Proposed Rule2024-19846
Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz 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
September 6, 2024
Effective
October 7, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) continues to shape development of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations in the 3.55-3.7 GHz band (3.5 GHz band). This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) provides an overview of the federal protection regime implemented by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of Defense (DoD), and Commission staff and solicits input on proposals to update the technical and service rules. It also seeks commenters' ideas for further innovations and improvements to the 3.5 GHz band.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 173 (Friday, September 6, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72780-72793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19846]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 90 and 96
[GN Docket No. 17-258; FCC 24-86; FR ID 240738]
Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or
Commission) continues to shape development of the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service operations in the 3.55-3.7 GHz band (3.5 GHz band). This
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) provides an overview of the
federal protection regime implemented by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of
Defense (DoD), and Commission staff and solicits input on proposals to
update the technical and service rules. It also seeks commenters' ideas
for further innovations and improvements to the 3.5 GHz band.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before October 7,
2024; and reply comments on or before November 5, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 17-258,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Website: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3f5f0f0868387f3d5d0d09dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e181d1d6b6e6a1e383d3d70393128">[email protected]</span></a> or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Paul Powell of the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-1613 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#663607130a48360911030a0a2600050548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="24744551480a744b53414848644247470a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 17-258, FCC 24-86, adopted on
August 5, 2024, and released on August 16, 2024. The full text of this
document is available for public inspection online at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-looks-modernize-35-ghz-citizens-broadband-radio-service-rules">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-looks-modernize-35-ghz-citizens-broadband-radio-service-rules</a>.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a
brief plain language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary
of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://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.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="365055550306027650555518515940">[email protected]</a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
Ex Parte Status: The proceeding this NPRM initiates 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
[[Page 72781]]
may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior
comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page
and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in
lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules. We find that all ex parte presentations
made by NTIA or Department of Defense representatives relating to the
development and implementation of spectrum access in the 3.5 GHz band
are exempt under our exemption for presentations by federal agencies
sharing jurisdiction with the Commission.
WTB and OET staff--in close collaboration with NTIA and DoD--
communicate with SAS administrators and ESC operators in providing
Commission staff oversight of the administration of sharing the 3.5 GHz
band. We determine the ongoing communications are not subject to the
permit-but-disclose requirements of the pending proceeding because the
communications are not directed to the merits or outcome of the
proceeding (i.e., not presentations) and instead relate to the
procedural matters of WTB and OET oversight of the SASs and ESCs as
delegated by the Commission. The Commission will not seek to rely on
the SAS/ESC oversight conversations in the pending proceeding. If a SAS
administrator or ESC operator wishes to provide feedback that is
directed to the merits of this proceeding, it may do so using the
comment filing procedures detailed in this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old section New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
90.1303................................... Removed.
90.1305................................... Removed.
90.1307................................... Removed.
90.1309................................... Removed.
90.1311................................... Removed.
90.1312................................... Removed.
90.1319................................... Removed.
90.1321................................... Removed.
90.1323................................... Removed.
90.1331................................... Removed.
90.1333................................... Removed.
90.1335................................... Removed.
90.1337................................... Removed.
90.1338................................... Removed.
96.11(a)(3)............................... Removed.
96.15(b)(3)............................... Removed.
96.15(b)(4)............................... 96.15(b)(3).
96.21..................................... Removed.
96.53(m).................................. Reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. With this NPRM, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or
Commission) continues to develop the Citizens Broadband Radio Service
operations in the 3.55-3.7 GHz band (3.5 GHz band). This NPRM provides
an overview of the federal protection regime implemented by the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),
Department of Defense (DoD), and Commission staff and solicits input on
proposals to update the technical and service rules. Specifically, with
regard to federal protection in the band, this NPRM proposes to modify
the part 96 rules to reflect the mechanisms currently used to protect
federal users in the 3.5 GHz band and seeks comment on whether we
should consider rule changes to align 3.5 GHz protection methodologies
with those in adjacent bands, revisit the FCC's Environmental Sensing
Capability (ESC) approval procedures, and facilitate the continued
introduction of Citizens Broadband Radio Service in areas outside of
the contiguous United States (CONUS). The NPRM specifically seeks
comment on whether changes to the part 96 technical and service rules
are necessary to clarify information disclosure requirements, align
out-of-band emissions limits with those in adjacent bands, permit
higher power levels, relax Spectrum Access System (SAS) connectivity
requirements, impose Time Division Duplex (TDD) coordination
procedures, or update protection measures for certain Fixed Satellite
Service (FSS) earth stations. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether to
address issues surrounding professional installation, accommodate
additional deployment of private networks and low power indoor
facilities, or adopt rules to facilitate General Authorized Access
(GAA) user coexistence. The Declaratory Ruling would clarify that NTIA
and DoD are not considered ``the general public'' for purposes of the
Commission's rule governing disclosure of Citizens Broadband Radio
Service Device registration information.
A. Federal Protection and Coordination
2. In this NPRM, the Commission continues efforts to provide
regulatory certainty and promote innovation, investment, and continued
growth of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Consistent with these
objectives, the Commission proposes to modify the part 96 service rules
to codify refinements that WTB and OET, in close coordination with NTIA
and DoD staff, have implemented pursuant to delegated authority. We
also explore the need for changes to the dynamic protection area (DPA)-
based framework that could improve the ways in which DPA-based
protections operate. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should
expand the use of a coordination portal to protect federal operations,
update our rules to align protection measures with those in adjacent
bands, consider modifying our ESC procedures to address potential
effects on competition and the marketplace, or consider permitting
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations in offshore areas. We also
note that any proposed rule changes that may impact incumbent federal
operations--including the protection methodologies used to prevent
harmful interference to incumbent federal users--will need to be
coordinated with NTIA and DoD.
1. Dynamic Protection Areas
3. In 2018, the FCC's WTB and OET granted a conditional waiver of
certain rules governing the protection of federal operations in the 3.5
GHz band to facilitate more rapid access to the band by a wider variety
of devices without compromising federal incumbent operations. The 2018
DPA Waiver Order requires DPA-enabled SASs to protect an activated DPA
from aggregate interference. DPAs are activated when DoD radar systems
are using the band (as detected by ESC sensors or as scheduled through
and approved by a scheduling portal), signaling that federal incumbents
must be protected from other users in the band. While a DPA is
``active,'' the DPA-enabled SAS must manage Citizens Broadband Radio
Service Device (CBSD) frequency and power assignments to ensure that
the entire DPA is protected from aggregate interference within the
active frequency range. This dynamic approach eliminates the need for
DPA-enabled SASs to enforce Exclusion Zones in coastal regions and
other geographic areas protected by DPAs. Following the 2018 DPA Waiver
Order, NTIA and DoD have worked closely with WTB and OET to further
refine the federal
[[Page 72782]]
coordination process in the 3.5 GHz band.
4. Coastal DPAs. In a 2018 letter, NTIA recommended replacing
static coastal Exclusion Zones with ``coastal DPAs'' to help make the
3.5 GHz band more accessible to commercial users in coastal regions.
NTIA indicated that ``coastal DPAs'' would be located in specific
geographic areas along the East, Gulf, West, Alaskan, Hawaiian, and
Puerto Rican coasts to protect shipborne radar systems and may be used
to protect terrestrial facilities, as well. DPA-enabled SASs have used
Coastal DPAs to protect federal operations since the initiation of
commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz band. We now propose to define
coastal DPAs in the Commission's rules and to require all current and
future SASs to utilize them to protect federal operations. We seek
comment on this proposal.
5. Portal-Activated DPAs. To facilitate increased participation and
maximize non-federal access to 3.5 GHz spectrum near federal facilities
designated for testing and training by DoD and the military services,
NTIA, DoD, and WTB/OET agreed to utilize a dedicated scheduling portal
to protect federal operations. The scheduling portal allows federal
operators to reserve their use of specific frequency ranges in the band
for developmental and operational testing and various training
activities. The scheduling portal is also used to protect federal
operations in some coastal areas. Employing ``portal-activated'' DPAs
(P-DPAs) to protect test and training ranges, SAS administrators are
required to communicate with the portal on a regular basis to manage
federal and non-federal shared use of the band. We propose to require
SASs to use an approved scheduling portal to protect P-DPAs and add a
definition of P-DPAs to the part 96 rules. We seek comment on this
proposal.
6. Always Activated DPAs. Another example of a more flexible
approach is the use of ``always activated'' DPAs instead of static
Exclusion Zones to protect eleven ground-based radar system sites
operating below 3.5 GHz from experiencing harmful interference from
non-federal operations in the 3.55-3.65 GHz band. To avoid delaying
commercial buildout, NTIA and WTB/OET determined that ``always
activated'' DPA protection, based on limiting the maximum aggregate
received power level from the CBSDs at the location of the radar
antenna, offered the best means to provide buildout flexibility while
fully protecting critical federal radar systems. We propose to require
SASs to protect Always Activated DPAs and to add a definition of Always
Activated DPAs to the part 96 rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
7. Given the successful implementation of DPA-based protections and
the resulting growth in commercial use of the 3.5 GHz band, we propose
to add detailed definitions for the different types of DPAs, as well as
DPA Neighborhoods, and to make enforcement of DPA-based protections
mandatory for all current and future SASs. We also propose to update
the part 96 rules to incorporate the DPA framework adopted in the 2018
DPA Waiver Order. In addition, we seek comment on changes to the
definition of ``Exclusion Zone'' to account for the possibility of
coordination with federal users in the remaining areas protected by
such zones. We also seek comment on whether there are changes or
improvements we should make to the DPA-based framework to improve the
ways in which DPA-based protections operate. We welcome suggestions
regarding how we can modify the DPA regime to encourage Citizens
Broadband Radio Service network buildout while maintaining protections
for federal incumbents.
2. DPA Coordination Portal
8. As described above, designated federal test and training
facilities, as well as some coastal areas, including the territory of
American Samoa, are protected by P-DPAs. If a SAS administrator intends
to operate as a DPA-enabled SAS--as all currently certified SASs have
done--it must use an approved scheduling portal to protect designated
P-DPAs.
9. DoD recently developed an automated system called the
Telecommunications Advanced Research and Dynamic Spectrum Sharing
System (TARDyS3) to replace the manual scheduling portal used to
activate the P-DPAs. The TARDyS3 is a DoD calendar-based system that
supports expeditious communications regarding spectrum use at test and
training ranges in the 3.5 GHz band. Scheduling via TARDyS3 is designed
to enable DoD users to reserve their spectrum use and communicate the
use of a given Citizens Broadband Radio Service channel at a given time
near the designated P-DPA.
10. Under current rules in Sec. 96.63(n)(1), each SAS must
``[o]perate[ ] without any connectivity to any military or other
sensitive federal database or system, except as otherwise required by
this part.'' Accordingly, because the TARDyS3 portal is managed by DoD
and includes information on DoD operations, WTB and OET waived Sec.
96.63(n)(1) of the Commission's rules to permit SAS administrators to
utilize the TARDyS3 portal. WTB and OET found that the waiver furthers
the public interest by improving the security, reliability, and
resiliency of the scheduling portal utilized by SAS administrators to
protect certain designated federal facilities in the 3.5 GHz band and
by permitting the use of the TARDyS3 portal to improve federal
coordination in the band. Correspondingly, WTB and OET instructed the
SAS administrators to begin using the TARDyS3 portal by issuing a
public notice.
11. We propose to modify the part 96 rules to require that SAS
administrators use a Commission-authorized scheduling portal--
currently, the TARDyS3 system--to protect P-DPAs. We believe that
codifying this requirement will further the public interest by
formalizing the use of a secure, reliable, and resilient scheduling
portal that will be utilized by SAS administrators to improve federal
coordination and ensure the protection of critical federal operations
against harmful interference. We seek comment on this proposal. We also
seek comment on possibly expanding future use of the portal system to
protect federal operations in other areas, particularly in areas
outside of the CONUS with difficult terrain or unique protection needs
(e.g., Alaska and Hawaii). Do commenters see any need to distinguish
any such areas from those already included in the TARDyS3 system? To
that end, we seek comment on whether we should consider other
applications for portal-based solutions to protect federal users and
securely manage harmful interference between non-federal and federal
entities.
3. Alignment With 3.45 GHz Protections
12. Following the adoption of 3.5 GHz band rules, Commission
adopted rules for a new 3.45 GHz Service operating between 3.45-3.55
GHz that employed a federal/non-federal sharing regime that differs in
some ways from the Citizens Broadband Radio Service spectrum sharing
model. While operators in both the 3.45 GHz and 3.5 GHz bands are
charged with protecting many but not all of the same federal radar
systems (some of which operate across both bands), in some cases they
are required to apply different protection methodologies in each band.
In the 3.45 GHz Service, the Commission adopted a geographic protection
model that utilizes geographic areas classified as Cooperative Planning
Areas (CPAs) and Periodic Use Areas (PUAs) to protect certain federal
operations against
[[Page 72783]]
harmful interference. To afford licensees maximum flexibility in
deploying networks and offering services while still protecting
remaining federal operations, the Commission adopted a coordination
regime. New flexible-use 3.45 GHz Service licensees are required to
coordinate with DoD incumbents operating within CPAs and PUAs to
facilitate shared use of the band using a coordination portal, and 3.45
GHz Service licensees were encouraged to enter into mutually acceptable
operator-to-operator agreements to permit more extensive flexible use
within CPAs and PUAs by agreeing to a technical approach that mitigates
the interference risk to federal operations.
13. We seek comment on whether there are opportunities to revise
the rules governing the 3.5 GHz band to align the protection of
specific inland and port-based federal systems and facilities given the
spectrum sharing framework adopted in the adjacent 3.45 GHz band.
Specifically, we seek comment on whether 3.5 GHz band protection
methodologies could be aligned to correspond to 3.45 GHz band
protections--for the same systems and facilities--to increase
commercial access to the band while maintaining necessary protection
for federal incumbent users. For example, some 3.45 GHz facilities
protected by CPAs or PUAs are also protected from out of band emissions
from the Citizens Broadband Radio Service by Always On DPAs. In some
instances, the 3.5 GHz band protections may restrict non-federal
operations more than the corresponding CPA or PUA. In addition, both
services use a portal-based approach to protect certain federal
incumbents, some of which span the two bands. Are there opportunities
to create efficiencies by modifying the protection mechanisms in the
3.5 GHz band to better align with those in the 3.45 GHz band in these,
or other instances? We note that any potential changes to the
protection of federal operations will need to be coordinated with NTIA
and DoD. We encourage commenters to consider approaches wherein we may
be able to increase commercial spectrum opportunities and facilitate
more efficient use of valuable spectrum resources.
4. ESC Coordination and Availability
14. In 2018, WTB and OET established procedures for ESC operators
to register their ESC sensors prior to beginning operations in a
particular DPA. These ESC sensor application requirements include, at a
minimum, that the ESC operator demonstrate that the coverage provided
by the network of ESC sensors will comply with NTIA's published
guidance and that the ESC operator must submit a detailed coverage map
of the sensor network. Accordingly, WTB and OET evaluate the deployment
of ESC sensors for DPA coverage. ESC sensors are not, however,
evaluated for any competitive or marketplace impacts, including any
potential negative effects on Citizens Broadband Radio Service users
that are operating, or seeking to initiate operations, near an ESC
sensor site. In addition, ESC operators are not currently required to
make their services available to unaffiliated SAS administrators.
15. The Commission welcomes feedback on whether we should modify
aspects of the ESC sensor approval requirements. Specifically, without
altering existing DPA coverage requirements for ESC certification,
should we consider modifying any of the ESC sensor approval procedures
given the state of competition in the SAS/ESC marketplace? Should we
direct WTB and OET to consider the competitive and deployment impacts
of new ESC sensors during the ESC sensor approval process (e.g.,
assessment of the population within the geographic area that would be
potentially affected by a sensor deployment)? If so, how should those
impacts be quantified and considered? In addition, to facilitate and
maintain a competitive marketplace, should ESC operators be required to
make their services available to any certified SAS administrator? We
encourage commenters to provide detailed feedback, including technical
and cost-benefit analyses and use cases, if applicable, to support
their positions.
5. OCONUS and Offshore Citizens Broadband Radio Service Deployments
16. While the Commission has issued PALs, certified SAS
administrators, and authorized GAA use in Alaska, Hawaii, and several
U.S territories outside of CONUS (OCONUS), in some OCONUS areas,
operators have experienced unique delays and challenges specific to
their geography or region. To date, Commission staff has worked in
close coordination with NTIA and DoD to enable service by employing a
portal based protection methodology for American Samoa, temporary
portal-based solution for Hawaii, and ESC sensor deployment and
coverage plans in Guam, Puerto Rico, and part of Alaska. Consistent
with these efforts, we seek comment on whether there are other OCONUS
areas that may benefit from an alternate approach to federal
protection, on a temporary or permanent basis. We also seek comment
generally on the feasibility of implementing the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service licensing framework in the 3.55-3.65 GHz band segment in
OCONUS areas given the difficulty of installing ESC sensors in remote
or hard-to-reach areas. How can we overcome the logistical and economic
barriers to ESC development and deployment in OCONUS territories?
Should we consider other means of ensuring federal protection in OCONUS
areas? If so, what are the hurdles to achieving the desired outcome?
Are there ways in which we can incentivize or expedite ESC deployment
in OCONUS areas? Are there different approaches that might work better
in different OCONUS areas? Should we modify our part 96 rules to
effectuate these potential solutions and, if so, what specific changes
should we make? Commenters should support their alternative proposals
with corresponding cost/benefit analyses, including any underlying data
and assumptions associated with such proposals.
17. We also seek comment on whether Citizens Broadband Radio
Service operations should be permitted in offshore areas (e.g., the
Gulf of Mexico) in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band segment. We note that the
Commission did not directly address potential offshore operations,
including those in the Gulf of Mexico, in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band in its
earlier orders. However, the 3.65-3.7 GHz band was used extensively by
part 90 licensees, including some offshore deployments on oil rigs and
other facilities, before the Citizens Broadband Radio Service
transition was complete. What are the costs and benefits associated
with permitting offshore Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations in
the 3.65-3.7 GHz band? Could offshore operations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz
band have adverse impacts on ESC sensors along the coastline and, if
so, how could such interference be mitigated? How would CBSDs located
offshore maintain connectivity with a SAS as required by the
Commission's rules? Commenters should provide details regarding the
potential operational impacts, costs, benefits, and resource
considerations for new offshore service entrants and discuss any
potential impact such operations may have on incumbent users in the
area.
B. CBSD Information
18. Consistent with the Commission's rules, Priority Access
Licensees and GAA users are required to register all CBSDs with, and be
authorized by, a SAS prior to initial service transmission. In addition
to the CBSD registration and authorization
[[Page 72784]]
requirements, Commission rules require CBSDs to provide received signal
strength and other measured parameters to the SAS administrators upon
request. Commission rules also restrict the CBSD information that SASs
can disclose to the public. We welcome feedback on whether to make
changes to the Commission's rules governing the breadth and scope of
CBSD information provided to SASs and CBSD information availability.
19. CBSD Measured Interference Metric Information. The Commission
requires CBSDs to provide measured interference metric information when
a SAS administrator requests the data. We seek comment on how this
works in practice. In the 2015 3.5 GHz First Report and Order, the
Commission indicated that any such requirements may be set by a
multistakeholder group. Are these issues effectively addressed in the
standards set within WInnForum? Would different information or a
broader set of information about the Citizens Broadband Radio Service
radiofrequency environment support improvements in the 3.5 GHz band? In
particular, we would be interested to understand if additional real
world data about Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations would
enable the SAS administrators to more effectively manage spectrum
access within the band or if additional data could be beneficial to
Priority Access Licensees, GAA users, the FCC, or NTIA and DoD. Do
currently certified CBSDs have the capability to measure additional
data about the PAL and GAA radiofrequency environment? In particular,
the Commission is interested in whether CBSDs' measurement of
additional data would require a hardware change or software upgrade and
the costs of adding any such a capability to already certified CBSDs.
20. CBSD Information Availability. Initially, the SAS
administrators were required to make CBSD registration information
available to the general public and to ``obfuscate the identities of
the licensees providing the information for any public disclosures'' to
protect against public disclosure of confidential business information
that could compromise personal privacy or affect competitive interests.
The Commission subsequently modified the CBSD information disclosure
requirement to provide that SAS administrators may not disclose
``specific CBSD registration information to the general public except
where such disclosure is authorized by the registrant'' and SAS
administrators are only required to ``make available to the general
public aggregated spectrum usage data for any geographic area.'' When
the Commission revised the public disclosure requirement, it noted that
the success of the 3.5 GHz band's shared spectrum model requires
providing prospective users with enough information to accurately
assess the overall spectrum environment in an area to make investment
and deployment decisions. Given the rapid and ongoing growth of
commercial deployments in the band--along with stakeholder interest in
increased transparency--current and future Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users might benefit from more granular information on CBSD
deployments to effectively plan their networks. Accordingly, we seek
comment on whether the existing information disclosure rules provide
sufficient data for current and future Citizens Broadband Radio Service
users to plan their network deployments and make informed decisions
regarding investments in the band.
21. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should consider
modifying our disclosure rules to reinstate the original information
disclosure requirements or whether we should implement an alternative
approach. Commenters are encouraged to indicate whether current
permissible disclosure of aggregated spectrum usage data for a
geographic area, including total available spectrum and the maximum
available contiguous spectrum, provides sufficient information to
determine whether a market they have singled out for consideration
warrants CBSD deployment and capital investment. Commenters seeking
changes to the disclosure rules should explain why the use of aggregate
heat maps, showing the total amount of occupied and available spectrum
in a given area of interest, has been insufficient to meet their needs.
22. Commenters seeking alternative disclosure rules, including a
reversion to the original information disclosure requirements, should
explain how their approach would balance existing operator interest in
protecting sensitive network information with the legitimate
information needs of prospective service providers and the general
public. Specifically, proponents of alternative disclosure approaches
should outline how their proposals would safeguard sensitive business
or network operations data while yielding enough spectrum use data to
assist parties interested in obtaining access to the band on a GAA
basis or engaging with Priority Access Licensees for secondary market
transactions.
23. In addition, as described in the Declaratory Ruling that
accompanies this NPRM, we clarify that NTIA and DoD are not considered
``the general public'' with regard to the CBSD information disclosure
rule. To supplement the Declaratory Ruling and further clarify this
point in part 96, we propose to modify Sec. 96.55 of the Commission's
rules to require SAS administrators to provide CBSD registration data
to NTIA and DoD upon request. We seek comment on this proposal.
C. Out of Band Emissions Limits
24. We seek comment on whether we should align the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service base station OOBE limits with OOBE limits
adopted in the 3.7 GHz Service, which is adjacent to the upper edge of
the 3.5 GHz band. In the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the
following OOBE limits apply: (1) -13 dBm/MHz from 0 to 10 megahertz
from the SAS assigned channel edge; (2) -25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz
from the SAS assigned channel edge down to 3.53 GHz and up to 3.72 GHz;
and (3) -40 dBm/MHz below 3.53 GHz and above 3.72 GHz. In the adjacent
3.7 GHz Band Service, the Commission subsequently adopted a less
restrictive OOBE limit for base station and mobile operations of -13
dBm/MHz that is consistent with limits for many other mobile wireless
services. Declining to adopt more stringent emission limits both within
and outside the 3.7 GHz band, the Commission stated that doing so would
hinder the full potential of 5G deployment in the band. As for the
mobile OOBE limit, the Commission indicated that the effect on Citizens
Broadband Radio Service operations below the 3.7 GHz band edge would be
minimal and that the limit would permit mobile devices to operate
across the variety of spectrum bands currently available for mobile
broadband services.
25. The Commission seeks comment as to whether we should relax the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service OOBE limits at the upper edge of the
3.5 GHz band and, if so, what new OOBE limit would be appropriate.
Notably, recent requests for waivers of the OOBE limits in the 3 GHz
services underscore the challenge that the divergent OOBE cutoffs in
the 3 GHz bands potentially pose to equipment manufacturers seeking to
introduce multi-band radio equipment that can operate across these
adjacent bands. We seek comment on whether we should consider relaxing
the OOBE limits for operations within the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service band. Would relaxing the 3.5 GHz band OOBE limits both within
and outside the band to comport with the adjacent 3.7 GHz Service OOBE
limits (i.e.,
[[Page 72785]]
replacing the current OOBE limits with a -13 dBm/MHz OOBE limit from
3.55-3.7 GHz) help to facilitate broader deployment of multi-band 5G
radio equipment? Alternatively, would some other changes to the OOBE
limits (e.g., removing the -40 dBm/MHz limit above 3720 MHz while
leaving the other limits unchanged) be more effective? Would such
changes increase the possibility of harmful interference to adjacent
band operations--or operations in nearby channels in the 3.5 GHz band--
and, if so, how could such interference be mitigated? Would such
changes privilege one type of user or network deployment over another?
Commenters are encouraged to provide detailed cost-benefit and
technical analyses to support their arguments.
D. Base Station (CBSD) and End User Device (UE) Power Levels
26. In adopting the rules governing CBSD and End User Device (UE)
power levels in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the Commission
strove to balance the public interest objectives of providing greater
flexibility to operators against the need to ensure efficient use of
the spectrum to create a flexible regime suitable for a wide variety of
use cases.
27. We seek comment on whether to add one or more classes of higher
power CBSDs to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. If so, how should
these classes be defined and what should the maximum permissible power
levels be for each new class of CBSDs? We also seek comment on the
potential effects that introducing higher power devices might have on
the sharing environment both in and adjacent to the 3.5 GHz band.
Specifically, would higher power levels affect spectrum availability
near incumbent operations--including federal operations and FSS earth
stations--and, if so, would some types of operations be more affected
than others? Would higher power levels lead to increased geographic
distance between base stations operated by different licensees? If so,
could the increased distance potentially limit the number of
simultaneous users in the band, making it less efficient in terms of
number of users per megahertz? Would an increase in power lead to in-
band or adjacent band coexistence issues between commercial wireless
operators and, if so, would some types of deployments be affected more
than others? If higher power devices are permitted, should we require
the SASs to make any changes to their operations to ensure the
equitable division of power levels and channel assignments between
different users and types of operations?
28. Commenters that support the addition of new higher power CBSD
classes are encouraged to provide detailed technical analyses of any
changes to incumbent protection criteria--including possible increases
in the size of DPA neighborhoods and any corresponding increase in
burdens on SAS administrators--that such changes might entail.
Commenters should also provide technical and cost-benefit analyses on
any potential impacts to commercial wireless operators in and adjacent
to the 3.5 GHz band. Such analyses should explicitly address the impact
of higher power CBSDs on the wide variety of Citizens Broadband Radio
Service operations that have already been deployed in the 3.5 GHz band
in reliance on the current rules. We also note that any changes to
federal incumbent protection criteria--including any proposed changes
to DPAs or DPA neighborhood distances--will need to be coordinated with
NTIA and DoD.
29. Stakeholders in the 3.5 GHz band have also expressed an
interest in aligning UE power levels with 3GPP standards. For example,
both DISH and CCA propose increasing Citizens Broadband Radio Service
UE power limits to allow operations at 26 dBm (instead of 23 dBm) which
is in line with the 3GPP High Power UEs (HPUEs) definition. We seek
comment on aligning UE power levels in the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service with 3GPP standards. We also seek comment on the costs and
benefits of allowing higher power End User devices to operate in the
3.5 GHz band. Given that UEs are not directly controlled by SASs, we
seek comment on what the potential impact of introducing higher power
UEs will be on incumbent operators and other Citizens Broadband Radio
service users. Commenters supporting increased UE power levels should
describe, in detail, how harmful interference from higher power UEs
should be prevented. Specifically, commenters should indicate what
protection measures should be put in place to prevent higher power UEs
from causing harmful interference to incumbents and Priority Access
Licensees in the band. We note that any proposed changes that may
impact federal operations will have to be coordinated with NTIA and
DoD.
E. SAS Connectivity and/or Outages
30. Fundamental to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service is the
requirement that certified SASs must register and authorize all CBSDs.
Notably, to facilitate timely and accurate coordination, the part 96
rules require CBSDs to maintain SAS connectivity so they can update the
SAS of a change in status and comply with SAS instructions within
seconds of a triggering event. Each CBSD must register with, and
receive authorization from, a SAS prior to its initial service
transmission and must update the SAS within 60 seconds of any changes
in its registration information, including the device's specific
location. A CBSD must also receive and comply with any incoming
commands from its associated SAS regarding any changes to power limits
and frequency assignments within 60 seconds of receiving them, i.e., a
CBSD must cease transmission, move to another frequency, or change its
power level within 60 seconds as instructed by a SAS. These SAS
connectivity and communications requirements help to ensure that higher
tier operations--including federal operations--are continuously
protected from harmful interference and that operations within the same
tier can be effectively coordinated.
31. Since commercial services were first introduced in the band,
the Commission has granted relief via conditional waiver to the
National Football League (NFL) from specific SAS connectivity and
communications rules and has worked with NTIA to implement broader
relief from SAS signaling requirements in geographic areas and portions
of the spectrum band that are outside of the scope of current federal
operations. The NFL's waiver allows it to continue operating its GAA-
based, coach-to-coach communications systems without connectivity to a
SAS in the event of a localized internet outage in an NFL stadium
during football game, provided a SAS had authorized the operations.
This waiver and subsequent extensions imposed additional technical
requirements (including ISP redundancy), and assigned detailed
reporting requirements to the NFL.
32. In addition, WTB and OET, working in close collaboration with
NTIA, permitted the SAS administrators to extend the CBSD
reauthorization period from 300 seconds to 24 hours in geographic areas
and portions of the spectrum band that are outside of the scope of
current federal operations to provide a more stable and predictable
spectrum environment for Citizens Broadband Radio Service users while
ensuring an interference-free environment for critical federal
operations. This approach will also ensure that SAS administrators will
be able to timely respond to instructions from the President of the
United States,
[[Page 72786]]
or another designated Federal Government entity, issued pursuant to 47
U.S.C. 606.
33. In light of these developments, the Commission seeks comment on
whether there are other specific circumstances that may warrant less
restrictive application of SAS connectivity requirements. Specifically,
we seek comment on what, if any, circumstances or deployment types may
warrant an alternate approach to SAS connectivity. If we were to
provide some degree of situational flexibility, what changes to our SAS
connectivity requirements should we consider? Should Citizens Broadband
Radio Service users be required to renew access to any alternative
approach periodically and, if so, what period would be appropriate?
Should we provide more general, time limited relief to Citizens
Broadband Radio Service operators in the event of a SAS outage or other
connectivity issue?
34. The Commission also welcomes feedback on what factors to take
into account in determining whether to relax SAS connectivity in
specific circumstances. For example, should we consider different SAS
connectivity requirements for spectrum usage that is both
geographically and temporally confined (e.g., where the potential for
interference is tempered by terrain attenuation or involves spectrum
uses that are short in duration)? Along those lines, should we provide
greater flexibility for low powered Category A CBSDs or should we
provide flexibility to all CBSDs in circumstances where transmissions
are less likely to cause harmful interference? If the latter, what
would those circumstances be?
35. The Commission seeks comment on how federal operators and other
incumbent users would be protected if we adopt more flexible SAS
connectivity rules for some situations. If we modify our SAS
connectivity requirements to reflect specific uses or circumstances,
how should we implement such changes to ensure that incumbent federal
operations, and other higher tier operators in the band, are protected?
Would such changes increase the likelihood that higher tier users,
including federal incumbents, would be subject to harmful interference?
How, specifically, could interference issues be avoided or mitigated?
Commenters that support changes to the current SAS connectivity rules
should describe the underlying costs and benefits of their proposals
and are encouraged to provide detailed information, including technical
analyses, that show how any interference issues between and among 3.5
GHz band users would be avoided or mitigated. We note that any proposed
changes that may impact federal operations will have to be coordinated
with NTIA and DoD.
F. Time Division Duplex (TDD) Synchronization (In-Band and Adjacent
Band)
36. In the 3.45 GHz Second Report and Order, the Commission
allocated the 3.45 GHz band on an unpaired basis to promote a
consistent spectral environment with adjacent 3.5 GHz and 3.7 GHz
bands, both of which are also unpaired in the United States.
Recognizing the benefits to all operators that come from TDD
synchronization both within and across bands, the Commission found that
the record indicated that TDD synchronization, where feasible, may
assist in avoiding harmful interference between the 3.45 GHz Service
and Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations. To minimize the
potential for causing or receiving harmful interference while
maintaining deployment flexibility and efficiency, the Commission
encouraged intra-band synchronization where possible and required 3.45
GHz Service licensees to negotiate in good faith with requesting
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators to enable TDD
synchronization across the two adjacent services.
37. While the 3.45 GHz Second Report and Order required
negotiations concerning the information to be provided to be conducted
in good faith, with the goal of enabling TDD synchronization between
the relevant systems, it did not impose an obligation on the 3.45 GHz
Service licensee to make any corresponding changes to its operations or
proposed operations, stating that parties are free to negotiate changes
to either or both networks as part of their efforts. The Commission
declined at the time to require TDD synchronization between networks
operating in the adjacent 3.45 GHz and 3.5 GHz bands. The Commission
was concerned that mandating TDD synchronization could undermine
operator flexibility in determining the best use of this spectrum,
especially as use cases and technologies change over time. The
Commission now seeks comment on whether to impose out-of-band TDD
coordination procedures on Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensees
to make sure data sharing occurs on a bilateral basis between 3.45 GHz
Service and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users seeking to provide
service in the same or adjacent geographic areas. We also seek comment
on whether Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators should have an
obligation to make any corresponding changes to their operations to
facilitate TDD synchronization or if we should simply permit parties to
negotiate changes to their respective networks.
38. The Commission declined to impose similar TDD synchronization
measures on 3.7 GHz Service licensees; consequently there is no
negotiation or coordination required between 3.7 GHz Service operators
and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. Similarly, the part 96
rules do not impose any obligation on Citizens Broadband Radio Service
licensees to share TDD synchronization information upon request with
adjacent band operators in either the 3.45 GHz or the 3.7 GHz Services.
Given the changed circumstances in the adjacent band since the last
time that the part 96 rules were examined, we seek comment on whether
to impose out-of-band coordination requirements on Citizens Broadband
Radio Service operators to encourage TDD synchronization with the
adjacent 3.7 GHz band.
39. We also welcome feedback generally on the potential benefits
and drawbacks of imposing in-band TDD coordination procedures on
Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensees given the tiered licensing
structure in the 3.5 GHz band. Could an in-band TDD synchronization
requirement decrease the potential for harmful interference between
operators in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service? Could TDD
synchronization be equitably applied across the myriad use cases
supported by the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, including GAA
deployments? Could such requirements be managed at the SAS level and,
if so, how would they be enforced? Would TDD synchronization improve
the SASs' ability to coordinate between and among Citizens Broadband
Radio Service users in the band? Would such requirements improve
spectrum availability for synchronized operators? Would imposing TDD
requirements impose new burdens on operators in the band? We encourage
commenters to support their proposals with detailed cost benefit
analyses and technical submissions.
G. FSS Protection
40. In developing the part 96 rules, the Commission adopted various
measures to protect incumbent FSS earth stations, including the
establishment of an annual registration requirement to protect
qualified in-band FSS earth stations as well as adjacent 3.7-4.2 GHz
band FSS earth stations used for satellite telemetry, tracking, and
control (TT&C). For SASs to
[[Page 72787]]
adequately protect FSS incumbents, the Commission stated that SASs must
be able to access detailed information regarding the technical and
operational characteristics of each FSS earth station seeking
protection and, if any of these characteristics change, the FSS earth
station licensee requesting protection must update the relevant
registration in the 3.5 GHz FSS database. To initiate this protection
framework, the Commission required that FSS earth stations be
registered and renewed annually.
41. Under the current rules, in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band only FSS earth
stations used for TT&C are eligible for protection and some of those
sites have been consolidated or taken off-line as part of the 3.7 GHz
transition process. Moreover, while grandfathered FSS operators in the
3.5 GHz band retain incumbent status for active FSS earth stations,
some of these earth stations may have been taken offline as a result of
the 3.7 GHz transition process. Given these developments in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band, we seek comment on whether we should consider changes to
Sec. 96.17 and Sec. 96.21 of the Commission's rules, which were
adopted to protect incumbent FSS operations in and adjacent to the 3.5
GHz band. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should limit
protection of TT&C sites in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to those facilities
that were specifically identified in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order and
subsequent satellite operator submissions. We also seek comment more
generally on whether we should modify section 96.17 of the Commission's
rules to require FSS operators to provide additional technical or
operational parameters as part of their annual registration submission
to ensure that SASs have the most up-to-date and accurate information
necessary to protect registered in-band and adjacent band FSS earth
stations against harmful interference from Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users operating in the 3.5 GHz band. What additional
information would be useful?
42. We propose to clarify the Commission's rules to state that SASs
no longer have to apply the protection criteria in 47 CFR part 90,
subpart Z, to protect FSS earth stations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band now
that the transition window for Grandfathered Wireless Broadband
Licensees has closed. Specifically, we propose to delete Sec. 96.21
now that incumbent Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees in the
3.65-3.7 GHz band have completed their transition from part 90 to part
96 of the Commission's rules. Rather, the protection criteria set forth
in Sec. 96.17 for FSS earth stations in the 3.6-3.65 GHz band will
apply to all grandfathered FSS earth stations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band
going forward. We seek comment on this proposal.
H. Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees
43. In establishing service rules for the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service, the Commission adopted a transition period for certain part 90
incumbent Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees in the 3.65-3.7
GHz band to upgrade their equipment to comply with the part 96 rules.
Recognizing the challenges associated with the regulatory transition
and the significant investment, the Commission provided additional
protections and a ``reasonable transition period'' for these
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees. Under the transition
framework, Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees were given at
least five years to transition their operations to the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service, or to discontinue operations in the 3.65-3.7
GHz band. January 8, 2023 was the latest possible transition deadline
for Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees to either complete their
transition to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service or discontinue
operations in the band. If a Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees
failed to transition its sites to part 96 operations by that date then
the licensee's sites are no longer authorized (unless a waiver or
extension of the deadline had been granted).
44. We therefore propose to sunset the rules set forth in part 90,
subpart Z that apply to wireless broadband services in the 3.65-3.7 GHz
band and the corresponding rules protecting part 90 licenses from
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations. We tentatively conclude
these rules are no longer needed as the transition period for the last
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensee's license ended on January 8,
2023. We seek comment on this proposal.
I. Other Issues
1. Certified Professional Installation
45. We seek comment on the efficacy of the current professional
installation regime and whether any rule changes are needed to ensure
that CBSDs are installed and maintained correctly. Do the current rules
sufficiently ensure that CBSD locations and configurations are reported
accurately? If not, what improvements could be made to better address
the need for accurate CBSD information in this band? We also seek
comment on whether some devices that are classified as Category B
devices under the rules (e.g., outdoor Category A devices installed
over 6 meters high, devices used solely as customer premise equipment,
etc.) could be safely installed and operated without a CPI. If so, what
safeguards should be required to ensure that such devices do not cause
harmful interference to incumbent operators and other Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users? Commenters are encouraged to provide
specific feedback and to consider the costs and benefits for various
use cases and network deployments.
2. Private Networks and Low Power Indoor Facilities
46. In the 3.5 GHz FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether
it would be in the public interest to allow critical users--such as
hospitals, public safety organizations, and local governments--to
receive interference protection, akin to Priority Access licensees,
within a limited portion of the GAA pool for indoor use within their
own buildings. The 3.5 GHz FNPRM proposed that such Contained Access
Users would be required to accept interference from GAA transmissions
originating outside of their buildings and to undertake reasonable
efforts to safeguard against harmful interference from those
transmissions. After reviewing the record, the Commission declined to
adopt the Contained Access Facility (CAF) proposal in the 3.5 GHz First
Report and Order. At the time, the Commission indicated that the
potential need for such protection was outweighed by the additional
costs and burdens of implementing this special priority within GAA use,
but left the door open for further consideration.
47. Since 2015, the market for low power indoor operations has
continued to develop, and the Commission has taken steps to authorize
such operations with fewer restrictions than the Commission applied to
outdoor deployments in the same spectrum bands. Notably, in the 6 GHz
Report and Order, the Commission authorized unlicensed low-power indoor
access points across the entire 6 GHz band, stating that they would be
ideal for connecting devices in homes and businesses such as
smartphones, tablet devices, laptops, and internet-of-things (IoT)
devices to the internet. Similarly, in the 5.9 GHz First Report and
Order, the Commission adopted rules allowing unlicensed indoor
operations across the entire 5.850-5.895 GHz portion of the 5.9 GHz
band by setting specific power
[[Page 72788]]
and technical limits to protect ITS service and federal radar
operations from harmful interference. Adopting the same equipment-
related hardware requirements as the 6 GHz band, the Commission
permitted an exception to accommodate devices such as Wi-Fi extenders
and mesh networking equipment that work in conjunction with an indoor
access point and share the same propagation path, and thus the same
power requirements, but stated that these devices could only be used
within a single structure and not connect separate buildings or
structures.
48. In addition, 3GPP implemented new 5G New Radio (5G NR)
standards, some of which included new and enhanced features related to
non-public networks. Industry stakeholders and analysts have also
touted the expected rise of new opportunities in private networks in
the 3.5 GHz band and elsewhere. The combination of the Commission's
recent work on indoor deployments, developments in the standards
process, and growing industry interest in private wireless networks,
may support a reassessment of how the part 96 rules treat low power
indoor operations, and private networks more generally, in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. To that end, we seek comment on whether there
are steps we can take to facilitate additional use of the 3.5 GHz band
for low power indoor operations, including private networks.
Specifically, should we allow operators to reserve some amount of GAA
spectrum for private, low-power indoor operations--akin to the CAF
approach--and, if so, what parameters should be established to ensure
equitable access to spectrum resources and safeguard other operators
from harmful interference? What specific use cases would benefit from
this type of reservation model? Should eligibility be reserved for
certain categories of users (e.g., public safety organizations, medical
care facilities, etc.) or should it be more generally available? We
also seek comment on whether we should adopt equipment-related hardware
requirements and operational parameters similar to those adopted for
indoor services in the 5.9 GHz and 6 GHz bands given that users in
those bands are, in some cases, deploying low-power devices similar to
Category A CBSDs and, if we did so, whether we would need to make any
adjustments for 3.5 GHz band operations?
49. In addition, some network operators may be interested in using
3.5 GHz spectrum to operate drones within the confines of their indoor
facilities. Such airborne operations are prohibited by the current
service rules. Given that building attenuation is a key factor in
minimizing potentially harmful interference from indoor access points
to incumbent receivers, should the Commission expressly allow the
operation of drones connected to various low-power access points within
a single structure or building? Would such operations be possible
without causing harmful interference to higher tier operations? How
would SAS administrators coordinate indoor drone operations? Would such
operations benefit from some amount of reserved GAA spectrum (akin to
the CAF model)?
50. Finally, we seek comment on whether a GAA spectrum reservation
system--or other methods--could be used to facilitate and support the
growing interest in private networks more generally. For instance,
could a CAF-like GAA spectrum reservation system be used to support
some outdoor private networks in geographically contained areas (e.g.,
corporate campuses or manufacturing facilities)? What effects would
such a system have on spectrum access for other Citizens Broadband
Radio Service users and the overall spectrum environment in the band?
Are there other technical or policy approaches that we should consider
to support deployment of private networks in the 3.5 GHz band? We ask
that commenters submit detailed technical and/or economic analysis to
support their positions, including assessments of the overall impact on
spectrum availability and the potential effects on both incumbent
operators and other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users.
3. GAA User Coexistence
51. To ensure flexibility for the development of the 3.5 GHz band,
the Commission encouraged private industry to develop and implement the
parameters of GAA coexistence. Section 96.35 of the Commission's rules
sets forth the terms by which GAA users can access and use spectrum in
the band. The rules require GAA users operating Category B CBSDs to
make every effort to cooperate in the selection and use of available
frequencies provided by a SAS to minimize the potential for
interference and make the most effective use of the authorized
facilities. GAA users must also make every effort to ensure that their
CBSDs operate at a location, and with technical parameters, that will
minimize the potential to cause and receive interference among CBSDs.
Operators of CBSDs suffering from or causing harmful interference are
expected to cooperate and resolve interference problems through
technological solutions or by other mutually satisfactory arrangements.
As GAA use has rapidly increased in the past four years, the potential
for conflict among and between GAA users has increased as well.
52. We note that it is Commission policy to ``be proactive in
supporting `good neighbor' policies that promote more efficient and
effective co-existence among spectrum users.'' Accordingly, we seek
comment on whether we should adopt rules to ensure equitable treatment
of different GAA operators. Specifically, we seek comment on whether
there are new rules, or clarifications of current rules, that could
foster coexistence and preempt disputes among GAA users in a manner
that will also advance GAA spectrum use and continued deployment of the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Alternately, would the development of
specific coexistence criteria be better left to multistakeholder
groups? What would be the costs and benefits of any such rule changes
and what impact would they have on existing and future GAA deployments?
What role should the SASs play in monitoring GAA users' compliance with
any such new rules? How could such rules be equitably enforced by the
Commission? Commenters are encouraged to provide specific proposals,
along with supporting technical and cost-benefit analyses, to support
their proposals.
53. Conforming Changes. We take this opportunity to propose non-
substantive edits to three rule sections we are otherwise revising,
Sec. Sec. 96.15, 96.17, and 96.30, to conform to the current stylistic
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register.
54. 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.
IV. DECLARATORY RULING
55. In addition to seeking comment on proposed changes to our rules
in the NPRM, we also adopt a Declaratory Ruling to clarify Sec.
96.55(a) of our rules. Section 96.55(a)(3) provides that ``SAS
[[Page 72789]]
Administrators shall not disclose specific CBSD registration
information to the general public except where such disclosure is
authorized by the registrant.'' Through this Declaratory Ruling, we
confirm that NTIA and DoD are not considered ``the general public'' for
purposes of this information disclosure provision.
56. We recognize that NTIA and DoD possess equitable interests as
government agencies that manage and hold co-primary spectrum rights in
the 3.5 GHz band. We also note that NTIA and DoD have been critical
partners in every phase of this proceeding and they are actively
engaged in ongoing efforts to refine federal protection criteria and
apply technical solutions to maximize commercial access to the 3.5 GHz
spectrum and facilitate CBSD deployments in the band. To date, the part
96 information disclosure rule does not specify explicitly that NTIA
and DoD are not considered ``the general public.'' By adopting this
clarification, we ensure that NTIA and DoD can access CBSD registration
information if either government agency requests such information from
any SAS. On our own motion, we confirm that NTIA and DoD are not
considered ``the general public'' under Sec. 96.55(a).
57. 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 NPRM. The IRFA is
contained in Appendix B of the NPRM.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
58. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to make specific
adjustments to the regulatory framework of the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service spectrum sharing model in order to better protect federal
operations and to maximize the amount of spectrum available for
commercial broadband. Additionally, the NPRM seeks to improve the
technical and service rules for the 3.5 GHz band to reflect changes in
the operational environment for both Priority Access License (PAL)
licensees and Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensees by soliciting
and obtaining feedback from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users,
equipment manufacturers, prospective operators, and other stakeholders.
Through comments, the Commission seeks to identify how we can best
support the Commission's goals of achieving continued growth in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service, fostering innovation, and building on
the novel three-tiered sharing regime that was created to facilitate
real-time spectrum sharing in the band.
59. As discussed above, the NPRM is a continuation of the
Commission's efforts since the 3.5 GHz First Report and Order was
adopted to work with our federal partners and industry stakeholders
towards developing and implementing refinements to improve and expand
spectrum access in the 3.5 GHz band. The NPRM proposes specific
adjustments to the regulatory framework of the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service to better protect federal operations and to maximize the amount
of spectrum available for commercial broadband. To facilitate these
goals, the NPRM seeks comment on a variety of matters such as making
improvements to the part 96 rules that protect federal incumbent users
in the 3.5 GHz band, modifying technical rules to optimize the
potential uses of the band for the next generation of wireless
services, while minimizing the impact on adjacent band incumbents
consistent with the public interest; improving operating rules and
regulatory issues, and measures to ensure professional installation and
facilitate General Authorized Access (GAA) user coexistence in the
band. Beyond federal protection measures, the NPRM also seeks comment
on whether changes to the part 96 technical and service rules are
necessary to clarify our information disclosure requirements, align out
of band emissions (OOBE) limits with those in adjacent bands, permit
higher power levels; relax Spectrum Access Systems (SAS) connectivity
requirements, impose Time Division Duplex (TDD) coordination
procedures, update protection measures for certain grandfathered
incumbent licensees, address issues surrounding professional
installation, accommodate private networks and low power indoor
facilities, or adopt guidelines to encourage GAA user coexistence.
B. Legal Basis
60. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2,
4(i), 4(j), 301, 302a(a), 303, and 307(e) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a(a),
303, and 307(e).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
61. 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, 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 that: (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.
62. 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, 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 Small Business
Administration's (SBA) 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 33.2 million businesses.
63. 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 2022, there were
approximately 530,109 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.
64. 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 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
[[Page 72790]]
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts)
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least
48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
65. 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
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
66. Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF Manufacturers).
There are several analogous industries with an SBA small business size
standard that are applicable to RF Manufacturers. These industries are
Fixed Microwave Services, Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing,
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. A description of 7
67. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include
common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary
radio services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service (UMFUS), Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz), Local
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message
Service (DEMS), 24 GHz Service, Multiple Address Systems (MAS), and
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS), where in some
bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common
carrier status. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)
is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services. The SBA small size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed
microwave service licensees can be considered small.
68. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to
fixed microwave services involve eligibility for bidding credits and
installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various
frequency bands included in fixed microwave services. When bidding
credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in fixed microwave
services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several
types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very
small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules
adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as
identified in Part 101 of the Commission's rules for the specific fixed
microwave services frequency bands.
69. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
70. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and
television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment). Examples
of such manufacturing include fire detection and alarm systems
manufacturing, Intercom systems and equipment manufacturing, and
signals (e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, traffic) manufacturing.
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms
having 750 or fewer employees as small. For this industry, U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 shows that 321 firms operated for the entire year.
Of that number, 310 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based
on this data, we conclude that the majority of Other Communications
Equipment Manufacturers are small.
71. 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 small business size standard for this
industry classifies firms having 1,250 employees or less as small. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 had
fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a
majority of manufacturers in this industry are small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
72. The Commission expects the rules proposed in the NPRM will
impose new and/or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other
compliance obligations on small entities as well as other applicants
and licensees, if adopted. We also note that in addition to the
proposed rule changes discussed above, there will likely be other new
compliance obligations that emerge based on feedback received through
comments. The reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance obligations
proposed for small entities and other licensees are described below.
73. In order to comply with the proposed rules, should they be
adopted, small entities and other licensees would be subject to certain
technical rules established to maximize the flexible use of the 3.5 GHz
band spectrum while minimizing the impact on adjacent band incumbents,
an approach that is consistent with the public interest. In addition to
aligning the technical rules
[[Page 72791]]
for this band with those adopted in the 3.7 GHz band, we propose and
seek comment on technical rules regarding power limits, out-of-band
emissions limits, antenna height limits, service area boundary limits,
international coordination requirements, and any other technical rules
that will most effectively meet our objectives of optimizing use of the
band without causing harmful interference to new, non-federal licensees
and federal incumbents operating in adjacent bands.
74. Small entities may be required to hire attorneys, engineers,
consultants, or other professionals to comply with the proposed rules
in the NPRM, if adopted. In particular, for small entities that are not
existing operators and do not have existing staffing dedicated to
regulatory compliance, engineering and legal expertise may be necessary
to make the requisite filings and to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed performance obligations. At this time, while the Commission
cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the proposed rule changes,
we note that several of the proposed changes are consistent with and
mirror existing policies and requirements used for other part 27
flexible use licenses. Therefore, small entities with existing licenses
in other bands may already be familiar with such policies and
requirements and have the processes and procedures in place to
facilitate compliance resulting in minimal incremental costs for
compliance should similar requirements be adopted for 3.5 GHz band
spectrum. We also note that for most of the proposals and requests for
comments in the NPRM, the Commission also requests a cost and benefit
analysis. The Commission expects that the information it receives in
comments will help it to identify and evaluate all relevant matters
associated with the proposed reallocation and the relocation of public
safety operations out of the band, including compliance costs and other
burdens on small entities.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
75. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities 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 and
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.'' In the NPRM, the Commission has taken steps to minimize the
economic burden on small entities that may occur if some of the
proposed rule changes are adopted, and has also considered significant
alternatives throughout the development of our proposals in the NPRM.
76. CBSD Information Availability. Given the rapid and ongoing
growth of commercial deployments in the band--along with stakeholder
interest in increased transparency, in the NPRM we considered whether
the existing information disclosure rules provide sufficient data for
current and future Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to plan their
network deployments and to make informed decisions regarding
investments in the band. Specifically, we considered whether the best
approach would be to modify our disclosure rules to reinstate the
original information for disclosure requirements, or whether
implementing an alternative approach would be the more prudent course
of action. In the NPRM, we seek comment on this matter, and request
that commenters seeking alternative disclosure rules, including a
reversion to the original information disclosure requirements, should
explain how their approach would balance existing operator interest in
protecting sensitive network information with the legitimate
information needs of prospective service providers.
77. Technical Rules. In the NPRM, the Commission also considers
whether there are opportunities to revise the rules governing the 3.5
GHz band to align the protection of specific federal systems and
facilities given the spectrum sharing framework adopted in the adjacent
3.45 GHz band. Specifically, we considers whether 3.5 GHz protection
methodologies could be aligned with 3.45 GHz protections--for the same
systems and facilities--to increase commercial access to the band while
maintaining necessary protection for federal incumbent users. The NPRM
focuses its inquiry on whether there are opportunities to create
efficiencies by modifying the protection mechanisms in the 3.5 GHz band
to better align with those in the 3.45 GHz band.
78. Certified Professional Installation. Noting the importance of
accurate location reporting by professional installers to SASs,
particularly in terms of its impact on the ability of SASs to properly
manage spectrum use in the band, the Commission strongly encouraged the
SAS and Citizens Broadband Radio Service user community, through
multistakeholder fora or industry associations, to develop programs for
accrediting professional installers who will receive training in the
relevant part 96 rules and associated technical best practices. The WTB
and the OET issued a public notice detailing what SASs must demonstrate
in their Initial Commercial Deployment (ICD) proposals, including a
description of ``Professional Installation'' as ``[t]he process that a
certified professional installer (CPI) would follow to register CBSDs/
DPs during ICD and an explanation regarding how that professional
installation will ensure the SAS can accurately locate devices in
compliance with part 96.'' The NPRM seeks comment on the efficacy of
the current professional installation regime and whether any rule
changes are needed to ensure that CBSDs are properly installed and
maintained correctly. Commenters are encouraged to provide specific
feedback and to consider the costs and benefits for various use cases
and network deployments.
79. Guidelines for GAA user coexistence. In the NPRM, the
Commission also considered whether to adopt rules to ensure equitable
treatment of different GAA operators. Specifically, we considered
whether there are new rules, or clarifications of current rules, that
could foster coexistence and preempt disputes among GAA users in a
manner that will also advance GAA spectrum use and continued deployment
of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The NPRM asks what the costs
and benefits are of any such rule changes as well as what impact they
would have on existing and future GAA deployments. The NPRM also asks
how such rules could be equitably enforced by the Commission.
Commenters are encouraged to provide specific proposals, along with
supporting technical and cost-benefit analyses, to support their
proposals.
80. Further, the Commission considered different proposals and
potential questions that might emerge from those proposals in order to
help identify whether small entities face any special or unique issues
with respect to buildout requirements and other requirements that would
require certain alternatives, such as through different accommodations
or by incorporating additional time for small entities to comply. The
Commission also seeks comment on modifications that could be
[[Page 72792]]
made to the Commission's rules regarding administrative processes in
order to reduce the economic impacts of the proposed rule changes on
small entities. By specifically targeting comments from small entities
the Commission hopes to obtain the requisite data to allow it to
evaluate the most cost-effective approach to minimize the economic
impact for such entities, while achieving its statutory objectives.
81. Additionally, to assist with the Commission's evaluation of the
economic impact on small entities that may result from the actions and
alternatives that have been proposed in this proceeding, the NPRM seeks
alternative proposals and requests additional information on the
potential costs of such alternatives to licensees. The Commission
expects to consider more fully the economic impact on small entities
following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM,
including costs and benefits information. Alternative proposals and
approaches from commenters could help the Commission further minimize
the economic impact on small entities. The Commission's evaluation of
the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions
it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it
ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant
economic impact that may occur on small entities from the final rules
that are ultimately adopted.
Procedural Matters
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM 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 are 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,
the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce
the information collection burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 90
Private land mobile radio service, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 96
Citizens broadband radio service, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 90 and 96 as
follows:
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7),
1401-1473.
0
2. Revise Sec. 90.1301 to read as follows:
Sec. 90.1301 Scope.
Wireless operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band are part of the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service, as set forth in part 96 of this
chapter.
Sec. Sec. 90.1303 through 90.1338 [Removed]
0
3. Remove Sec. Sec. 90.1303 through 90.1338.
PART 96--CITIZENS BROADBAND RADIO SERVICE
0
4. The authority citation for part 96 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 307.
0
5. Amend Sec. 96.3 as follows:
0
a. Add, in alphabetical order, the definitions of ``Dynamic Protection
Area'', ``Dynamic Protection Area Neighborhoods'', and ``Scheduling
Portal'';
0
b. Revise the definition of ``Exclusion Zone'' and ``Incumbent user'';
and
0
c. Remove the definitions of ``Grandfathered wireless broadband
licensee'', ``Grandfathered wireless protection zone'', and
``Protection zone''.
Sec. 96.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Dynamic Protection Area (DPA). DPAs are geographic protection
areas, extending from the coastline into the ocean or enclosing a
protected federal facility, which may be activated or deactivated as
necessary to protect Department of Defense (DOD) radar systems. DPAs
are activated when DoD radar systems are using the band--as
communicated to a Spectrum Access System (SAS) by either an
Environmental Sensing Capability (ESC) or Scheduling Portal--signaling
that federal incumbents in the DPA must be protected from Citizens
Broadband Radio Service operations within the active frequency range.
(1) Coastal DPAs are geographic protection areas located along the
Coastline to protect shipborne radar systems and designated port
facilities. Coastal DPAs are activated consistent with information
received by an SAS from an ESC.
(2) Portal-Activated DPAs (P-DPAs) are geographic protection areas
located around designated federal facilities or coastal areas that
utilize a dedicated Scheduling Portal to schedule federal operations in
the 3.5 GHz band. P-DPAs are activated consistent with information
received by an SAS from a Scheduling Portal.
(3) Always Activated DPAs are geographic protection areas that are
always considered to be in active use by federal operators. These DPAs
protect a limited number of federal radar systems by limiting the
maximum aggregate received power level from the CBSDs at the location
of the protected radar antenna aperture.
Dynamic Protection Area (DPA) Neighborhoods. A DPA neighborhood is
the area in which registered CBSDs may cause interference to incumbent
operations in activated DPAs. The SAS may direct CBSDs within DPA
Neighborhoods to cease operations, reduce transmit power, or relocate
to a non-interfering frequency when the associated DPA is activated.
* * * * *
Exclusion Zone. A geographic area wherein no CBSD shall operate
without the express consent of NTIA. Exclusion Zones shall be enforced
and maintained by the SASs.
* * * * *
Incumbent user. A federal entity authorized to operate on a primary
basis in accordance with the table of frequency allocations, or a fixed
satellite service operator.
* * * * *
Scheduling portal. A calendar-based system, authorized by the
Commission, that supports the scheduling and communication of federal
spectrum use within designated P-DPAs to SASs.
* * * * *
Sec. 96.7 [Amended]
0
6. Amend Sec. 96.7 by removing paragraph (c).
[[Page 72793]]
Sec. 96.11 [Amended]
0
7. Amend Sec. 96.11 by removing paragraph (a)(3).
Sec. 96.13 [Amended]
0
8. Amend Sec. 96.13 by removing ``Grandfathered Wireless Broadband
Licensees and'' from paragraph (b).
0
9. Amend Sec. 96.15 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5), and (a)(6);
0
b. Revise paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. Remove paragraph (b)(3);
0
d. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(3); and
0
e. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (b)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 96.15 Protection of federal incumbent users.
(a) * * *
(2) The SAS shall only authorize the use of CBSDs consistent with
information on federal frequency use as provided in this section.
(3) The SAS shall protect federal incumbent sites using DPAs--
including Coastal DPAs, P-DPAs, and Always Activated DPAs--and
Exclusion Zones. A DPA may be activated when DoD radar systems are
active within the DPA. The SAS shall protect each activated DPA from
aggregate CBSD interference within the active frequency range.
(i) The specific coordinates and protection requirements for all
DPAs, DPA Neighborhoods, and Exclusion Zones are maintained by NTIA and
are publicly available at: <a href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/fcc-filing/2015/ntia-letter-fcc-commercial-operations-3550-3650-mhz-band">https://www.ntia.doc.gov/fcc-filing/2015/ntia-letter-fcc-commercial-operations-3550-3650-mhz-band</a>.
(ii) NTIA shall notify the Commission in writing if and when the
list of DPA-protected federal radiolocation sites and Exclusion Zones
is to be updated or the methodology used to protect specific sites is
to be changed.
(iii) The SAS must treat Coastal DPAs as activated prior to
approved ESC sensor deployment and if ESC sensors lose contact with the
SAS.
* * * * *
(5) The Commission will, as necessary, add or modify DPAs and
Exclusion Zones to protect current and future federal Incumbent Users
and will notify the public prior to implementation.
(6) The Commission may temporarily extend or modify DPAs and
Exclusion Zones to protect temporary operations by federal Incumbent
Users and will notify the public prior to implementation. Federal
Incumbent Users will coordinate with the Commission prior to the
beginning of any non-emergency operation requiring additional
protection. Such modifications will be communicated to the SAS along
with the expiration date and time of any modification.
(b) * * *
(2) Exclusion Zones shall be maintained for an 80 km radius around
the federal radiolocation sites listed in Sec. 2.106(c)(109) of this
chapter.
(3) If the President of the United States (or another designated
Federal Government entity) issues instructions to discontinue use of
CBSDs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 606, SAS Administrators must instruct CBSDs
to cease operations as soon as technically possible.
0
10. Amend Sec. 96.17 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 96.17 Protection of existing fixed satellite service (FSS) earth
stations in the 3600-3700 MHz Band and 3700-4200 MHz Band.
(a) * * *
(1) FSS earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band will be afforded
protection consistent with this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 96.21 [Removed]
0
11. Remove Sec. 96.21.
0
12. Amend Sec. 96.30 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 96.30 Designated entities in the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its
affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its
controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $20
million for the preceding three years.
* * * * *
Sec. 96.39 [Amended]
0
13. Amend Sec. 96.39 by removing the sentence ``Equipment deployed by
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees during their license term
will be exempt from this requirement'' from paragraph (b).
0
14. Amend Sec. 96.53 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (e) and (f);
0
b. Remove the phrase ``and 96.21'' from paragraphs (g) and (h);
0
c. Remove and reserve paragraph (m); and
0
d. Add paragraph (p).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 96.53 Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.
* * * * *
(e) To retain information on, and enforce, DPAs and Exclusion Zones
in accordance with Sec. Sec. 96.15 and 96.17.
(f) To communicate with the ESC to obtain information about federal
Incumbent User transmissions within Coastal DPAs and instruct CBSDs
operating within the associated DPA Neighborhoods to move to another
frequency range or cease transmissions to prevent interference to
federal Incumbent Users within activated Coastal DPAs.
* * * * *
(m) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(p) To use a Scheduling Portal to obtain information about federal
Incumbent User transmissions within P-DPAs and instruct CBSDs operating
within the associated DPA Neighborhoods to move to another frequency
range or cease transmissions to prevent interference to federal
Incumbent Users within activated P-DPAs.
0
15. Amend Sec. 96.55 by removing the phrase ``and Protection Zones''
from paragraph (a) introductory text and adding paragraph (a)(5).
Sec. 96.55 Information gathering and retention.
(a) * * *
(5) Upon request, SAS Administrators must make CBSD registration
information available to NTIA and DoD for any designated geographic
area, frequency range, or time period.
* * * * *
0
16. Amend Sec. 96.57 by revising paragraph (d) as follows:
Sec. 96.57 Registration, authentication, and authorization of
Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices.
* * * * *
(d) A SAS must not authorize operation of CBSDs within Exclusion
Zones, DPAs, or DPA Neighborhoods except as set forth in Sec. 96.15.
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec. 96.67 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 96.67 Environmental sensing capability.
* * * * *
(d) ESC equipment shall be deployed in the vicinity of Coastal DPAs
to accurately detect federal Incumbent User transmissions.
[FR Doc. 2024-19846 Filed 9-5-24; 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 September 6, 2024.
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.