ensuring that public safety will have immediate and reliable access to
spectrum whenever and wherever it is required for mission-critical
operations. We therefore seek comment on affording public safety
licensees priority access to the 4.9 GHz band, including the ability to
preempt any non-public safety operations that may be authorized in the
band.
14. The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-
International, Inc. (APCO) states in its 2015 report that, while it
supports an approach to the band which fosters development in the
commercial sector of ``more cost effective equipment,'' any such
solution must afford ``priority and preemption for public safety users
in a shared environment.'' We note that there are other instances where
public safety users are afforded priority network access and the
ability to preempt the operations of other users in emergency
circumstances. If we open the 4.9 GHz band to non-public safety users,
as discussed below, we seek comment on whether public safety priority
and preemption should be elements of any sharing model we ultimately
adopt. We seek comment on this approach and how best to accomplish that
goal in the 4.9 GHz band.
15. For instance, we seek comment below on whether excess capacity
leasing or a dynamic spectrum sharing system could effectively enable
sharing between public safety and non-public safety. If so, to what
extent and by what method could these sharing models ensure priority
and preemption for public safety operations? Are priority and
preemption sufficient tools to ensure public safety mission-critical
operations access to the band under an excess capacity or dynamic
spectrum sharing scheme? How would priority and preemption work under
other spectrum sharing models?
16. If we adopt rules for public safety priority and preemption, we
seek comment on the types of mission-critical public safety operations
that should have priority over other public safety as well as non-
public safety operations. Given the wide range of possible deployments
in the 4.9 GHz band, both geographically and in terms of type of use,
how should public safety licensees with overlapping operating areas
determine priority and preemption rights and whether certain
deployments or types of communications should have priority? For
instance, should emergency mobile deployments at an incident scene be
able to preempt fixed P-P links that may be operating on a primary
basis? Does the primary status of a license or deployment have any
bearing on priority and preemption? How do two overlapping licensees
that both have primary status determine priority if they seek to use
the same channel at the same time? We seek comment on how to ensure
that mission-critical communications maintain consistent priority, no
matter what deployment form they may take.
17. Finally, we seek comment on the technical feasibility of
building priority and preemption algorithms into 4.9 GHz networks and
equipment to enable authorized public safety users to obtain priority
and preempt use of the spectrum if necessary. In contrast to instances
where public safety and non-public safety operate on a single shared
network, 4.9 GHz licensees operate on disparate networks. How does this
affect the availability of priority and preemption solutions? Is there
a demand in the equipment marketplace for priority and preemption
tools, and if not, should we require 4.9 GHz band equipment to include
such tools? What equipment security requirements could we impose to
avoid unauthorized signaling of priority? What would be the cost of
incorporating priority and preemption algorithms into equipment?
C. Fostering Greater Public Safety Use of the Band
18. Regardless of what eligibility rules or sharing model we may
ultimately adopt, we anticipate that the future of this band includes a
robust public safety presence. We tentatively conclude that a
nationwide, coordinated approach to the management of the spectrum will
not only increase the utility of this band for public safety, but will
also promote greater public safety use of the band by providing greater
certainty with regards to the availability of the spectrum and
interference protection. In this section, we explore ways to make the
spectrum environment more attractive to existing and future public
safety users.
1. Frequency Coordination
19. We seek comment on requiring formal frequency coordination in
the 4.9 GHz band to support interference protection and increase public
safety confidence in using the band. As noted above, our rules
currently allow licensees in the 4.9 GHz band to deploy base stations,
mobile units, and temporary fixed stations anywhere within the
licensee's jurisdiction without formal frequency coordination. Rather,
our rules direct licensees to informally coordinate with other users in
the band by cooperating in ``the selection and use of channels in order
to reduce interference and make the most effective use of the
authorized facilities.''
20. The Commission previously contemplated frequency coordination
as a means to encourage increased public safety use of the band. In
2009, the Commission noted that, ``[w]ithout a specific coordination
procedure in place, interference issues may arise between co-primary
permanent fixed stations or other co-primary users of the band.'' In
the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission stated that ``neither self-
coordination nor a notice-and-response coordination procedure is likely
to be sufficient to ensure interference protection to primary users in
a mixed use environment.'' APCO argues in its 2015 report that ``new
frequency coordination procedures designed to improve usage,
performance, and interference protection'' would increase interest in
the band by the public safety community and ``provide incentives for
equipment vendors to direct investment into this market.''
21. Therefore, in this Eighth Further Notice, we tentatively
conclude that some form of formal frequency coordination, whether
through a coordination method discussed in this subsection and/or a
dynamic spectrum
[[Page 59938]]
sharing model as discussed further below, is necessary to support
interference protection and increase public safety confidence in using
the band. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Would mandatory
frequency coordination provide certainty and incentives for public
safety to increase its use of the band? Would it encourage equipment
manufacturers to invest in developing new and low cost equipment for
the band? If we adopt frequency coordination requirements, should they
also apply to applications for non-public safety uses, insofar as such
uses are permitted? If so, what criteria should coordinators apply to
ensure that proposed non-public safety uses will not interfere with
public safety operations?
22. If we adopt formal frequency coordination for the 4.9 GHz band,
what type of frequency coordination would most effectively promote
innovative use of the band while protecting against interference? In
certain spectrum bands under Part 90, applicants seeking to license a
new frequency or modify existing facilities must demonstrate that their
application was coordinated by a Commission-certified frequency
coordinator. The certified frequency coordinator recommends the most
appropriate frequency for the proposed operation. Another type of
frequency coordination that does not rely on certified frequency
coordinators is used for applicants in the fixed microwave service.
Part 101 requires that an applicant coordinate proposed facilities with
existing licensees and other applicants whose facilities could be
affected by the new proposal, i.e., ``notice-and-comment'' type
frequency coordination. We seek comment on whether Part 90 type
frequency coordination, Part 101 type frequency coordination, or a
combination of the two would be best suited for the 4.9 GHz band.
Should Part 101 type coordination apply only to P-P or P-MP deployments
in the 4.9 GHz band since those deployments are similar to deployments
licensed under Part 101 of the Commission's rules, or could it apply to
additional deployments? What are the costs associated with Part 101
type coordination, including the time and effort to identify all
incumbent licensees who must be notified, and how do those costs
compare to Part 90-type frequency coordination? Do the benefits of
frequency coordination outweigh any associated costs? Furthermore,
below we seek comment on a Spectrum Access System (SAS) managed shared
access model to facilitate non-public safety use of the band.
Therefore, we seek comment on whether a SAS model could be used either
in lieu of, or in parallel with, frequency coordination methods
discussed above.
23. Next, we seek comment on how formal frequency coordination
would apply to temporary or ad hoc deployments in the 4.9 GHz band. In
particular, we seek comment on how to balance the need for public
safety agencies to deploy temporary or ad hoc operations while
protecting licensees with permanent deployments from interference. We
also seek comment on what interference standard(s) should be the basis
for any frequency coordination method adopted for the 4.9 GHz band. We
seek comment on whether to incorporate the technical standard for
frequency coordination into our rules, or rely on either an industry-
agreed standard or frequency coordinator consensus. What should be the
process for permitting Commission review of any disputes arising from
the frequency coordinator's actions, and how should Commission staff
resolve such disputes?
24. If we adopt a coordination approach for the 4.9 GHz band that
requires use of certified frequency coordinators, what criteria should
the Commission use to certify coordinators? Should eligibility be
limited to coordinators already approved to coordinate Public Safety
Pool frequencies, or should it be open to other parties? Should
prospective coordinators be required to demonstrate a specific level of
technical expertise with respect to 4.9 GHz operations in order to be
certified?
2. Nationwide Band Manager
25. We seek comment on the concept of designating a single entity
to serve as a nationwide band manager or licensee for the 4.9 GHz band.
Assigning spectrum management responsibility to a single nationwide
entity might simplify the task of developing a national framework for
the band, and has been supported by some commenters. However, this
approach would also represent a marked departure from the approach that
we have applied to the band up to this point, and it raises a variety
of significant policy, legal, and operational questions.
26. We seek comment on the concept of designating a single
nationwide band manager that would be responsible for developing a
nationwide framework for the band. For example, the Commission has
adopted band manager rules for the 700 MHz Guard Bands, and the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has permitted certain entities to
engage in band manager activities via waiver request for the 220 MHz
band. What entities would be appropriate for such a role in the 4.9 GHz
band? How would the Commission differentiate between competing
proposals to become the single nationwide band manager? If we were to
pursue a nationwide band manager approach, we seek comment on
appropriate rules or guidelines to define how the band manager would be
authorized to select and manage users of the band. Would a band
manager's duties be limited to merely developing a nationwide
framework, or would a band manager take a more active role in
evaluating applications? Would a band manager decide who can use the
spectrum? Should we impose reporting requirements on a 4.9 GHz band
manager, and, if so, what should those reports address and how often
should they be filed with the Commission? What would be an appropriate
level of compensation for the band manager? If the Commission moves
forward with dynamic spectrum sharing, could one or more dynamic
spectrum sharing system administrators assume the role of band manager,
and would such designation be appropriate?
27. We also seek comment on establishing a national license for the
4.9 GHz band. If we were to adopt this approach, what rights and
responsibilities over the band should be associated with the national
license, and what rights should be reserved for state, local, tribal,
or regional public safety licensees? As proposed above, we envision
that incumbent licensees in the band would retain spectrum rights and
would be entitled to protection of their facilities. Would all other
spectrum rights be invested in the national licensee? If yes, what
obligation should the national licensee have to ensure access to the
band by sub-national public safety entities? If we were to allow public
safety and non-public safety sharing of the band as discussed further
below, would the national licensee be responsible for management or
oversight of the sharing process? Finally, if we were to establish a
national license, what process should we establish for accepting
applications and selecting a licensee? What qualifications or
attributes should be required to be eligible to apply for the license?
If more than one entity applied to be the national licensee, how would
the Commission adjudicate between competing applications?
3. Regional Planning Committees
28. Our current 4.9 GHz licensing regime is loosely based on a
voluntary
[[Page 59939]]
regional planning framework. Section 90.1211(a) of the Commission's
rules provides that each Regional Planning Committee (RPC) may submit a
plan with guidelines to be used for sharing 4.9 GHz spectrum within the
RPC region. The rules list elements to be included in regional plans
and provide instructions for plan modifications. Although the
Commission originally set a deadline for all RPCs to submit 4.9 GHz
regional plans, it subsequently stayed the deadline and made plan
submission voluntary. To date, only 10 out of 55 RPC regions have
submitted 4.9 GHz regional plans.
29. In the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission stated its belief
that RPCs should play an integral role in shaping use of the 4.9 GHz
band through regional planning. The Commission proposed to allow RPCs
to submit 4.9 GHz band regional plans, which could include region-
specific technical guidelines. APCO noted that the Sixth Report and
Order (85 FR 76469) abandoned these proposals, and in the latest round
of comments, NPSTC and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) suggest that active RPCs could serve
a valuable role in helping to manage the 4.9 GHz band in their regions.
30. As we endeavor to establish a nationwide spectrum management
framework for the 4.9 GHz band, we seek comment on whether RPCs should
play a continued or expanded role. Should we continue to make the
filing of regional plans optional, or should we require RPCs to file
regional plans? In light of the fact that only 10 of 55 RPCs have filed
voluntary plans, what resources would RPCs need to ensure that plans
were filed for all regions? If we were to adopt frequency coordination
requirements for the band as discussed above, would RPCs have the
technical expertise and resources to serve as coordinators? To what
degree is regional planning consistent with our goal of establishing a
national framework for management of the band that would encourage
development of standardized equipment and promote interoperability?
Should we develop a standardized template to ensure that all regional
plans are consistent and support a nationwide approach? Should we allow
RPCs to file alternative regional plans that vary from a standardized
approach? In the proposal that it filed in 2013, NPSTC stated that ``a
single national plan for 4.9 GHz will meet most regions' needs,'' but
``some regions will need some different parameters to better meet needs
of users in their regions.'' Is this a viable approach in today's
environment?
4. Incentivizing Use of Latest Commercially Available Technologies
31. We seek comment on ways to incentivize public safety use of the
latest commercially available technologies, particularly 5G. As a
general matter not limited to any particular spectrum band, what is the
path for public safety to use 5G? Would public safety agencies be able
to deploy custom 5G networks themselves, with the aid of consultants
and contractors as necessary? What commercial 5G offerings are
available to public safety, and what are the priority and preemption
capabilities of such solutions? We also seek comment on the value,
utility, and potential of the commercially available technologies, such
as 5G, to public safety. For instance, the Public Safety Spectrum
Alliance (PSSA) asserts that 5G functionality is expected to be the
future of public safety cellular communications because it will support
new high-speed applications that leverage rich media, such as augmented
and virtual reality, and video streaming, while also offering extremely
low latency, allowing true real-time data streaming and transfer
necessary for use of autonomous vehicles, bomb and hazardous material
detection and remediation, and mobile video surveillance capabilities.
Nokia states that ``[n]ew technologies enabled by 5G can also allow for
network slicing that can provide greater certainty for enhanced
security and other quality of service metrics that may be required for
public safety incumbent use cases as well as certain potential . . .
[commercial] use cases.'' We seek comment on PSSA's and Nokia's views.
What capabilities and applications could 5G and other advanced
technologies enable for public safety? We seek comment on any public
safety use cases supported by 5G and other advanced technologies.
32. In the Sixth Report and Order, the Commission noted that some
countries have considered, or are considering, allocating the 4.9 GHz
band for 5G, and noted that successful international harmonization
efforts could provide further advantages in the availability and price
of equipment, thus potentially increasing its utility for flexible use.
The Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Seventh Further
Notice) (85 FR 76505) specifically sought comment on whether 5G
wireless operators, among others, could put the 4.9 GHz spectrum to
use. Some commenters support further exploration of potential 5G
deployments in the 4.9 GHz band. PSSA states that ``as spectrum falling
within the mid-band, 4.9 GHz is significantly better suited [than the
700 MHz band public safety broadband spectrum] to offer 5G
capabilities.'' We seek comment on the potential for the 4.9 GHz band
to support applications enabled by 5G technology, including but not
limited to the examples suggested by PSSA and Nokia. Is development of
5G in the band technically feasible, and what are the potential
benefits and costs of such development? Could the technical
capabilities of 5G technology promote more intense use of the 4.9 GHz
band by public safety entities? In the context of our objectives to
establish a national framework that ensures public safety priority, how
can we create conditions in the 4.9 GHz band that will encourage
deployment of 5G and subsequent innovative technologies? As in other
spectrum bands, our strong preference is to adhere to a technology-
neutral policy for the band and strive for operational flexibility. Do
any of the existing 4.9 GHz rules in part 90 (i.e., subpart Y) impede
or discourage 5G deployments?
33. We also seek comment on commercial interest in the 4.9 GHz band
for 5G, whether for public safety offerings, for non-public safety, or
a sharing combination. Could commercial 5G providers and operators put
4.9 GHz spectrum to use? Could 5G technology also enhance opportunities
for shared public safety and non-public safety use of the band? If so,
how?
5. Other Technical Options
34. Although we seek comment above on certain prominent proposals
from the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission proposed several other
technical rule changes to increase utilization of the 4.9 GHz band. We
incorporate these proposals by reference. In particular, the Commission
proposed to (1) expand the channel aggregation bandwidth limit from 20
to 40 megahertz; (2) accord primary status for all P-P and P-MP links
on Channels 14-18 of the band plan; (3) limit temporary P-P operation
to thirty days maximum over a given path over a one-year period; (4)
raise the minimum antenna gain for P-P antennas to 26 dBi; (5) require
all 4.9 GHz geographic licensees to place at least one base or
temporary fixed station in operation within 12 months of license grant;
(6) reduce the construction period for fixed P-P stations from 18
months to 12 months; and (7) allow manned aeronautical mobile, not
including unmanned aeronautical systems (UAS), and robotic use in the
lowest five megahertz of the
[[Page 59940]]
band with altitude and other technical limitations. The Commission also
sought comment on how to encourage voluntary implementation of
technical standards for the band and on power limits and emission
masks. We seek comment on these proposals and open issues, and seek
comment on whether we should include any of them going forward as part
of our proposed national framework.
D. Facilitating Non-Public Safety Access to the Band
35. While we emphasize the importance of public safety operations
in the 4.9 GHz band, we also recognize that introducing non-public
safety operations in the band may help to foster innovation and drive
down equipment costs, thereby making more intensive public safety use
of the spectrum a possibility. To that end, we seek comment on
expanding use of the band to non-public safety entities, subject to
appropriate safeguards to protect public safety operations. We also
seek comment on ensuring a cohesive and predictable shared spectrum
landscape that would also allow for planning and investing in the band
by public safety and non-public safety users alike.
36. In this Eighth Further Notice, we seek comment on whether and
how to allow non-public safety entities access to the 4.9 GHz band for
non-public safety operations, with particular emphasis on expanding use
of the band under a nationwide framework. We seek comment on whether it
is in the public interest to open the band to non-public safety uses,
and under what terms. We seek comment on whether such a policy has the
potential to not only promote efficient use of valuable mid-band
spectrum, something which we have recognized repeatedly is in the
public interest, but also to reduce equipment costs and spur
innovation, which will benefit public safety users as well. We also
seek comment on any costs public safety may incur if the band is shared
with other users, such as in the need to replace equipment or modify
usage. Would use of the band by non-public safety entities make it less
reliable for public safety agencies that use the band for critical
safety of life communications? If so, how can we address these
concerns?
37. If we decide to allow non-public safety use of the 4.9 GHz
band, we seek comment on how best to do so. Given that all public
safety licenses issued for the 4.9 GHz band to date allow full access
to its entire 50 megahertz and the public safety operations that it
hosts are of critical importance, we recognize that any sharing regime
will be complex. During earlier stages of this proceeding, several
stakeholders put forth proposals to permit non-public safety use of the
band, some of which have received qualified support from public safety
stakeholders.
38. As part of these different potential non-public safety use
frameworks, we seek comment on the types of non-public safety
operations which should be permitted, and the types of entities that
should be eligible for access. Should we allow all types of commercial
use, but limit the types of users? For example, the Commission has
previously recognized that railroad, power, and petroleum entities use
radio communications ``as a critical tool for responding to emergencies
that could impact hundreds or even thousands of people.'' Therefore, we
seek comment on whether critical infrastructure (CII) eligible entities
should be permitted access to the band in a way distinct from other
classes of non-public safety users. We also seek comment on whether
shared CII access to the band will sufficiently increase use of the
band nationwide to encourage innovation and impact equipment costs.
39. We seek comment on these possible alternatives, in particular
on the interplay of different elements of the possible approaches to
improve access to the band and facilitate non-public safety use. In
other words, these components should not be viewed as mutually
exclusive and, indeed, any comprehensive framework that we may adopt
will likely include elements of multiple access models and licensing
approaches discussed below. Commenters that support opening the band
for non-public safety applications are encouraged to submit detailed
proposals--including cost-benefit analyses--on these issues,
incorporating elements of different options discussed below and
explaining why they are preferable to alternatives.
1. Shared Access Models
40. We seek comment below on possible sharing mechanisms, non-
public safety licensing approaches, and leasing regimes that could be
used to provide shared access to the band for non-public safety users
while protecting--and, potentially, improving--critical public safety
operations. These options are not exclusive of one another (e.g.,
excess capacity leasing could be combined with a dynamic sharing
mechanism) and commenters are encouraged to submit detailed proposals
addressing how a comprehensive sharing regime could be implemented.
a. Excess Capacity Leasing
41. One potential means of sharing the band between public safety
and non-public safety users involves leasing of excess capacity on
public safety networks to non-public safety users. For example, a
public safety licensee which has constructed a network of fixed sites
for its operations, but only uses that network in emergencies, could
lease the use of that network when no such emergency is occurring.
Alternatively, a public safety licensee could work with a commercial
wireless operator to construct a dual-use system pursuant to its
license. Are such excess capacity leasing arrangements feasible for
this band and, if so, could they provide potential benefits to public
safety licensees? Could such leasing arrangements facilitate more
robust deployment of 4.9 GHz public safety networks? What types of non-
public safety entities would be interested in leasing excess capacity
from public safety licensees? Commenters that support excess capacity
leasing should address the specific costs and benefits of such a
regime, giving particular consideration to the non-exclusive nature of
the public safety licenses in this band, the current and potential
future coordination mechanisms discussed herein, and the wide range of
different uses this band hosts.
42. If we choose to implement an excess capacity leasing regime, we
seek comment on how that regime should be implemented and how the
rights of public safety and non-public safety entities should be
managed. Given the importance of public safety operations in the band,
should we ensure priority and preemption for such operations vis-
[agrave]-vis non-public safety lessees? If so, how can we best do so?
What specific rule-based mechanisms should we implement to ensure a
consistent and publicly accountable leasing system? How should we
address the overlapping rights of different public safety licensees in
the band to ensure a stable and predictable spectrum environment for
public safety operations? If we designate a single nationwide band
manager, as discussed above, could that entity have a role in
facilitating leased access to excess capacity on public safety
networks? Alternatively, could these issues be addressed by utilizing a
SAS, as discussed below? Specifically, could a SAS be used to manage
leases and coordinate access for lessors and lessees? How would such a
system work within the Commission's existing leasing rules?
[[Page 59941]]
b. Spectrum Access System (SAS) Managed Shared Access
43. In the Seventh Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on
whether a dynamic spectrum access system could be used to facilitate
non-public safety use of the band alongside public safety access. The
Commission noted that such opportunistic use of spectrum is permitted
in several other spectrum bands using a variety of different automatic
sharing systems that rely on databases to ensure protection of other
users. We expand on the Commission's earlier inquiry and seek comment
on whether a dynamic frequency coordinator--such as the SAS used to
coordinate access to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.55-
3.7 GHz band (3.5 GHz band)--could be used to facilitate sharing
between public safety and non-public safety users.
44. In the 3.5 GHz band, SASs currently are used to protect several
types of incumbent operations--including critical Department of Defense
radar systems, fixed satellite service earth stations, and incumbent
terrestrial wireless licensees--as well as two tiers of users in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. A similar system could be used to
protect public safety operations in the 4.9 GHz band. Would a SAS be
the most appropriate system to coordinate dynamic spectrum sharing in
this band? Or would another model, like the Automatic Frequency
Coordination system in the 6 GHz band, be more appropriate? For either
system, what, if any, modifications would be necessary to address the
unique needs of public safety users in the 4.9 GHz band? What would be
the costs associated with such a system, both its setup and its
implementation going forward, and how would those costs compare to the
cost of traditional Part 90 frequency coordination? Who would be
responsible for those costs? Should the Commission maintain the system,
or should it contract the responsibility to a third-party?
45. If we implement a SAS-based authorization model in the band, we
seek comment on how best to use the unique capabilities of the SASs to
protect public safety users, authorize non-public safety operations,
and mitigate potential interference between and among various tiers of
users in the band. Most importantly, could a SAS protect public safety
operations--including possible operations over potential nationwide
interoperability spectrum--while providing meaningful access to the
band for non-public safety users? We also seek comment on how
implementing dynamic spectrum sharing in this band would impact public
safety confidence in the band, particularly given the efforts discussed
above to increase the visibility of public safety deployments in the
band in order to enable protection and clear access rights.
46. We also seek comment on how public safety licensees could best
be incorporated into a SAS-driven dynamic spectrum sharing regime while
protecting the rights of public safety users and ensuring an
interference-free operating environment. Specifically, should public
safety licensees be required to inform the SAS of their operations,
with the system protecting these operations by only permitting non-
public safety use of other frequencies in the band? Or should the SAS
also be responsible for assigning frequencies to public safety
operations based on their needs? If the latter, to what extent and by
what method should the SAS ensure priority and preemption for public
safety operations? Should the SAS treat future public safety
deployments differently than pre-existing deployments? Is a SAS managed
model consistent with our earlier tentative conclusion that frequency
coordination is in the public interest for this band? What, if any,
requirements should we put in place to protect non-public safety
operations from one another?
47. We note that the feasibility of dynamic sharing could depend on
factors such as how intensely incumbents are currently using the
spectrum, the types of existing services these incumbents are using
(e.g., mobile vs. fixed), and the ability of dynamic sharing systems to
register, detect, and coordinate existing systems. We seek comment on
these and other characteristics in the 4.9 GHz band that would affect
dynamic sharing, whether a dynamic spectrum sharing model is
appropriate for this band, and, if so, what type of dynamic sharing is
most appropriate. Commenters should also discuss the impacts of the
different possible changes to the band that the Commission is
considering as part of its efforts to standardize public safety
operations and ensure greater visibility into deployments in order to
provide greater protections for those operations, such as coordination
requirements and a licensing database. How could a dynamic spectrum
access system take advantage of those efforts?
48. Finally, we seek comment on whether to segment the 4.9 GHz band
to enable non-public safety uses while also protecting public safety
operations. Would combining such a segmentation of the band with a
dynamic spectrum sharing system enable reliable spectrum access both
for public safety operators and for non-public safety users, while also
ensuring efficient use of spectrum that public safety is not actively
using? For example, could we reserve some portion of the band for
public safety use on a primary basis, and only permit non-public safety
use of this portion via a dynamic spectrum sharing system, while making
the remainder of the band available for non-public safety access? Could
we grant public safety licensees some form of preemption rights, which
would allow public safety access to the entire 4.9 GHz band in the case
of an emergency, but limit public safety access to only a portion of
the band at other times? If we do segment the band, should we require
devices to be operable across the entire 4.9 GHz band, as we did in the
3.5 GHz band? Would segmenting the band--coupled with a band wide
operability requirement--help to spur innovations in the equipment
marketplace in the band to the benefit of public safety users?
c. Manual and Technical Sharing
49. Given the non-exclusive nature of 4.9 GHz band licenses, we
seek comment on whether alternative methods of sharing are preferable
to dynamic sharing. Would implementing licensing and technical rules be
sufficient to enable non-public safety use without causing harmful
interference to those public safety operations that would remain in the
band? For example, we could require sensing capabilities for non-public
safety equipment, or limit emissions to levels below that which could
cause harmful interference to public safety operations. What would be
the necessary requirements to allow for purely technical protection
measures? Would such limitations prevent the other benefits of opening
this band to non-public safety use, such as fostering innovation and
lowering equipment costs, from being realized? Such rules could be
different for urban or rural areas, in recognition of the different
uses of the band in those locations, as discussed above.
50. We seek comment on whether a frequency coordination requirement
imposed on public safety operations, as discussed above, would enable
similar requirements to be placed on non-public safety operations and
thereby enable shared access. What requirements would we need to impose
on non-public safety operations to enable full protection for public
safety users, and what information would coordinators need from non-
public safety operations to ensure such protection? Would we
[[Page 59942]]
require non-public safety operators to modify their systems based on
new public safety deployments, or only to protect incumbents at the
time they deploy? What, if any, requirements should we put in place to
protect non-public safety operations from one another?
2. Licensing Non-Public Safety Operations
51. In the event we determine that allowing non-public safety
operations in the 4.9 GHz band is in the public interest, we will have
to decide on the appropriate framework under which to authorize such
operations. Below, we seek comment on a number of different licensing
regimes which could be combined with one another and with the sharing
regimes discussed above to create a comprehensive, nationwide framework
for non-public safety operations in the band.
a. Non-Exclusive Licensed Access
52. We seek comment on allowing non-public safety users to access
the band on a licensed, non-exclusive basis. Methods that have been
used in other bands include: (1) Traditional site-based Part 90
secondary licensing, such as in the PLMR bands; (2) the ``license
light'' licensing model used in the 3650-3700 MHz Service prior to its
incorporation into the Citizens Broadband Radio Service; and (3) the
licensed-by-rule General Authorized Access (GAA) tier of the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. Such approaches have been successfully used to
make spectrum available to a wide variety of operators with relatively
low barriers to entry vis-[agrave]-vis exclusive licensing models.
Would a non-exclusive licensing approach be well-suited to the 4.9 GHz
band? Could such an approach facilitate significant non-public safety
use in the band while protecting important public safety operations?
How should the system treat future public safety deployments, as
opposed to incumbents? Could a non-exclusive licensing approach help to
promote technological innovation in the band, including the equipment
marketplace, to the benefit of public safety and non-public safety
users? Commenters that support implementing a non-exclusive licensing
model for non-public safety users in the band are encouraged to provide
detailed proposals, including details on any sharing or authorization
mechanism needed to facilitate such an approach.
b. Granting Exclusive Use Licenses
53. While exclusive use licenses are often the preferred method of
allocating spectrum to commercial use, given the non-exclusive nature
of existing public safety licenses, the ongoing importance of public
safety operations in the band, and the fact that nearly all of the U.S.
is covered by at least one public safety license, assigning such
licenses in the 4.9 GHz band may prove to be a challenge. But exclusive
use licenses offer several important benefits, and, as such we seek
comment on a variety of ways that exclusive use licenses could be
utilized to facilitate non-public safety use in this band.
54. Would exclusive use licenses potentially increase current and
future licensees' willingness to invest heavily in the band? Exclusive
use licenses may be subject to mutually exclusive applications, which
would be resolved by competitive bidding. Would this increase the
likelihood that new licensees will be those entities that are most
highly motivated to invest in the band? The Commission's competitive
bidding systems generally facilitate the aggregation of licenses when
it is economically efficient to do so. Would this make it more likely
that licensees aggregating licenses in competitive bidding will invest
in developing and deploying networks in this band? Given these
potential benefits, we seek comment on whether this band is well-suited
to exclusive use licensing and, if so, how to achieve it.
55. Overlay Licensing. Overlay licenses would grant new non-public
safety entrants the right to use the band in ways that would not cause
harmful interference to public safety users at any given time, but
would be exclusive as to other non-public safety users. Such a
licensing framework could be combined with different access models--
including spectrum manager models, competitive bidding, and dynamic
database-driven sharing models--and could be coupled with relocation or
re-banding of some existing operations to increase the amount of
spectrum available to the overlay licensee. This approach could provide
the flexibility to allow new non-public safety operations in the band
while safeguarding public safety users.
56. We seek comment on whether we should utilize overlay licenses
to facilitate non-public safety use of the 4.9 GHz band. We also seek
comment on how to assign such licenses and how to structure the rules
governing them. How would an overlay license work in concert with
potential new technical, interoperability, and coordination rules for
public safety licensees that we seek comment on here? What technical or
coordination rules would be required for non-public safety operations,
as distinct from those required of public safety licensees? How would
overlay licenses work with potential future public safety operations,
as opposed to incumbents?
57. We also seek comment on the impact of this approach on use of
the band. Would other users of the band spur innovation and expand the
type, and lower the price, of 4.9 GHz equipment available to public
safety entities? What types of entities should be eligible for overlay
licenses? Would overlay licenses provide new licensees with sufficient
spectrum access to justify investment in equipment and broadband and
mobile applications? If more spectrum access than is currently
available is needed to motivate investment, can overlay licensees
reasonably expect to obtain sufficient spectrum access by negotiation
with incumbents? What conditions would be necessary for such
negotiations to be successful? Is it possible that such access
negotiations would both provide new overlay licensees with sufficient
and reliable bandwidth while maintaining current incumbent operations?
We seek comment on any other considerations regarding the use of
overlay licensing for the 4.9 GHz band.
58. Exclusive Use Licenses for Specified Frequencies. We seek
comment on whether licenses providing exclusive use of specified
frequencies, e.g., designated channels, would be more beneficial for
the 4.9 GHz band than overlay licenses. Depending on the use of the
band by underlying incumbent licensees, overlay licenses may not enable
the use of uniform frequencies across geographic areas by new
licensees. However, enabling the exclusive use of uniform frequencies
likely would require any incumbent public safety operations using the
frequencies to cease. We seek comment on possible mechanisms for
relocation or repacking of such operations. We seek comment below on
the use of an incentive auction model to enable this effort. But we
similarly seek comment on any alternatives to relocate or repack public
safety incumbents as needed.
59. What are the benefits and costs to this approach and how could
it be implemented? How would licensing specified frequencies for
exclusive use work in concert with other proposals to increase use of
the band, such as the new technical and coordination rules for public
safety operations or dynamic spectrum sharing, and which would it rule
out?
c. Unlicensed Access
60. Unlicensed access allows a wide range of different users the
ability to access spectrum, especially in rural or
[[Page 59943]]
underserved areas and often at lower price points than through licensed
services. This framework permits users to support innovative use cases
and applications that can be tailored for each area, especially through
Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other widely used technologies. Because the
Commission permits unlicensed operations on a variety of spectrum
bands, users are able to both match available capacity to their
spectrum needs and choose the band(s) that are best suited to their
particular coverage requirements. The Commission previously sought
comment on unlicensed operations in this band. We recognize that both
the demand for unlicensed spectrum and the unlicensed spectrum
landscape have continued to evolve. We seek updated information on the
potential use of the 4.9 GHz band for unlicensed access. To what extent
is the band desirable for such use, given the presence of public safety
incumbents and amount of spectrum available? What use cases could the
4.9 GHz band host? Is this band suitable to provide the types of
applications users are demanding in terms of capacity and coverage
requirements? Are there particular unlicensed applications and
protocols that are well-suited for the 4.9 GHz band? We seek comment
below on possible sharing mechanisms, which could operate in concert
with unlicensed use, but what technical or licensing rules would be
required in order to enable such use, regardless of sharing mechanism?
3. Other Considerations
61. Technical Flexibility. In the context of establishing a
nationwide approach, we also seek comment on the feasibility of
implementing different technical rules (e.g., maximum power levels) for
the band to account for different public safety and non-public safety
needs in different scenarios. We note that the record in this
proceeding indicates that there may be varying use cases and
opportunities for use in a nationwide framework. For example, public
safety usage of the band is greater in urban areas than rural ones. At
the same time, there may be differences in non-public safety use of
this band in rural areas, particularly to accommodate wireless
broadband. Would it be in the public interest to adopt flexibility in
the technical rules for the 4.9 GHz band to accommodate these different
needs, consistent with our decision to pursue an integrated, nationwide
approach to the band? For example, in other proceedings we have adopted
different power levels for urban and rural deployments. Should we take
a similar approach here as part of a nationwide framework? Would this
approach help foster efficient use, encourage innovation, and improve
the equipment marketplace for the band? How would we define the
different areas within our nationwide framework, and how would we
ensure these definitions remain up-to-date as use of the band evolves?
62. Incentive Auction. In addition to its standard authority to
conduct competitive bidding to assign licenses, the Commission has
statutory authority to conduct incentive auctions, in which it offers
incumbent licensees a share of the proceeds from the auction of new
licenses made available by the incumbents relinquishing their spectrum
usage rights. Should the Commission consider an incentive auction to
encourage public safety licensees to relocate their operations (or
modify them in some way to reduce the amount of spectrum they require)
in order to enable greater non-public safety use of the band? How would
we structure an incentive auction within the Commission's existing
statutory authority that would result in enough clear spectrum to
attract new licensees and serve the public interest? What alternate
options are available to public safety licensees which accept incentive
auction payments? Would the current 4.9 GHz licensees, many of which
are governmental entities, be legally or practically equipped to
participate in the reverse phase of an incentive auction? Would their
incentives align with the public interest? How would we have to modify
our incentive auction structure here, given the non-exclusive rights of
the current licensees? Should any incumbent public safety licensees
choosing not to participate in the incentive auction be required to be
repacked into a portion of the band or otherwise modify their
operations to enable coexistence with new non-public safety licensees?
What is the likelihood that enough existing licensees would be willing
to relinquish their spectrum usage rights so that the Commission then
could offer enough new licenses to stimulate investment in the band?
63. Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, the Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues
discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals
may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal
authority.
II. Procedural Matters
Paperwork Reduction Act
64. This Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may contain
new or modified information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. If the Commission adopts any new or modified
information collection requirements, they will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies will be
invited to comment on the new or modified information collection
requirements contained in this proceeding. 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.''
Regulatory Flexibility Act
65. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for
notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the
rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning
potential rule and policy changes contained in the Eighth Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is contained in Appendix C in
the Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Ex Parte Rules
66. This proceeding shall 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
[[Page 59944]]
arguments made during the presentation.
67. 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) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec.
1.49(f) of the rules 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.
III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
68. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in the Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Eighth
Further Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments as specified in the Eighth Further
Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Eighth Further Notice,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Eighth Further Notice
and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
69. In the Eighth Further Notice, we seek comment on a nationwide
framework to encourage greater use and improved spectrum efficiency of
the 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) band. We seek comment to implement changes
to our policies and regulations that promote optimal use, innovation,
and investment. The Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (77 FR
45558) and Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this
proceeding enabled the Commission to develop a record on several
issues, including 4.9 GHz coordination, eligibility, licensing, band
plan, power and antenna gain, aeronautical mobile use, and standards.
The Sixth Report and Order and Seventh Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, however, sought to establish a new framework to expand
access to the band by providing states the opportunity to lease 4.9 GHz
band spectrum to commercial entities, critical infrastructure industry,
including electric utilities, and other stakeholders. In addition, the
Seventh Further Notice sought comment on new state-based licensing
regime for public safety operations in the 4.9 GHz band, including a
centralized structure of state oversight and coordination of public
safety operations in the band.
70. In the Eighth Further Notice, we revisit the structure of the
4.9 GHz band to promote public safety use and encourage a robust market
for equipment. Specifically, we focus on establishing a nationwide
framework that will avoid breaking up the 4.9 GHz band into a patchwork
of state leases. We believe that a nationwide approach will promote
robust equipment market, lower costs, and increase the likelihood of
interoperable communications and consistent interference protection. To
achieve this vision, we seek comment on establishing a database with
consistent and reliable information about what spectrum is available
where or how it is being used--providing certainty and predictability
to plan and invest in 4.9 GHz deployments. Further, we seek comment on
certain prominent proposals from the Sixth Further Notice, such
Universal Licensing System (ULS) information submissions, non-public
safety access, dynamic spectrum sharing, and frequency coordination in
the 4.9 GHz band, as well as on several other Commission proposals
involving technical rule changes to increase utilization of the 4.9 GHz
band and we incorporate these proposals by reference into the Eighth
Further Notice. We believe that by implementing a nationwide framework
that reflects public safety input, we can ensure that public safety
continues to be prioritized in the band while opening up the band to
additional uses that will facilitate increased usage and encourage a
more robust market for equipment and greater innovation, and at the
same time protect against harmful interference.
B. Legal Basis
71. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 4(o), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, 332, and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
154(o), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, 332, and 403.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
72. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
73. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 30.7
million businesses.
74. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2018, there were
approximately 571,709 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
[[Page 59945]]
75. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school
districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly,
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at
least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
76. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio
(PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial,
business, land transportation, and public safety activities. Companies
of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories use these
radios. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to
PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses
business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. The
appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR licensees
are small entities.
77. According to the Commission's records, a total of approximately
393,490 licenses comprise PLMR users. Of this number there are a total
of 3,541 PLMR licenses in the 4.9 GHz band. The Commission does not
require PLMR licensees to disclose information about number of
employees, and does not have information that could be used to
determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities under this
definition. The Commission however believes that a substantial number
of PLMR licensees may be small entities despite the lack of specific
information.
78. Frequency Coordinators. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to
spectrum frequency coordinators. The closest applicable SBA category is
Business Associations which comprises establishments primarily engaged
in promoting the business interests of their members. The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for ``Business Associations,''
which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $7.5
million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012
shows that there were 14,996 firms that operated for the entire year.
Of these firms, a total of 14,229 had gross annual receipts of less
than $5 million and 396 firms had gross annual receipts of $5 million
to $9,999,999.
79. There are 13 entities certified to perform frequency
coordination functions under Part 90 of the Commission's rules.
According to U. S. Census Bureau data approximately 95% of business
associations have gross annual receipts of $7.5 million or less and
would be classified as small entities. The Business Associations
category is very broad however, and does not include specific figures
for firms that are engaged in frequency coordination. Thus, the
Commission is unable to ascertain exactly how many of the frequency
coordinators are classified as small entities under the SBA size
standard. Therefore, for purposes of this IRFA under the associated SBA
size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of the 13 FCC-
certified frequency coordinators are small.
80. Regional Planning Committees. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically
applicable to Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) and the National
Regional Planning Council (NRPC). As described by the NRPC, ``[NRPC] is
an advocacy body formed in 2007 that supports public safety
communications spectrum management by [the RPCs] in the 700 MHz and 800
MHz NPSPAC public safety spectrum as required by the Federal
Communications Commission.'' The NRPC states that RPCs ``consist of
public safety volunteer spectrum planners and members that dedicate
their time, in addition to the time spent in their regular positions,
to coordinate spectrum efficiently and effectively for the purpose of
making it available to public safety agency applicants in their
respective region.'' According to Commission data, there are 55 RPCs.
The Commission has not developed a small business size standard
specifically applicable to RPCs and the NRPC. The closest applicable
industry with a SBA small business size standard is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses
business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. Under the
SBA small business size standard, a business employing no more than
1,500 persons is considered small. For this industry, U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus
using the SBA size standard, we estimate that all of the RPCs and the
NRPC can be considered small.
81. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size
standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between
1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of
manufacturers in this industry are small.
82. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms employed fewer
than 1,000 employees and 12 firms employed of 1,000
[[Page 59946]]
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) are small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
83. The nationwide framework described in the Eighth Further Notice
may impose new or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other
compliance obligations on small entities, if adopted. The reporting or
recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations generally fall into
two categories: Technical requirements and eligibility/governance
criteria. Potential information collections and compliance requirements
that are technical in nature may include costs associated with
compensating engineering or technical staff or consultants or attorneys
which the Commission is unable to quantify at this time. The purpose of
the information collections is to ensure that future operations protect
incumbent operations from interference, and to make it feasible to
identify the source of any actual interference that may occur, as well
as maximize use of the 4.9 GHz band. We discuss these potential
requirements below.
84. Licensing Database and Frequency Coordination. The Eighth
Further Notice seeks comment on requiring base and mobile stations,
permanent fixed P-P transmitters and receivers, and permanent fixed P-
MP transmitters and receivers in the 4940-4990 MHz band to be licensed
individually on a site-by-site basis for interference protection and
frequency coordination purposes which would impose a one-time
information collection requirement on existing 4.9 GHz band licensees.
The information collected would include technical parameters such as
transmitter and receiver antenna coordinates, azimuth (direction),
polarization, beamwidth, physical dimensions, gain, and height above
ground, as well as transmit details such as power, channel, emission,
and would be collected on Form 601 in the Commission's Universal
Licensing System database. We expect that there will not be any
application fees associated with this information collection for public
safety entities because they are exempt from application fees pursuant
to 47 CFR 1.1116(b). To the extent non-public safety access is
permitted in the band however, non-public safety entities would incur
application fee costs.
85. The Eighth Further Notice also seeks comment on requiring
formal frequency coordination in the 4.9 GHz band to support
interference protection and increase public safety confidence to use
the band. If formal frequency coordination is adopted, we have
requested comment on the criteria and type of certification the
Commission should use to certify coordinators which may impose
reporting and recordkeeping obligations. The selected frequency
coordinators could be subject reporting recordkeeping obligations
associated with coordination for the 4.9 GHz band. Additionally,
licensees could be subject to requirements to submit information to
frequency coordinators and subject to compliance costs associated
frequency coordination.
86. Facilitating Non-Public Safety Access to the Band. The Eighth
Further Notice seeks comment various methods of enabling non-public
safety access to the 4.9 GHz band alongside public safety access,
including tiered licensing, a dynamic spectrum access system, and
overlay licenses. For any of these methods, either the Commission or a
third party would collect information from non-public safety users that
wish to access the 4.9 GHz band. Such users may be classified as small
businesses, small organizations, small governmental jurisdictions; PLMR
licensees; and wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite).
The information collected would likely be equivalent to information
collected on Form 601 of the Commission's Universal Licensing System
database. For the dynamic spectrum access system method, a third party
database would collect certain licensing and operational information
from incumbent public safety 4.9 GHz band PLMR licensees. The amount of
information collected, the means, and the frequency of such collection
depends on whether the dynamic spectrum access system database would
draw existing sources of such information, such as information
contained in the Commission's Universal Licensing System. The Eighth
Further Notice also seeks comment on the potential use of an incentive
auction as part of the discussion on granting exclusive access rights
which would have recordkeeping and data submission obligations.
87. Nationwide Licensee or Band Manager. The Eighth Further Notice
seeks comment on designating a nationwide band manager that would be
responsible for developing a nationwide framework for the 4.9 GHz band.
If adopted, a one-time information collection may take the form of a
band manager application and a proposed nationwide framework describing
how different types of entities may operate within the 4.9 GHz band.
88. Regional Planning Committees. The Eighth Further Notice seeks
comment on a requiring regional planning committees (RPCs) to file
regional plans, which could impact reporting and recordkeeping
obligations for RPCs. Under the Commission's existing rules in the 4.9
GHz licensing regime, the filing of regional plans by RPCs is
voluntary. Sections 90.1211(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules detail
certain information that must be submitted in regional plans and
provide instructions for plan modifications. In the Eighth Further
Notice, we inquire whether to develop a standardized template to ensure
that the information submitted in all regional plans is consistent and
supports a nationwide approach, and whether to allow RPCs to file
alternative regional plans that vary from a standardized approach.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
89. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
90. The Commission's reliance on technical and eligibility
requirements utilized in other public safety and PLMR spectrum bands as
the basis of inquiries in Eighth Further Notice potentially provides
regulatory policies and frameworks that small entities are
operationally familiar with and may therefore minimize any substantial
economic impact if similar requirements are adopted in this proceeding.
To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact on
small entities as a result of the actions that have been proposed in
this proceeding, and the options and alternatives for such entities,
the Commission has raised questions and sought comment on these matters
in the Eighth Further Notice. As part of the inquiry, the Commission
has specifically requested that commenters include costs and benefit
analysis data
[[Page 59947]]
in their comments. Additionally, we are seeking comment on proposals in
the Sixth Further Notice, which include inquiries and requests for
information on the impacts for small entities and courses of action
that might be considered to accommodate the resources small entities.
For example, as part of the proposed information collection requirement
to make information available to frequency coordinators to ensure that
these operations are protected from interference, the Sixth Further
Notice proposed a one-year deadline for licensees to complete this
information collection after final rules in this proceeding become
effective. Before the deadline, the Commission would waive frequency
coordination requirements. After one year, the information collection
would be subject to frequency coordination requirements, including
frequency coordination fees. The Commission also sought comment on
whether the status of a license should become secondary if the
incumbent licensee does not meet the one-year deadline. The Sixth
Further Notice sought comment on whether small entities should have a
lengthier deadline, and what showing the Commission should require from
licensees to attest that they qualify as small entities. The Sixth
Further Notice also asked whether the Commission should require small
entities to file attestations by the one-year deadline or accept
attestations after the deadline at the time they eventually complete
the information collection.
91. The Commission is hopeful that the comments it receives will
specifically address matters impacting small entities and include data
and analyses relating to these matters. Further, while the Commission
believes the rules that are eventually adopted in this proceeding
should benefit small entities, whether public safety or non-public
safety, by giving them more options for gaining access to valuable
spectrum, the Commission expects to more fully consider the economic
impact and alternatives for small entities following the review of
comments filed in response to the Eighth Further Notice. The
Commission's evaluation of this information will shape the final
alternatives it considers, the final conclusions it reaches, and any
final actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any
significant economic impact that may occur on small entities.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
IV. Ordering Clauses
92. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in
sections 4(i), 4(j), 302, 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 309(j) and
405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
154(j), 302a, 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 309(j), and 405, that
this Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
93. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Eighth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60
days after publication in the Federal Register.
94. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-23335 Filed 10-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 29, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.