Proposed Rule2022-13440
Facilitating Access to Spectrum for Offshore Uses and Operations
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
June 27, 2022
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
This document, a Notice of inquiry (Notice) adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on whether changes to Commission's rules or policies are needed to facilitate the development of commercial and private wireless networks offshore. Recognizing that U.S. commercial and scientific endeavors may benefit from increased access to spectrum offshore, the Notice aims to gather information on offshore operation use cases and their potential. It seeks comment on the type of offshore uses that require spectrum, the appropriate spectrum bands to support offshore uses, and potential assignment mechanisms.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 122 (Monday, June 27, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 122 (Monday, June 27, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38048-38054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13440]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15, 20, 27, 80, 90, 95
[WT Docket No. 22-204; FCC 22-41; FR ID 92293]
Facilitating Access to Spectrum for Offshore Uses and Operations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document, a Notice of inquiry (Notice) adopted by the
Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on whether
changes to Commission's rules or policies are needed to facilitate the
development of commercial and private wireless networks offshore.
Recognizing that U.S. commercial and scientific endeavors may benefit
from increased access to spectrum offshore, the Notice aims to gather
information on offshore operation use cases and their potential. It
seeks comment on the type of offshore uses that require spectrum, the
appropriate spectrum bands to support offshore uses, and potential
assignment mechanisms.
DATES: Send comments on or before July 27, 2022; and reply comments on
or before August 26, 2022.
[[Page 38049]]
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 22-204,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
<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.
<bullet> 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 print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fb9d9898cecbcfbb9d9898d59c948d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e383d3d6b6e6a1e383d3d70393128">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nellie Foosaner of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-2925.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Inquiry in WT Docket No. 22-204, FCC 22-41 adopted on June 8, 2022,
and released on June 9, 2022. The full text of this document, including
all Appendices, is available for public inspection on the Commission's
website at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-input-offshore-spectrum-needs-and-uses-0">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-input-offshore-spectrum-needs-and-uses-0</a>.
Ex Parte Rules
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 arguments made during
the presentation.
If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's
written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown
or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be
written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec.
1.1206(b) 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.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. With this Notice of Inquiry, we take the first steps toward
facilitating offshore operations through innovative spectrum management
policy. Specifically, we seek input on whether changes in our rules and
policies are needed to facilitate the development of offshore
commercial and private networks. This Notice of Inquiry seeks to gather
information on offshore operation use cases and their potential,
including, but not limited to, the type of offshore uses that require
spectrum, the appropriate spectrum bands for offshore uses, and
potential assignment mechanisms. We take this action to support U.S.
industrial and scientific endeavors that will benefit from offshore
spectrum availability, and in return benefit the public, while also
protecting existing operations such as maritime and aviation safety
operations.
2. We recognize that a variety of approaches may be appropriate as
we consider potential paths forward, whether through industry-led
voluntary sharing measures, Commission policy and guidance, or
regulation where other approaches would be insufficient. With this
Notice, we seek to compile a comprehensive record on the various issues
that the Commission should consider, inviting broad comment from all
stakeholders. We look forward to reviewing the record that develops
from this Inquiry to inform us regarding next steps that the Commission
may take.
II. Background
3. A bedrock Commission obligation is to manage and oversee the
nation's radio spectrum, ``maintain[ing] the control of the United
States over all [] channels of radio transmission'' and ``provid[ing]
for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons
for limited periods of time.'' 47 U.S.C. 301. To fulfill this
obligation, the Commission assigns spectrum rights where there is
public need for spectrum. With respect to licenses on land, we continue
to meet the ever increasing demands for spectrum, and generally have
done so on a band-by-band or service-by-service basis as technology
advances and spectrum needs evolve. We have utilized a wide array of
models for assigning spectrum rights because of a wide diversity of
land-based needs. With respect to access offshore for land-based
spectrum, however, existing mechanisms may not be meeting current
demand.
4. The Commission's initial site-based, demand-driven, licensing
paradigms that remain in effect in many bands continue to provide for
narrowband spectrum access in support of industry, public safety, and
backhaul. The Commission uses ongoing, demand-driven licensing in the
Gulf of Mexico and in other U.S. territorial waters in the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans, including areas adjacent to the Continental United
States (CONUS), Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Where
applicable, such licensing (and deployments under those licenses)
require coordination with Canada and
[[Page 38050]]
Mexico. The majority of such site-based offshore authorizations are for
Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) services, part 90 radiolocation
services, aviation-ground services, and maritime coast stations. As of
the publication of this document, there are more than 1,400 active
site-based licenses issued offshore across many different radio
services. In addition, our part 15 rules for unlicensed operation and
our part 5 rules for experimental radio use have provided parties with
additional mechanisms for accessing radio spectrum offshore.
5. When the Commission began to use geographic area licensing, it
provided for spectrum access in the Gulf of Mexico only in certain
spectrum bands, and our rules do not provide for geographic-based
access in the remaining bands in the Gulf of Mexico and in all other
offshore areas surrounding and within the United States and its
territories. In the context of notice and comment rulemaking
proceedings, the Commission adopted an area license for the Gulf of
Mexico when there was demand demonstrated in the record and there were
no technical, legal, or policy reasons prohibit it. With the exception
of the Gulf of Mexico, there is not a geographic area license
specifically designated for offshore use--e.g., there is no market area
license for water off the Atlantic or Pacific Coasts, or within the
Great Lakes. We recognize that there may be offshore operations in
other areas that may need access to additional spectrum and could
benefit from geographic-area licensing or other assignment mechanisms
aside from site-based access.
6. Offshore communications are also available or are authorized via
satellite-based systems. For instance, mobile earth stations located at
sea provide communications services both offshore and in international
waters. These include Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) provided by such
companies as Inmarsat and Iridium, as well as services provided via
Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs) by such companies as SES, Intelsat,
Telesat, and ViaSat. ESIMs are increasingly used to deliver broadband
to maritime vessels--including enterprise services and broadband to
cruise ships. In addition, satellite-based communications currently
play a significant role in providing communications to oil rigs and
platforms offshore. In this inquiry, we are exploring the potential
benefits of providing additional avenues for providing offshore access
via terrestrial communications services. We also note that part 80 of
the Commission's rules provides spectrum to vessels for maritime radio,
such as Automatic Identification System (AIS) channels and other uses.
This Notice does not seek comment on Maritime Radio, but rather on
other offshore spectrum use cases, including additional needs of
vessels.
III. Discussion
7. This Notice of Inquiry first seeks comment on the actual demand
for offshore spectrum and whether the Commission needs to facilitate
spectrum usage for offshore operations. This Inquiry recognizes
different spectrum rights models that could facilitate offshore
operations and seeks comment on which model would best serve spectrum
needs offshore. We do not intend to structure our analysis by specific
offshore regions or zones. Instead, we seek more broadly to understand
the extent of the demand to use offshore spectrum and more generally
where that demand is concentrated. Next, we seek comment on assignment
mechanisms that would best serve the Commission's goal of effective and
efficient use of spectrum. We also seek comment on the potential for
unlicensed use and spectrum leasing models to meet offshore spectrum
needs, and on individual spectrum bands that may facilitate offshore
operations. Finally, we seek comment on whether the approaches taken by
other countries in making offshore spectrum available can inform our
policy.
A. Demand for Offshore Spectrum
8. To better guide any potential change to Commission rules or
policies, we seek to understand how extensive the need is for offshore
spectrum access. In light of this, we seek comment generally on the
demand for offshore spectrum. We recognize that, in the past, demand
was initially driven largely by the offshore oil drilling industry's
need for spectrum access offshore, but we anticipate that demand may
have grown among other industries as well. What kinds of offshore
operations would benefit from greater access to spectrum, both now and
in the future? What distance from land would those operations be
conducted? Are the use cases that need offshore spectrum fixed or
mobile in nature, or a combination of both? Are there commercial or
private maritime or aeronautical uses in addition to those already
provided for by our rules? What types of services might entities
consider deploying offshore? Are there both commercial and private
operations offshore that require spectrum access and, if so, how are
private versus commercial operations' respective needs for offshore
spectrum different? To what extent are current or anticipated
satellite-based services responding to various types of demand for
offshore spectrum-based services? What are the potential benefits of
making spectrum available for terrestrial-based Wi-Fi or mobile
networks in addition to the spectrum available as of the publication of
this Notice?
9. We recognize that the Commission has granted several
experimental licenses operating at various frequencies to facilitate
scientific experimentation and exploration offshore. Descriptions of
these experiments include communications, data gathering, and command
and control of offshore platforms, sensors, and unmanned aerial systems
for purposes of oceanography and navigation. We seek comment on how
these experimental licenses might inform future offshore radio
services, and in particular whether the Commission should consider
adopting new offshore radio service rules to provide service and
technical rules for devices used to support any of these applications.
10. Do commenters expect that spectrum demand will vary
significantly by type of offshore operation or use case? How much
spectrum do different types of offshore operations or uses need? How
much contiguous spectrum do stakeholders anticipate needing? Are the
needs localized or is the demand for communications or other services
over long distances? What are the boundaries of offshore operation use
cases? How far from the shore might demand for spectrum extend? Will
the amount of spectrum needed for a given use or operation be static or
will the amount of spectrum needed change over time? Is there a demand
for wireless spectrum to provide backhaul from operations offshore?
Commenters should specify the individual offshore operation, use case,
or service discussed in their responses.
11. One use case that we anticipate may have various offshore
spectrum needs is the construction and operation of windfarms in the
Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and potentially beyond. We anticipate that
such needs may include: providing wireless services to the site during
construction of the windfarm; testing, daily operation, and scheduled
and emergency maintenance and replacement; communications to ships and
entities on shore; and communication capability among offshore
operators in adjacent areas and between those operators and first
responders. Is this an accurate overview
[[Page 38051]]
of uses for spectrum at windfarms? Are there other uses? How do these
needs differ from those on offshore oil platforms, which utilize both
terrestrial-based and satellite-based communications services? How much
spectrum would a windfarm need to support these kinds of operations,
and would the amount of spectrum vary by stage of the project?
12. Another potential use case is for communications services by
vessels in coastal waters. Is there a need for additional offshore
spectrum access models that would provide greater opportunities for
vessels at sea to access mobile networks or connect onboard Wi-Fi
networks to the internet? We recognize that there are satellite-based
services currently being provided to vessels at sea. What are the
potential benefits of making additional spectrum available from
terrestrial-based Wi-Fi or mobile networks?
13. What other use cases exist that require offshore spectrum
access that is not being provided under the existing access models? Are
there other industrial or scientific research demands for offshore
spectrum? We seek comment generally on other industries that might have
a need for offshore spectrum. Are there offshore operations that
utilities may conduct? Is there a need for telephone service to
subscribers working offshore, like there is in the Gulf of Mexico?
Commenters should include specific examples for industries operating
offshore and uses of offshore spectrum.
14. We also seek comment on the degree to which terrestrial
technologies using spectrum allocated for fixed or mobile wireless
operations could supplement the demand for offshore spectrum access
currently served by satellite technologies using spectrum allocated for
satellite operations. Further, how does the Internet of Things (IoT)
landscape affect demand for offshore spectrum? What sort of IoT
technologies require additional offshore spectrum? What other relevant
use cases should we consider? For example, space launch operations can
involve the offshore retrieval of launch components. What are the
spectrum needs for these activities and how well suited are the
authorization mechanisms that are currently being used? Are there any
potential impacts to satellite operations from increased offshore
terrestrial operations?
15. Additionally, we seek comment on the infrastructure needed to
support offshore spectrum operations. Specifically, what infrastructure
is needed to support base stations, end-user equipment, fixed
transmitters, beacons, and other equipment offshore? Is the
infrastructure likely to be fixed/stationary, drifting in the water,
airborne, or deployed in another way? What are the needs--
infrastructure related or otherwise--of offshore operations that may
sometimes be fixed but at other times are mobile or need to move
locations over time, such as operations by the fishing industry,
scientific researchers, and cruise ships?
B. Spectrum Rights Models
16. To the extent that there is a need for increased access to
spectrum offshore, we seek comment on what kinds of spectrum rights
should be conveyed to meet the demand. Possible models include shared
spectrum rights, authorizations for secondary operations, and
authorizations with primary rights. We seek comment generally on these
approaches, or combinations thereof, including the advantages and
disadvantages of each and any associated cost and benefits.
17. In advocating for or against particular spectrum rights models,
we encourage commenters to consider not only the circumstances and
needs of offshore operations (including incumbent operations requiring
protection), but also the unique characteristics of radio transmissions
over open water. For example, commenters should discuss the impact of
the propagation of signals over open water on preventing harmful
interference. Commenters should also discuss the use of directional
antennas, including those with advanced beamforming capabilities, and
the potential for these measures to increase opportunities for
coexistence with incumbent operations. Similarly, commenters should
consider whether the use of antenna gain patterns to reduce
transmissions at high angles could reduce interference risk to
incumbent aeronautical operations not otherwise protected by ground
clutter or terrain.
18. Shared Spectral Rights. We seek comment on whether a spectrum
commons approach could serve the needs of offshore spectrum. Under a
spectrum commons approach, all spectrum is shared and there is no
expectation of interference protection. Could a spectrum commons model,
or similar shared spectral rights model, offer enough spectrum for
offshore operations and enough interference protection? Why or why not?
Under such an approach, would individual offshore operators or users
coordinate with each other for interference protection and resolution?
How could this best be enabled? For example, would a band manager or
spectrum manager be needed? Are there certain types of offshore
operations that could utilize a shared model, while others need primary
or secondary rights? Why or why not? Commenters should discuss in
detail advantages and disadvantages of a spectrum commons or similar
shared spectrum rights approach for offshore operations, including the
effect on incumbent operations. What spectrum bands are good candidates
for shared spectrum use? What bands should not be considered on a
shared basis for offshore operations? What are the costs and benefits
to this approach, as opposed to primary or secondary use
authorizations?
19. Secondary Authorization. Next, we seek comment on providing
secondary spectrum rights to offshore operations. Under a secondary
rights framework, the incumbent user would have primary use of the band
at issue, consistent with the terms of its authorization, and the
incumbent would have an expectation of protection of interference from
any secondary users. Offshore operations could be granted authority to
act as secondary users that cannot cause harmful interference to
primary operations in the band (whether that primary user is on land
or, in the case of the Gulf of Mexico or existing site-based
authorizations, in the water). Would an individual authorization with
secondary status model meet the needs of some offshore operations, but
not others? Why or why not? How might the sufficiency of secondary use
vary based on the specific use case or phase of the project at issue?
20. If a secondary rights model is appropriate, should the primary
license, if on land, be modified to allow secondary use offshore? How
far offshore should the modification extend? Should the Commission
allow secondary use offshore by both the primary licensee on land and
another user? In either instance, what would be the best mechanism to
do this? Are there any other secondary use models that the Commission
should consider for offshore operations? Which spectrum bands should be
considered for secondary use offshore? Commenters should discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of any approach proposed, and the
associated costs and benefits.
21. Primary Authorization. Finally, we seek comment on the need for
individual authorizations with primary rights for offshore operations,
with the expectation of exclusive use and protection from interference
from other users. Do certain offshore operations require primary
spectrum rights? Why
[[Page 38052]]
or why not? If an operation requires primary rights, commenters should
address not only why, but also whether that need will change over time.
Would the spectrum supporting primary rights need to already be
supporting LTE or other next-generation wireless services? Which
spectrum bands would be possible candidates for primary rights
authorized on an individual basis to offshore operations, and why?
Commenters should discuss advantages and disadvantages to primary
rights authorized to support offshore needs, and the costs and benefits
of such an approach.
C. Assignment Mechanisms for Initial Licensing
22. We seek comment generally on which assignment mechanisms might
be best suited for the needs of offshore operations. We also seek
comment on using more than one assignment mechanism for licensing
spectrum offshore, as we recognize that operations seeking to use
spectrum offshore may have a diversity of funding sources and budget
cycles. Commenters should discuss how our choices of assignment
mechanism could best ensure diversity in access. Commenters should also
discuss the costs and benefits of the different mechanisms.
23. License-by-Rule and ``Licensed Light'' Access Models. We seek
comment generally on whether the Commission should provide additional
offshore spectrum access through spectrum rights models that have
minimal or no registration requirements. These can include a ``license
light'' approach, where users submit a simplified registration form
before using specific frequencies and sites, or a license-by-rule
approach, where users are permitted to operate without registering or
obtaining an individual license so long as they meet the qualifications
to operate and their operations are consistent with the Commission's
rules. Such models generally offer low barriers of entry but do not
allow for exclusive spectrum use. They are premised on all entrants
being able to share the available spectrum resource with little or no
formal coordination and through operation under the framework provided
by the applicable service rules. How well would these kinds of
approaches serve offshore operations, and how do their benefits compare
to those associated with other licensed assignment mechanisms? Should
the Commission consider, for example, issuing nonexclusive, offshore-
area licenses with site or area registrations in the Universal
Licensing System (ULS) or a third-party database to facilitate
coordination among offshore operators? Why or why not? Are there
existing registration-based access models that could work well here?
24. Ongoing, Demand-Driven, Licensing On a Site-by-Site Basis. The
Commission has significant experience implementing demand-driven, site-
based, licensing mechanisms. Under this approach, an applicant requests
authorization to construct at a specific transmitter location (or
multiple locations) and expands its service by applying for additional
sites as needed. The prime examples of this model of licensing are in
the context of Private Land Mobile Radio and microwave services. Could
a site-based licensing approach meet the needs of offshore spectrum
operations? And would it meet the Commission's goal of advancing
innovative and efficient spectrum policy?
25. The Commission has also relied on ongoing, demand-driven,
licensing in the Cellular context and in its 700 MHz Relicensing
regime. In the Cellular Service, after the initial licensing of
geographic areas and buildout to establish service contours, applicants
have applied for individual licenses only where there was a need for
coverage, growing their network on a site-by-site basis. Is the
Cellular Service licensing model something the Commission should
consider for meeting the needs of offshore operations? Is it a good
analogy for offshore licensing, or are there differences at sea versus
land that would make that approach less desirable here? Assuming it is
an appropriate model, could the Commission rely on the existing
Cellular Service licensing rules for offshore licensing? Why or why
not, and how would those rules need to be changed or updated if used as
a starting point for potential offshore licensing rules?
26. Should the Commission use something similar to its 700 MHz
Relicensing regime as a model for demand-driven licensing to meet
offshore needs? In the 700 MHz Relicensing regime, the Commission had a
single Phase I process for applicants to file applications for
authority to operate in unserved areas. Phase II is an ongoing process
that allows eligible parties to apply for any unserved areas that may
remain after the Phase I process is complete. Would this approach be
appropriate to meet the needs of offshore operations? How would
``unserved'' be defined in the offshore context? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of this model if applied to offshore
licensing? Could the Commission rely on this kind of model, regardless
of which spectrum band is used?
27. Negotiations-Based Licensing. In the 900 MHz band, the
Commission established a transition mechanism based primarily on
negotiations between prospective overlay licensees, whether in-market
or an adjacent market, and incumbent licensees. Would a negotiations-
based authorization process meet offshore spectrum needs? Would an
approach similar to the one used in the 900 MHz band facilitate more
rapid offshore deployment? Why or why not?
28. Geographic Area Licensing. In many services, including many of
our more recently licensed flexible-use services, the Commission has
issued geographic area licenses for exclusive use. With geographic area
licensing, a licensee is authorized to construct anywhere within a
particular geographic area's boundary (subject to certain technical and
other requirements) and generally does not need to submit additional
applications for prior Commission approval of specific transmitter
locations. We seek comment on whether geographic area licensing is
appropriate for offshore licensing. Are there advantages to geographic
area licensing over site-based licensing in the offshore space? Why or
why not? If so, should we assign geographic area licenses offshore for
all 3GPP standardized bands? Should there be multiple geographic area
markets to cover any given U.S. coastal area or shores of the Great
Lakes in any given band, or just one in each?
29. If we were to assign geographic area licenses offshore, should
we then require offshore licensees to protect land-based licensees and
adjacent-area, co-channel, offshore licensees using existing applicable
signal strength limits, or would our rules need to be adjusted? What
are the interference concerns we should consider, and would they vary
by band? Would the ability to protect terrestrial licensees vary by
band? Would existing bands' construction requirements or license terms
need to be adjusted for offshore license areas depending on the use
case? If so, how? Would a geographic area license be impractical if the
offshore operation is mobile or on a structure such as a barge, and
therefore could move between different geographic areas? Commenters
should discuss all other advantages and disadvantages of geographic
area licensing.
30. Other Considerations. We note that in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Commission has licensed spectrum
[[Page 38053]]
using various approaches. How should our experience in the Gulf inform
our approach for other offshore areas? Is offshore spectrum too complex
for one assignment mechanism? Would multiple assignment mechanisms
better suit offshore operations' spectrum needs? In other words, should
the Commission consider using a variety of mechanisms, depending on
which offshore area is at issue and the level of demand for spectrum
usage? For example, is there an immediate and competing demand for
certain areas in the Atlantic Ocean where windfarms are already being
built, but less demand in the Great Lakes or off the Pacific coast, and
should there be different assignment mechanisms implemented to reflect
these differences? What is the demand, if any, for additional spectrum
access off the shore of Alaska into the Arctic Ocean?
31. What would be the appropriate zones in which either an onshore
or offshore licensee has exclusive authority to operate, subject to
specific coordination and interference resolution mechanisms? Parties
should discuss boundaries based on the Gulf of Mexico, state and county
lines, or any other relevant consideration. Commenters should also
discuss how far seaward the Commission could extend existing land-based
service areas in a proposed band.
32. We also note that Sec. 309 of the Communications Act requires
assignment via competitive bidding for acceptance of mutually exclusive
applications, with an exemption for public safety radio services. If
demand were such that mutually exclusive applications were filed for a
license offshore, an auction could be required to assign that license,
unless an exemption applied. To what extent might the public safety
exemption apply to assigning offshore spectrum? Are there other issues
we should keep in mind regarding licenses assigned via competitive
bidding for offshore purposes?
33. Are there any U.S. treaty obligations that may be relevant in
assigning spectrum for offshore operations depending on which body of
water is implicated? If yes, what are they and how should we take them
into account? We note also that there are maritime and other
definitions of what constitutes offshore areas. To what extent are
these definitions relevant for our purposes here?
D. Unlicensed Spectrum Use
34. We also seek comment on how unlicensed spectrum access under
our part 15 rules can support the needs of offshore operations. These
rules allow operation without a license and provide low barriers for
entry and wide flexibility in how the spectrum can be used. However,
unlicensed operations must be conducted at low power levels that might
limit the distance at which the signals could practically be used for
offshore applications (such as in long-distance vessel-to-vessel or
shore-to-offshore communication scenarios). Furthermore, unlicensed
operations must not cause harmful interference to licensed services and
must accept any harmful interference received.
35. Our existing rules generally permit unlicensed operation in
offshore locations, although there are limitations that preclude such
use in certain bands. Here, we seek to better understand how unlicensed
operations are being used and how unlicensed use can be expanded in the
offshore environment. What specific types of offshore operations are
well-suited for deployment under our unlicensed rules and what
applications might be better realized through licensed access models,
and why? Do commenters anticipate that an expansion of licensed access
models in offshore locations would affect existing unlicensed
operations or future deployments, and if so how? What are the bandwidth
requirements of those applications that can be realized through
unlicensed use, and is there sufficient capacity and equipment
presently available for deployment? Are there particular bands that
would be especially well suited for unlicensed operations in offshore
locations? Finally, are there changes to our existing rules that could
facilitate the use of spectrum on an unlicensed basis in offshore
locations?
E. Access via Spectrum Leasing
36. Another potential vehicle for accessing offshore spectrum, in
addition to the assignment mechanisms discussed above, could be a
spectrum lease arrangement. The Commission's spectrum leasing rules
apply to all ``included services,'' and include Wireless Radio Services
in which commercial or private licensees hold exclusive use rights. We
seek comment on whether spectrum leasing might meet some (or all) of
offshore operational needs, and whether this would vary by use case.
Are there incumbent licensees with spectrum available for leasing? Are
there existing terrestrial or offshore licensees interested in leasing
spectrum for offshore operations? Would the Commission need to modify
the authorizations of coastal land-based licensees to first provide
them with rights that extend to offshore areas, as a threshold to
enabling leasing of those rights? Why or why not? Should the Commission
provide incentives for license holders to lease spectrum, and if so,
what would those incentives look like? Would leased spectrum provide
enough bandwidth for offshore operations? Should the Commission update
the list of services to which our spectrum leasing rules apply to
include offshore spectrum operations to facilitate the possibility of
leasing? Should the Commission consider leasing combined with other
approaches? Are there other rule or policy changes the Commission would
need to take to enable a leasing marketplace for offshore spectrum?
F. Spectrum Bands for Offshore Operations
37. Different spectrum bands provide different spectral properties
and utility that can meet different needs. Given the potential use
cases for offshore spectrum discussed above, we seek comment generally
on which individual bands, or a combination thereof, could best support
the various needs of offshore operations.
38. What type of spectrum would best support offshore use? What
characteristics are needed, such as high bandwidth, low latency,
particular propagation characteristics, or other properties? Would a
band used to support offshore operations need to already have certain
equipment standards, such as 3GPP? Which specific bands, or combination
of bands, would best support offshore use? Possibilities could include
600 MHz, 700 MHz, 800 MHz, 900 MHz, or AWS bands. Are any of these
bands appropriate for offshore use? Why or why not? Would AWS-1 or
other low-band frequencies accommodate offshore operations' spectrum
needs? Would the interference protections in the aforementioned bands
be enough to accommodate offshore spectrum and incumbent users?
39. Are there other bands currently used for commercial or private
wireless networks that we should consider? For each band proposed,
commenters should address whether there any issues regarding existing
operators, whether large enough blocks or sufficient bandwidth would be
available for offshore operations, and what modifications, if any,
would be needed to service rules to accommodate offshore use. Are there
advantages and disadvantages of any spectrum band considered?
40. We recognize that Commission rules contain performance
requirements in certain bands. Would offshore
[[Page 38054]]
operations be able to meet the existing performance requirements in the
band(s) commenters propose and should they be required to meet them?
How might those performance requirements need to be adjusted given the
difference of use cases and operations offshore versus on land? How
might this vary based on whether the operations are private or
commercial, and how localized the service offering is? Would license
terms need to be adjusted given potential differences between deploying
on land versus at sea?
41. Are there spectrum bands that we should not consider in order
to protect incumbents in the band, or for other reasons? If so, which
bands and why? Commenters should take into consideration the existing
operations of both federal and non-federal users, particularly those
uses related to public safety and other critical national purposes,
including maritime and aeronautical endeavors. We seek comment on how
to ensure protection of such operations as appropriate. Commenters
should discuss interference protections for both incumbents and new
offshore operations in any proposed band(s). We seek comment generally
on what additional interference protections, for any band considered,
offshore operations would need.
42. We note that offshore incumbent uses may differ from operations
being protected by commercial or private wireless operations onshore,
and thus protection requirements for a given band's use offshore may be
different from those required for a band's onshore use. In other words,
commenters should not assume that a band's use for a particular purpose
onshore necessarily means it is well-suited for that purpose offshore.
G. Offshore Spectrum Access in Other Countries
43. We note that other countries authorize use of offshore
spectrum. We seek comment generally on the extent to which frameworks
used abroad provide any insight for how the Commission might move
forward in facilitating offshore licensing here. In the Netherlands,
for example, Agentschap Telecom, part of the Ministry of Economic
Affairs and Climate, has issued Tampnet and T-Mobile offshore 700 MHz
licenses in the North Sea, using what it termed a ``distribution by
demand'' model that was implemented by means of an auction. Ofcom, the
United Kingdom telecommunications regulator, issues unified Spectrum
Access Offshore Mobile licenses that cover all of the United Kingdom
``mobile bands'' (800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz, 2.3 GHz and 3.4
GHz), but only for areas not covered by the rights granted to existing
mobile network operators. The Spectrum Access Offshore Mobile license
authorizes use of spectrum on a non-protection and non-interference
basis, leaving coordination up to the licensees.
44. Do the Ofcom or North Sea models provide useful lessons for
spectrum use by U.S. offshore operations? Why or why not? Do
differences in geography and regulatory frameworks in the United
Kingdom and the Netherlands warrant different approaches offshore in
the United States? Are there other models for offshore spectrum access
used by other countries that could provide guidance for our approach
here, while still furthering our goals of innovative spectrum
management and efficient spectrum use?
H. Additional Issues
45. We invite comment on other possible approaches for the
Commission's consideration. For instance, would convening Commission-
led workshops comprised of a diverse array of experts from industry and
government be helpful? Would any pilot project be appropriate, and if
so, which particular frequency band(s) should be considered? Are there
further studies that could help inform the Commission on important
considerations with regard to offshore operations? Are there other
studies, efforts, or analyses that we should consider in this
proceeding? If so, we ask that commenters identify them and explain why
they should be considered. We also seek comment on whether there are
any security or other concerns to any of the approaches discussed
herein. What international coordination issues may arise if we provide
spectrum for offshore operations such as IoT?
46. In addition, 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 various approaches and issues discussed herein.
Specifically, we seek comment on how the various approaches that the
Commission may consider may promote or inhibit advances in diversity,
equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
IV. Ordering Clauses
47. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2,
4(i), 301, 302, 303, 332, 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 302, 303, 332 and 403 this
Notice of Inquiry is adopted.
48. Authority for this Notice may be found in sections 1, 2, 4(i),
301, 302, 303, 332, 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 302, 303, 332 and 403.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13440 Filed 6-24-22; 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 June 27, 2022.
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.