Proposed Rule2025-03602
Facilitating Opportunities for Advanced Air Mobility
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
March 17, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) proposes and seeks comment on changes to the rules that govern the operations of three distinct bands of spectrum, modernizing rules to facilitate opportunities for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) and Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS). First, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes and seeks comment on opening up the 450 MHz band to aeronautical command and control operations; allowing for a single, nationwide license in the band; and adopting flexible licensing, operating, and technical rules that will facilitate robust use of the band at a range of altitudes while minimizing interference to neighboring operations. It also proposes expanding radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band for uncrewed aircraft system detection operations. Finally, the NPRM proposes to modernize the Commission's legacy power rules for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems in the 849-851 and 894-896 MHz band, which is used for in-flight connectivity.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 50 (Monday, March 17, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 50 (Monday, March 17, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12243-12272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-03602]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 22 and 90
[WT Docket No. 24-629; FCC 25-7; FR ID 278575]
Facilitating Opportunities for Advanced Air Mobility
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) proposes and seeks comment on changes to the rules that
govern the operations of three distinct bands of spectrum, modernizing
rules to facilitate opportunities for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) and
Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS). First, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) proposes and seeks comment on opening up the 450 MHz band to
aeronautical command and control operations; allowing for a single,
nationwide license in the band; and adopting flexible licensing,
operating, and technical rules that will facilitate robust use of the
band at a range of altitudes while minimizing interference to
neighboring operations. It also proposes expanding radiolocation
operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band for uncrewed aircraft system
detection operations. Finally, the NPRM proposes
[[Page 12244]]
to modernize the Commission's legacy power rules for Commercial
Aviation Air-Ground Systems in the 849-851 and 894-896 MHz band, which
is used for in-flight connectivity.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before April 16,
2025; and reply comments on or before May 16, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 24-629,
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> Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<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#d89e9b9bede8ec98bebbbbf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9afaaaadcd9dda98f8a8ac78e869f">[email protected]</span></a> or phone: 202-418-
0530.
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 Christine Parola of the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-7851, or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b18332932282f32353e750b3a2934373a1b3d3838753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="14577c667d67607d7a713a4475667b7875547277773a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, in WT Docket No. 24-629; FCC 25-7, adopted on
January 13, 2025, and released on January 17, 2025. The full text of
this document is available for public inspection online at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-initiates-proceeding-facilitate-advanced-air-mobility">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-initiates-proceeding-facilitate-advanced-air-mobility</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 Sec. Sec. 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.
[cir] 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.
[cir] 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.
[cir] Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S.
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
[cir] 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="0c6a6f6f393c384c6a6f6f226b637a">[email protected]</a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).
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 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.
I. Synopsis
1. AAM is a rapidly evolving new sector of the aviation industry
that includes novel kinds of propulsion and flight controls and which
is expected to rely increasingly on automated technologies. AAM is
expected to support accessible and convenient transportation of people
and cargo for a range of purposes including transportation of personnel
and medical supplies to hard-to-reach areas in emergencies, regional
air mobility to connect remote communities to the national aviation
system, and shuttle services between urban areas and to and from
airports. AAM systems may be either crewed or uncrewed, with personnel
either piloting the aircraft on board or through remotely piloted or
automated techniques. UAS support a variety of public and private
functions including infrastructure inspection, search and rescue
operations, and package delivery, and hold the potential for expanded
functionalities, such as long-range, large cargo deliveries. In 2021,
there were 2 million UAS in the United States, and, by 2030, that
number is anticipated to triple to 6.5 million. Further, the UAS market
is projected to grow at a rate of 14.6 percent, and by 2027 is expected
to be valued between $29 billion and $54.2 billion. The continued
growth and operation of these important aviation technologies will
depend on the availability of reliable wireless communications
technologies to support flight control and, for AAM
[[Page 12245]]
transporting passengers, reliable in-aircraft broadband. In addition to
wireless communications used by and in these aircraft, the availability
of detection technologies is critical to ensure that, as UAS and AAM
operations continue to expand, they do so safely. In this NPRM, the
Commission proposes and seeks comment on amendments to the rules that
govern the operations of three distinct bands of spectrum, which are
allocated for a range of different services. But the changes we propose
for each band will advance the goal of the safe and effective
facilitation of facets of AAM and UAS services.
2. We first propose and seek comment on changes to the service
rules that apply to 650 kilohertz of spectrum in the 450 MHz band. In
their current form, these site-based rules confine air-ground
communications in the band to voice communications with aircraft
traveling at high altitudes. We propose to replace the current rigid
framework with rules that embrace more flexible use of the band while
minimizing the possibility for harmful interference by creating a
single nationwide license. Specifically, our proposals would update
these rules with the aim of enabling expanded UAS operations at a range
of altitudes, including lower altitudes, by allowing use of the band
for control and non-payload communications of uncrewed aircraft systems
(UAS CNPC).
3. Next, we propose and seek comment on rule changes to permit
radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. Radiolocation
operations entail the detection of, for example, UAS, without the
further use of that information for navigation purposes. By permitting
radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, we endeavor to
facilitate UAS detection at sensitive sites that include stadiums,
prisons, the U.S. border, and critical infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities). We thereby intend to elevate the potential of an underused
segment of spectrum while minimizing the risk of harmful interference.
4. Finally, we propose and seek comment on modernizing the rules
governing Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. These legacy rules
impose power limits that have fallen out of step with the realities of
operations in this band. Namely, our rules currently require that
operational power be determined by peak power. We propose instead to
measure and regulate the effective radiated power of Commercial
Aviation Air-Ground Systems operations according to their average
power. The changes we propose would bring these rules into harmony with
those that govern similar operations in other bands, and they would
enable more efficient use of the spectrum, and promote technology
neutrality.
II. Air-Ground Communications in the 450 MHz Band
5. We propose to facilitate more intensive use of 650 kilohertz of
low-band spectrum for air-ground communications through flexible rights
and policies, in order to position the 450 MHz band as one of several
alternatives for local, regional, and nationwide UAS networks. We
propose to modernize the legacy, site-based general aviation air-ground
service rules that currently limit service to voice communications with
aircraft at high altitudes, thereby prohibiting data communications,
and effectively prohibiting wide-area, low-altitude service. We propose
to assign new rights and new obligations to a single geographic license
with nationwide coverage, with the goal of facilitating new services to
support UAS at a range of altitudes, including lower altitudes, and to
create a new 450 MHz Air-Ground Service that encompasses existing part
22 general aviation air-ground and uncrewed aircraft system operations.
Specifically, we propose to adopt additional service rules that would
provide UAS operators with the ability to conduct control and non-
payload operations in the band, which could facilitate AAM.
A. Background
6. The Commission allocated 454.6625-454.9875 MHz and 459.6625-
459.9875 MHz (450 MHz band) for domestic public land and mobile
stations to provide a two-way air-ground public radiotelephone service
via footnote NG32 to the Table of Allocations. Currently, the band is
primarily used for Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service (AGRAS) to provide
communications capabilities to aviation subscribers. In 1992, the
Commission, seeking to streamline the process by which part 22
licensees could request additional channels for existing systems,
proposed the general aviation-ground rules governing the 450 MHz band.
The Commission issued a Report and Order in the part 22 proceeding in
1994, which adopted the general aviation air-ground provisions and
allocated channels for the provision of radiotelephone service to
airborne mobile subscribers in general aviation aircraft. The
Commission's rules assign 12 pairs of 25 kilohertz wide communication
channels in the 454.700-454.975 MHz and 459.700-459.975 MHz bands for
general aviation air-ground use. The Commission's Universal Licensing
System (ULS) database shows that, as of December 2, 2024, there are 53
active licensed locations, all of which are held by AURA Network
Systems OpCo, LLC (AURA). AURA is the only incumbent licensee and
operator in the 450 MHz general aviation air-ground band.
7. In 2010, the Mobility Division (Division) of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) granted a waiver of various part 22
rules, enabling licensees in the band to upgrade their AGRAS-based
facilities and to build out their existing networks. In 2021, the
Division granted a waiver of relevant part 22 rules to AURA, allowing
it to provide additional ancillary services, including services to UAS,
to meet the needs of a broader base of aviation subscribers. In
compliance with a condition of the 2021 Order, AURA filed a petition
for rulemaking seeking updates to the Commission's rules to allow for
UAS CNPC operations in the 450 MHz band. On August 25, 2021, the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice
seeking comment on the AURA Petition. In response to the Public Notice,
the Commission received 18 comments and one reply comment. The record
in response to the public notice overwhelmingly supports the rule
changes that AURA requests.
8. On January 17, 2025, WTB suspended the acceptance and processing
of applications for new licenses to conduct part 22 general aviation
air-ground service operations in the 450 MHz band to maintain a stable
spectral landscape while the Commission determines how to proceed with
respect to this spectrum.
B. Discussion
9. We seek to update our rules governing the use of the 450 MHz
band to create new service rules that allow for UAS CNPC operations in
the band, which could support AAM operations at a range of altitudes.
Specifically, we propose to: (1) update the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations (U.S. Table) to allow for certain UAS data communications
in the 450 MHz band; (2) transition to a geographic licensing structure
with a single, nationwide license made available through a voluntary
transition process; and (3) adopt flexible licensing, operating, and
technical rules that will facilitate robust use of the band in the
public interest and will minimize interference to neighboring
operations.
[[Page 12246]]
1. Allocating the 450 MHz Band for Command and Control of Uncrewed
Aircraft
10. Allocation. We propose to amend our allocation in the 450 MHz
band to add a non-federal primary Aeronautical Mobile (Route) Service
((AM(R)S)) allocation in order to permit UAS CNPC operations in the
band in addition to the existing air-ground radiotelephone service. As
a co-primary service, the AM(R)S service will have priority over
secondary services in the band. Our current allocation and definitions
in the rules limit communications in the band to the provision of air-
ground radiotelephone service to subscribers in aircraft and prohibit
the transmission of data. Making this band available for UAS CNPC would
facilitate more intensive use of 650 kilohertz of low band spectrum
allocated for air-ground communications. We believe this update to the
allocation table is necessary because the band currently does not have
a mobile or AM(R)S allocation. We seek comment on this proposal. The
record in response to AURA's Petition for Rulemaking supports our
proposal to add an allocation that will permit UAS CNPC. We seek
comment on our proposal. In addition, we seek comment on whether we
should limit non-voice transmissions to UAS CNPC services in the band.
Should the allocation be expanded to allow other data uses beyond UAS
CNPC or would such an allocation make the band less valuable or
reliable for UAS CNPC operation? Commenters should discuss the costs
and benefits of the proposed allocation and any alternatives.
11. Under Sec. 303(y) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, the Commission is permitted to allocate spectrum for flexible
use if the allocation is consistent with international agreements and
if the Commission finds that: (1) the allocation is in the public
interest; (2) the allocation does not deter investment in
communications services, systems or the development of technologies;
and (3) such use would not result in harmful interference among uses.
We anticipate that our proposal to add CNPC usage rights to the 450 MHz
band in the U.S. Table would meet these criteria. We tentatively
conclude that our proposal would serve the public interest by allowing
use of the band for UAS CNPC, which supports the safety or regularity
of the UA flight. We seek comment on our proposal to add this
allocation and on our initial assessment that doing so is consistent
with the requirements of Sec. 303(y).
12. Control and Non-payload Communications. In addition to adding a
non-federal primary AM(R)S allocation to the U.S. Table in order to
permit UAS CNPC operations in the 450 MHz band, consistent with our
definition in Sec. 88.5 governing the 5030-5091 MHz band, we propose
to define UAS CNPC as ``Any transmission that is sent between the UA
component and the UAS ground station of the UAS and that supports the
safety or regularity of the UA's flight.'' In turn, also consistent
with our definition in Sec. 88.5 governing the 5030-5091 MHz band, we
propose to define a UA as ``an aircraft operated without the
possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the
aircraft,'' and to define UAS as ``a UA and its associated elements
(including an uncrewed aircraft station, communication links, and the
components not on board the UA that control the UA) that are required
for the safe and efficient operation of the UA in the airspace of the
United States.'' We seek comment on these proposed definitions and on
any alternatives. As we noted in the UAS Report and Order, we
anticipate that our proposed definitions ``can encompass a variety of
operations, including Urban Air Mobility and Advanced Air Mobility,''
and that we do not need to distinguish among such operations in the
rules at this time. Do our proposed definitions adequately encompass
potential use cases in the band? We also tentatively conclude that our
part 22 definitions must also include definitions of the terms UAS
CNPC, UAS, and UA. There is record support for updating the definitions
in our part 22 rules. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and
on the costs and benefits of our proposal. We also seek comment on
whether our proposal fully enables UAS CNPC service in the 450 MHz band
or whether other rule changes are also necessary. We note that in the
UAS proceeding, the Commission proposed to create a new part 88 for UAS
service rules. To the extent the Commission adopts part 88 for this
purpose, should the rules governing UAS CNPC operations at 450 MHz be
contained in part 88? For example, should part 22 include a reference
indicating UAS operations must comply with part 88 and relevant UAS
definitions? Further, should any UAS restrictions we ultimately adopt
for the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service be located in part 88?
2. Voluntary Transition to a Nationwide License
13. We seek comment on transitioning the 450 MHz band from a site-
based licensing structure to a single geographic license with
nationwide coverage encompassing the contiguous United States (CONUS),
Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories. Transitioning to a geographic
licensing structure with one nationwide license aligns with the
Commission's goal of putting spectrum to its highest and most efficient
use given the unique qualities of the band. We tentatively conclude
that a geographic licensing structure with a nationwide license is in
the public interest for several reasons. First, a single incumbent
currently holds all existing site-based licenses nationwide, thus
effectively creating nationwide coverage at high altitude. The 450 MHz
band is comprised of only 650 kilohertz of spectrum and only one party,
AURA, has incumbent operations in the band. Specifically, AURA provides
general aviation air-to-ground services using its 53 sites across the
United States and certain territories. Our current rules have co-
channel separation requirements and limit the number of ground
transmitter locations that are possible in the United States. The
operation of existing co-channel and dispersion rules, along with
AURA's site locations, create white spaces that are unusable, absent
waiver, by AURA or others, at lower altitudes. By contrast, a
nationwide license coupled with flexible technical rules would permit
nationwide operations at both high and low altitudes. Referring to the
record in the 2021 Waiver Order, the Division noted, ``other parties
have not shown interest in operating in the band and have
overwhelmingly supported Petitioners' steps to grow and modernize their
existing network'' under the existing licensing framework. The record
to the AURA Petition for Rulemaking also supports AURA's efforts to
expand its network in the band. Second, the additional rights we
propose to assign are most efficiently accomplished as a modification
to existing license authority. Third, creating the technical
protections necessary to assign additional rights to a third party
would be complex, delay the expanded operations in the band, and
unnecessarily restrict innovation. For these reasons, we tentatively
conclude that our proposed voluntary transition ensures that spectrum
is put to highest use because the incumbent is in the best position to
rapidly deploy operations. While the incumbent does not maintain sites
in all of the United States territories at present, we tentatively
conclude that given the incumbent's extensive operations throughout the
United States, it is in the best position to construct facilities and
[[Page 12247]]
offer service in these additional areas. We believe in this particular
case that it is more efficient to allow the incumbent to expand its
operations to the additional territories rather than have piecemeal
operations with different licensees. We seek comment on our tentative
conclusions. We also tentatively conclude that a geographic licensing
structure with a single nationwide license is in the public interest
because of the public safety need for UAS CNPC across the country. We
seek comment on our proposal to adopt a single nationwide license and
this tentative conclusion.
14. In the alternative, we seek comment on licensing the 450 MHz
band using a smaller geographic license size. Specifically, we seek
comment on whether licensing the band on a Regional Economic Area
Grouping (REAG)-basis strikes a balance between promoting wide area
airborne operations and offering the flexibility for multiple regional
licenses. The Commission previously has used REAGs to achieve the
``expansion of service to as many people as practicable,'' such as in
the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. Notwithstanding the flexibility
potentially offered by regional licenses, we note that REAG-based
licenses may raise complications in this context as compared to a
nationwide license, and we seek comment on these and other potential
considerations. For example, given that we envision airborne service at
a range of altitudes, would the REAG boundaries need to be precisely
defined in the vertical dimension? If so, we seek comment on how to do
so. How could interference among neighboring REAG licensees be avoided?
The Commission has previously stated, such as in the 2004 Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking amending several
Commission rules, ``[i]mposing a signal strength maximum at a
licensee's service area boundary is a tried and true mechanism for
managing and limiting co-channel interference as well as defining
rights, obligations and expectations of all licensees in the band.'' If
we were to license on a REAG-basis, should we apply a signal strength
limit at each REAG boundary, and if so, how should we define the limit
in a way that promotes airborne service at a range of altitudes? Are
there other technical means better suited for protecting neighboring
operations? Should we instead allow licensees to manage interference at
the license boundary by mutual agreement? Additionally, we seek comment
on the type and nature of protections that would be necessary to
promote continued incumbent high altitude operations under a REAG
licensing regime. Would REAGs or another geographic licensing area
support nationwide UAS CNPC operations in the 450 MHz band? Commenters
supporting a REAG licensing approach, or other geographic licensing
approaches, should address any necessary changes in the licensing,
operating, and technical rules that we propose in this NPRM. Commenters
also should discuss the cost and benefits of any proposed geographic
licensing area.
15. Band-Specific Eligibility Criteria. We propose certain
eligibility restrictions an entity must meet in order to qualify for
the geographic license with nationwide coverage. We propose to define
``covered incumbent'' as an applicant eligible for the nationwide 450
MHz Air-Ground Service license that can demonstrate that: (1) it
provides coverage at 25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii using
all available communication frequencies; and (2) the locations of the
sites used to provide this coverage prevent the authorization of any
other entity to provide contiguous, regional service using multiple
communication frequencies. Our covered incumbent eligibility criteria
intends to ensure expanded operations are expeditiously deployed in the
band, putting the spectrum to its highest and most efficient use. We
believe that a licensee meeting the proposed covered incumbent criteria
will have extensive knowledge of the band's characteristics and usage
and is best positioned to rapidly put the band to a more robust use. We
seek comment on our proposed eligibility criteria. Should we impose
additional criteria to enable an entity to apply for a nationwide
license? We seek comment on the costs and benefits of any eligibility
criteria we might adopt.
16. Request to Modify License. We propose to transition to a
geographic license framework by converting a single incumbent's site-
based licenses into a nationwide license. Under our proposed approach,
a covered incumbent seeking the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service nationwide
license would apply to modify one of its site-based licenses into the
nationwide license and turn in its remaining site-based licenses. This
application for modification would be completely voluntary. We seek
comment on this approach. In proposing this approach, we rely on the
Commission's authority under Sec. 309 of the Communications Act, which
governs the Commission's process for granting licenses under Title III.
Section 309(j)(6)(E) makes clear that the Commission has an
``obligation in the public interest to . . . use engineering solutions,
negotiation, threshold qualifications, service regulations, and other
means in order to avoid mutual exclusivity in application and licensing
proceedings.'' Section 309 gives the Commission discretion to adopt
spectrum management approaches tailored to specific bands. We believe a
license modification process is the least burdensome manner of
transitioning to a geographic licensing framework and, therefore, is in
the public interest. We seek comment on this conclusion as well as on
alternative methods for transitioning the band to geographic licensing.
What are the costs and benefits of our proposed approach or any
alternative approaches?
17. The Commission used a similarly tailored transition approach in
the 900 MHz broadband proceeding, where the incumbents likewise had
extensive knowledge of the band's characteristics and usage and were
best positioned to negotiate appropriate terms for transitioning the
band for a more robust use. Our proposed approach falls squarely within
Commission precedent from that proceeding. Therefore, we tentatively
conclude that our proposed transition approach is consistent with
Commission precedent in the 900 MHz Report and Order. We seek comment
on this tentative conclusion and on our proposed transition approach
generally.
18. Certifications. We propose that a request to modify a site-
based license into the new nationwide license must include as an
attachment a certification that the applicant has satisfied the
eligibility criteria (Eligibility Certification). Our proposed criteria
for a covered incumbent are: (1) it provides coverage at 25,000 feet
over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii using all available communication
frequencies; and (2) the locations of the sites used to provide this
coverage prevent the authorization of any other entity to provide
contiguous, regional service using multiple communication frequencies.
We propose that, in order to meet the first prong of covered incumbent
criteria, the Eligibility Certification must list the licenses and
frequencies that the applicant holds in the 450 MHz band to demonstrate
that it meets the proposed threshold. We propose that the covered
incumbent can meet the second prong of the covered incumbent criteria
by providing a coverage map that demonstrates how the incumbent's site
locations and service prevent the authorization of any other entity to
provide contiguous, regional service using multiple communication
frequencies. We propose to require the covered incumbent to submit the
[[Page 12248]]
Eligibility Certification and coverage map in ULS. We seek comment on
our proposal. Should other elements be included in the Eligibility
Certification? What are the costs and benefits of this proposal? We
seek comment on the proposed application criteria. We also propose to
direct the Bureau to issue a public notice with instructions for how to
submit the Eligibility Certification.
19. License Valuation. We tentatively conclude that our proposed,
voluntary transition in the 450 MHz band will not create undo
enrichment to the covered incumbent. In order to take advantage of
increased license flexibility and to offer new UAS CNPC services, the
covered licensee will have to make significant network investments and
will face economic risks and uncertainty regarding the demand for such
services. In addition, we recognize that we do not want to discourage
licensees from identifying and seeking value-enhancing license
flexibility, as this can provide significant public interest benefits.
As such, we need to balance promoting innovation with the public
interest benefit of maximizing effective use of this of this scarce
public resource. We seek comment on both (1) our tentative conclusion
that the voluntary transition will not create undo enrichment to the
covered incumbent and (2) the investments and economic risks the
covered incumbent would face.
20. In some instances where the Commission granted additional
spectrum usage rights, the Commission has required the new licensee to
make a ``windfall payment'' to the U.S. Treasury. There are several
potential differences between these past cases when windfall payments
were required and the present circumstances. First, in the previous
cases, the entities required to make payments were gaining access to
spectrum that was held in Commission inventory, while in this case, the
white space spectrum gained by the covered incumbent is not in
Commission inventory and cannot reasonably be made available to others
without causing harmful interference to existing operations in the
band. Second, the flexibility granted to licensees in the previous
cases allowed the new licensees to deploy mobile broadband services for
which the value of the spectrum in this new use was more certain. Here,
the flexibility being granted would be for a service that does not
currently exist and for which there is considerably more uncertainty
about the likely future demand, whether other providers will offer
competing services in other bands, and the value of spectrum allocated
to this service. Finally, the amount of spectrum that would be granted
additional flexibility in this proceeding is substantially less than
prior proceedings where windfall payments were required, and this
raises the question of whether a windfall payment would fall below a de
minimis threshold. These factors lead us tentatively to conclude that
there will not be a windfall to the new nationwide licensee and we seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
21. Notwithstanding our tentative conclusion, however, we also
recognize that our proposal could result in an increase in the value of
the spectrum and could potentially increase flexibility by providing a
national license. In order to establish a sufficient record in the
event we nonetheless determine our proposals create a windfall, we seek
comment on the magnitude of any such benefit conferred to the proposed
nationwide licensee as a result of our proposals. Commenters should
address whether they believe there would be a windfall to the covered
incumbent and whether we should require the new licensee to make a
payment to the U.S. Treasury. For example, do commenters think that the
following factors increase the value of the spectrum such that a
windfall payment might be warranted: (1) increased deployment
flexibility that allows the licensee to deploy in the current white
spaces; (2) increased flexibility in permissible services allowed in
the band; and (3) an exclusive-use national license? With respect to
the first factor, we note that, while AURA currently has a nationwide
network providing general aviation air-to-ground services, the distance
separation for co-channel ground stations requirements in our rules
currently limit access to large areas at lower altitudes. We propose
below to remove or modify certain rules, which will allow the
nationwide licensee greater operational flexibility at lower altitudes.
Such geospatial opportunities could increase the value of the spectrum.
As to the second factor, under our current rules, the 450 MHz band may
only be used for the transmission of sound to subscribers in aircraft.
We propose above to update our allocation to allow for additional
permissible services in the band. This too potentially increases the
spectrum's value. Further, we propose to transition the site-based
licenses in the band into a geographic, nationwide exclusive-use
license, which may also increase the value of the spectrum. We note
that the FCC is considering use of flexible-use spectrum bands for UAS
communications, including command and control, telemetry, and payload
communications, in the UAS proceeding, which could also affect the
value of 450 MHz spectrum.
22. We therefore seek comment on the risk that a covered incumbent
seeking a nationwide license would realize an undue windfall. To the
extent that commenters believe that such a risk might be present on the
basis of the proposals in this NPRM, we ask them to discuss what
actions may be necessary to mitigate such risk. Is a windfall likely to
be realized to a covered incumbent? Are the actions we propose to take
in this proceeding sufficiently analogous to past proceedings where
windfalls were required to warrant such payments in this proceeding? Is
there a de minimis threshold below which the compliance and collection
costs would outweigh the amount of revenue collected and does the
likely amount in this proceeding fall below such a threshold? If we do
collect a windfall payment, how should we calculate the increase in
spectrum value due to the three factors we identified above? Are there
other factors that should be considered? Would the auction 65 results
for two nationwide 800 MHz air-ground radiotelephone service licenses
serve as a reasonable basis for estimating the value of the 450 MHz
spectrum? We seek comment on these questions and any other factors that
should be considered in our determination of whether a windfall payment
should be required, and if so, what an appropriate windfall payment
amount would be. Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of
their proposed approaches.
23. We seek comment on whether it would be appropriate, either as
an alternative to or in conjunction with the windfall payment, to
impose a holding period on the single, nationwide license, i.e., during
which it may not be assigned or transferred to another entity. To the
extent commenters believe a holding period is appropriate, we seek
comment on the parameters of such a period. How long should the holding
period be? How many years would be most beneficial for a holding
period? What purpose would a holding period serve for this band? If we
implement a holding period, should we require the licensee to
demonstrate completion of certain buildout requirements before allowing
a transfer of control? We seek comment on the advantages and
disadvantages of a holding period. Additionally, we seek comment on
whether we should allow exceptions to this holding period restriction
if implemented (e.g., pro forma transactions). Are there any additional
requirements or protections we should
[[Page 12249]]
impose? Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of this
approach as well as any alternatives.
3. Band Plan
24. Under the Commission's rules, there are 12 communication
channel pairs in the 454.700-454.975 MHz and 459.700-459.975 MHz bands
for general aviation air-ground use in the 450 MHz band. Currently, in
the U.S. Table, frequencies in the bands 454.6625-454.9875 MHz and
459.6625-459.9875 MHz may be assigned to domestic public land and
mobile stations to provide a two-way air-ground public radiotelephone
service. We propose to reconfigure the band plan into a single 650
kilohertz nationwide license. Specifically, we propose that the band
edge should be the edge of the frequencies in the allocation in NG32 of
the U.S. Table, 454.6625-454.9875 MHz and 459.6625-459.9875 MHz. We
seek comment on our proposal and any alternatives, including the costs
and benefits of any proposal. We do not propose any further
configurations within the band. We tentatively conclude that this
approach is in the public interest because the nationwide licensee
would be best positioned to manage its network. We do not believe it is
in the public interest to be overly prescriptive and divide the band
further with channels. As AURA notes, sole licensees and operators in a
band have the ability and incentive to manage the internal boundaries
between channels in their networks to prevent interference. We seek
comment on this conclusion and any alternatives.
Figure 1: Band Plan
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17MR25.000
4. Licensing and Operating Rules
25. General Eligibility. We propose to apply the eligibility
standard in part 22 of the Commission's rules to the 450 MHz Air-Ground
Service. Currently, the standard in Sec. 22.7 reads, ``Any entity,
other than those precluded by Sec. 310 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to hold a license under
this part. Applications are granted only if the applicant is legally,
financially, technically and otherwise qualified to render the proposed
service.'' While we propose specific eligibility criteria for the
covered incumbent to modify one of its site-based licenses into a
nationwide license, we propose to maintain the existing part 22 general
eligibility standard for licenses in the 450 MHz band. We seek comment
on this proposal. Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of
maintaining the part 22 eligibility criteria.
26. Nationwide Licensing. We propose to license the 450 MHz band on
an exclusive, nationwide license basis. AURA has constructed a
nationwide network providing general aviation air-to-ground services
from 53 sites across the United States and some of its territories. The
current distance separation and channel assignment policies contained
in the Commission's rules for this band effectively prohibit any other
parties from receiving a license, which, in turn, gives AURA exclusive
use of the band nationwide. We tentatively conclude that a nationwide
license promotes more efficient spectrum use than the current patchwork
of site-based licenses AURA holds. We seek comment on this conclusion.
Should we instead consider other geographic license sizes? Commenters
should discuss the costs and benefits of a nationwide license and any
proposed alternatives.
27. License Term. We seek comment on the appropriate license term
for the nationwide license. Currently, site-based licenses in the band
have a license term of 10 years. In light of the performance benchmarks
we propose below, we tentatively conclude that the license term for the
nationwide license should be 15 years. We seek comment on this
conclusion. Is 15 years the appropriate license term for a nationwide
license in the 450 MHz band? Does a 15-year license term provide enough
time to engage in, and recoup costs for, long-term investments that may
be necessary for nationwide deployment of advanced aviation services?
Commenters in favor of a different license term should provide
reasoning for their proposed term as well as an explanation for why a
15-year license term is not suitable in this band. Commenters should
discuss the costs and benefits of their proposed license terms.
28. License Renewal. Next, we seek comment on the appropriate
license renewal term for the 450 MHz Air-Ground service. Currently, 450
MHz band licensees must comply with part 1 of the Commission's rules
that generally apply to Public Mobile Services, including renewal. We
propose to continue to require the nationwide licensee to comply with
Sec. 1.949 of our rules, which governs applications for renewal of
authorization for covered geographic licensees. We seek comment on this
approach. Does the new nationwide license require any deviation from
our existing renewal rules? Commenters that do not support our proposal
should explain why a change to our renewal rules is necessary for the
450 MHz band. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of this
approach.
29. Performance Benchmarks. In addition to a renewal standard, the
Commission also establishes performance requirements to ensure that
spectrum is used intensely and efficiently. The Commission has applied
different performance and construction requirements to different
spectrum bands based on considerations relevant to those bands. We
continue to believe that performance requirements play a critical role
in ensuring that licensed spectrum does not lie fallow and thus seek
detailed comment on certain performance requirements for the 450 MHz
Air-Ground Service. Given the unique attributes of this service, we
propose a novel performance metric based on both high altitude and low
altitude parameters. We propose to define high-altitude as 25,000 feet,
where the incumbent in the band is currently providing service.
Currently, in Sec. 22.99, our rules define the Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service as a ``radio service in which licensees are
authorized to offer and provide radio telecommunications service for
hire to subscribers in aircraft.'' We tentatively conclude that
providing reliable signal coverage and offering service at 25,000 feet
is a reasonable performance metric
[[Page 12250]]
for such high altitude service. We propose to define low altitude
service as providing reliable signal coverage and offering service at
400 feet. A low altitude metric of 400 feet is consistent with Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. Our proposed performance
requirement seeks to ensure there is robust use of the band, therefore,
we tentatively conclude that we should use the altitude at which UAS
operators are already flying under FAA regulations. We also tentatively
conclude that our proposed performance metrics will ensure reliable
signal coverage at a range of altitudes at which UAS and AAM currently
operate and are expected to operate in the future. We seek comment on
our tentative conclusions and on our proposed definitions. Would other
definitions be more appropriate for defining performance for high and
low altitude service in the 450 MHz band? What are the costs and
benefits of such definitions?
30. Further, we propose to measure service on a REAG basis in order
to ensure the licensee distributes low altitude coverage widely across
the United States and its territories. We tentatively conclude that it
is in the public interest to have operations evenly deployed across all
of the United States and its territories, including in rural areas,
given the public safety applications of UAS CNPC service. We seek
comment on our tentative conclusion. The Commission has previously used
REAGs to achieve the ``expansion of service to as many people as
practicable,'' such as in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. We
tentatively conclude that REAGs will promote nationwide coverage. We
seek comment on our tentative conclusion and any alternatives. Are
REAGs sufficient to ensure service is deployed in rural areas? How else
can the Commission ensure that the licensee provides coverage in rural
areas? Commenters should address the costs and benefits of their
proposals.
31. We propose to allow the licensee to meet our performance
requirements through one of two options, either through a combination
of high altitude and low altitude service (Option 1) or significant
coverage and service at low altitude (Option 2). These options are
summarized in Figure 2, below.
Figure 2
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17MR25.001
32. We propose under either option to have an interim and final
performance requirement. In our proposed Option 1, to meet the interim
performance benchmark, the licensee must continue to provide service at
25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii and service at 400 feet
covering 17.5 percent or more of each REAG geographic area. To meet the
final performance requirement under proposed Option 1, the licensee
must provide service in CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii at 25,000 feet and
service at 400 feet covering 35 percent or more of each individual
license area REAG geographic area. Under our proposed Option 2, to meet
the interim performance benchmark, the licensee must provide service at
400 feet covering 35 percent or more of each individual REAG geographic
area. To meet the final performance requirement under this option, the
licensee must provide service covering 70 percent or more of each
individual license area REAG geographic area. We propose that the
licensee may choose to fulfill its performance requirement either by a
combination of high and low altitudes services under Option 1 or
significant service at low altitude under Option 2. We tentatively
conclude that creating an option to meet our performance requirements
either through a combination of high altitude and low altitude service
or significant low altitude service will give the licensee flexibility
to meet market demands. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. We
propose to allow the licensee to make its election at the time it files
its Notice of Construction. We seek comment on this proposal.
33. In an effort to provide the nationwide licensee with
operational flexibility while ensuring robust service, we tentatively
conclude that, if the licensee intends to decrease its high altitude
service then it should provide low altitude service to a significant
portion of the United States and its territories. Under proposed Option
1, we seek to give the licensee increased operational flexibility while
maintaining the existing legacy service. If the licensee chooses to
cease providing service at 25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii
using all available communication frequencies, then we propose that it
must provide significant coverage at low altitude because the proposed
voluntary transition mechanism is premised on the incumbent's existing
service coverage at altitude. Compared to the 70 percent low altitude
coverage proposed if the licensee elects to provide low altitude
service only, we tentatively conclude that half of that coverage, or 35
percent low altitude coverage, is reasonable if the licensee retains
its high-altitude coverage. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion and on our proposal. Would other performance requirements
better achieve the Commission's goal of nationwide coverage in the 450
MHz Air-Ground Service? Commenters should discuss the costs and
benefits of their proposals.
34. In addition, we propose performance benchmarks of 4 years and 8
years for interim and final performance requirements, respectively.
[[Page 12251]]
Benchmarks of 4 years and 8 years are consistent with performance
benchmarks in other services with 15-year license terms. We tentatively
conclude that, given the operational flexibilities afforded to the
covered incumbent under the waiver, it will be well-positioned to meet
benchmarks of 4 years and 8 years. We seek comment on this proposal.
Are other benchmarks more appropriate for this band? Commenters should
discuss the costs and benefits of their proposals.
35. Failure To Meet Performance Requirements. Along with
performance benchmarks, we propose to adopt meaningful and enforceable
penalties for failure to meet the benchmarks. We propose that, in the
event the nationwide licensee fails to meet the first performance
benchmark in any REAG, the licensee's second benchmark and license term
would be reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the second
performance benchmark two years sooner (at 6 years into the license
term) and reducing its license term to 13 years. We propose that if the
nationwide licensee fails to meet the second performance benchmark in
any REAG, its authorization for the license shall terminate
automatically without Commission action. We seek comment on this
proposal and on which penalties and enforcement mechanisms will most
effectively ensure timely buildout. We recognize that our proposal
could result in a licensee losing the nationwide license due to failure
to meet the performance requirement in one REAG. We seek comment on
whether this result is appropriate, or whether there are other ways to
structure performance incentives and penalties in order to ensure
intensive use of this spectrum, nationwide, at a range of altitudes.
Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of the proposed
approach and any alternatives.
36. Compliance Procedures. We propose a rule requiring licensees to
submit electronic coverage maps in ULS that accurately depict both the
boundaries of the licensed area and the coverage boundaries of the
actual area to which the licensee provides service. Should we require a
specific methodology for creating the coverage map? Should we require
that the licensee submit its raw data? We propose that the covered
incumbent must notify the Commission by filing FCC Form 601 when it
meets its construction obligations within the construction period. We
propose that the notification must be filed within 15 days of the
expiration of the applicable construction period. Our proposal is
similar to our compliance rules in the Wireless Radio Service. We seek
comment on this proposal and any alternatives. We also seek comment on
whether a covered incumbent has any special or unique issues such that
they would require additional time to comply. What are the costs and
benefits associated with this proposal and any alternatives?
37. Partitioning and Disaggregation. While we propose to license
this spectrum on a nationwide basis, we recognize that it is possible
that a licensee may opt to deploy in a service area smaller than a
nationwide market. Further, we recognize that a licensee may find that
it is unnecessary to utilize all of its licensed bandwidth in order to
deploy a system, and may wish to disaggregate its excess capacity.
Accordingly, we propose to permit partitioning and disaggregation by
the nationwide licensee in the 450 MHz band. We note, however, that we
do not propose to adopt detailed technical protections in the context
of this proceeding, given that we propose to authorize a single
nationwide licensee. Thus, if we ultimately allow partitioning or
disaggregation in the 450 MHz Service, we propose to require that the
nationwide licensee demonstrate how co-channel and adjacent channel
licensees will be protected under any partition or disaggregation. We
propose that any criteria in the licensee's demonstration filing would
be binding on the parties to the transaction. We seek comment on this
proposal and any alternatives, including the costs and benefits.
38. Leasing. We propose to allow spectrum leasing in the band
pursuant to part 1 of the Commission's rules and we propose to add UAS
CNPC as an included service in our spectrum leasing rules. We seek
comment on this proposal. We propose to require a nationwide licensee
seeking to lease its spectrum to receive prior approval from the
Commission. We seek comment on whether we should require the nationwide
licensee seeking to lease its spectrum to lease the entirety of the
nationwide license or allow it to lease a portion of it. In requesting
approval to lease all or part of the nationwide license, we propose
that the lessor must demonstrate how the parties will provide the
interference protections along the lease boundary and to neighboring
operations. We propose that the licensee can demonstrate inference
protection through power flux density limits and strategic site
placements. We seek comment on this proposal. What other factors should
we consider in granting a lease application? We seek comment on the
costs and benefits of our proposal and any alternatives.
39. General Applicability of Other Part 22 and Part 1 Rules. We
propose that the nationwide licensee in the 450 MHz band should be
governed by licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all
part 22 services, including foreign ownership and permanent
discontinuance of operations. We also propose to retain existing
station identification rules for general aviation air-ground stations
(ground and mobile) and not to require station identification for
ground and mobile stations providing UAS CNPC. FAA rules presently
regulate remote identification of UAS, so we propose not to adopt
duplicative rules. We ask commenters to identify any aspects of our
general part 22 and part 1 service rules that should be modified to
accommodate the particular characteristics of the 450 MHz band. We seek
comment on this proposal. Are there reasons that the nationwide
licensee in this band should not be subject to these general part 22
and part 1 requirements? We ask proponents of the various mechanisms
described above whether there are issues specifically related to the
application of these rules to operations in the 450 MHz band and their
preferred approach. We also ask commenters that support modifying
certain part 22 rules as applied to licensees in the 450 MHz band to
articulate the reasons why different treatment here is justified.
5. Technical Rules
40. We propose to update the technical rules applicable to the 450
MHz band. We seek to encourage efficient use of spectrum resources and
promote investment in the band, while protecting incumbent operations
in adjacent bands. We seek comment on our proposals and any
alternatives.
41. Power Levels. We seek comment on the appropriate power levels
in the 450 MHz band. Section 22.809 establishes a 50-watt minimum
effective radiated power requirement for ground station transmitters
and a 4-watt minimum transmitter power output requirement for airborne
mobile transmitters. In its Petition for Rulemaking, AURA states that
the radiated power level requirements are ``unnecessarily high and
inconsistent with current technology.'' No commenters in the record
oppose AURA's statement. The Division previously waived the Sec.
22.809 minimum power requirements so that AURA could operate at power
levels consistent with the demands of its ancillary services, including
services to
[[Page 12252]]
UAS, to meet the needs of a broader base of aviation subscribers. We
seek comment on the appropriate power levels for the 450 MHz band under
the nationwide licensing regime. Should we eliminate Sec. 22.809
entirely? If not, what are the appropriate power levels? Should there
be a peak-to-average ratio (PAR)? If so, what should it be? Commenters
in support of a PAR should explain why they support a particular PAR.
Commenters should explain how their proposed power levels are
consistent with the needs of modern technologies and sufficient to
protect adjacent band licensees. Commenters should present quantitative
and reproducible RF link budget calculations and interference risk
calculations that demonstrate that the likelihood of real-world
interference to neighboring radio services is sufficiently low from,
(a) UAS CNPC fundamental power (causing blocking/selectivity impairment
to incumbent receivers), and (b) UAS CNPC out-of-band-emissions (OOBE)
(causing co-channel impairment to incumbent receivers). Commenters
should discuss the costs and benefits of their proposed power levels.
42. Channel Plan. Section 22.805 establishes channelization in the
450 MHz band and states that channels in the band have a bandwidth of
20 kilohertz and are designated by their center frequencies in
megahertz. We propose to eliminate the 20 kilohertz channel requirement
in order to provide increased flexibility to the nationwide licensee.
We do not propose to designate uplink and downlink frequencies in our
rules to further promote licensee flexibilities. We seek comment on
this approach and on the costs and benefits of our proposal.
43. Out-of-Band Emissions. Next, we seek comment on the appropriate
OOBE requirements that would protect services in adjacent bands while
still allowing full commercial use in the 450 MHz band. Under part 22,
the power of any emission outside of the authorized operating frequency
ranges must be attenuated below the transmitting power by at least 43 +
10 log (P) dB. Under the current rules, the band is made up of 13
channels. The channels have a bandwidth of 20 kilohertz and are
designated by their center frequencies in megahertz. The authorized
operating frequency range is measured from the last channel at either
edge of the band. Therefore, the existing band edges are 454.665 MHz
and 454.985 MHz and 459.665 MHz and 459.985 MHz. For the purposes of
this NPRM, we refer to the band edges as defined under our current
rules as the ``legacy band edges.'' The existing OOBE limit in our
rules protects neighboring operations by applying 43 + 10 log (P) dB at
the edge of last channel at the legacy band edges. We propose to
continue to apply this OOBE limit at the legacy band edges for the 450
MHz Air-Ground Service. Should we require a measurement bandwidth? We
note that ITU-R Regulations for out-of-band measurements in the 30 MHz-
1 GHz band require a 100 kilohertz measurement bandwidth. Would 100
kilohertz be an appropriate measurement bandwidth for the 450 MHz band?
We seek comment on this proposal and its costs and benefits. Is an
emissions limit attenuated below the transmitting power by at least 43
+ 10 log (P) dB the best option for protecting neighboring operations?
In this NPRM, we propose to extend the band to the edge of the
allocation 454.665 MHz and 454.985 MHz and 459.665 MHz and 459.985 MHz.
Rather than continue to apply the OOBE limit at the legacy band edge,
should we instead apply it at the edge of the allocated band? We
recognize that the 450 MHz band is situated in between neighboring
operations. NPSTC does not believe UAS CNPC operations will cause
interference to nearby public safety operations. Do commenters agree
with NPSTC's conclusion? We ask commenters that disagree with NPSTC's
conclusion to discuss what measures would protect public safety from
interference, how public safety should complain about UAS interference,
and what measures would lead to fast resolution of interference
complaints. We tentatively conclude that our proposed technical rules
are sufficient to protect neighboring operations. Commenters should
discuss the costs and benefits of their proposals.
44. Channel Siting. We propose to eliminate the channel siting
requirement in our rules. We believe that the channel siting criteria
in our rules will no longer be necessary under a nationwide licensing
framework because there will be no co-channel licensees that require
harmful interference protection within the 450 MHz band. Section
22.813(a) prohibits the Commission from granting applications for
proposed ground transmitter locations unless the ground transmitter
location is ``at least 800 kilometers (497 miles) from the antenna
location of the nearest co-channel ground transmitter in the United
States.'' Section 22.813(b) states that the Commission ``may grant an
application requesting assignment of a communication channel pair . . .
if there are no more than five different communication channel pairs
already assigned to ground transmitters . . . within a 320 kilometer
(199 mile) radius of the proposed antenna location.'' The technical
channel assignment criteria set forth in Sec. 22.813 are intended to
ensure ``substantial service volumes over areas'' with high demand,
while also maintaining ``continuous nationwide in-route coverage'' to
general aviation air-ground subscribers. Section 22.817(f) of our rules
limits six channel assignments per carrier in a given 350 kilometer
area. Section 22.817's additional channel policies are designed to
foster competition among multiple carriers in the band. We propose to
remove our rules assigning channel pairs and seek comment on this
proposal. We believe the underlying purpose of these rules is no longer
served with a nationwide licensee. Given our proposal to eliminate the
technical channel assignment criteria set forth in Sec. 22.813, we
also propose to eliminate Sec. 1.929(e) of our rules which designates
a request to relocate an existing ground station as major. We seek
comment on this proposal. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of
our proposal.
45. Transmitter Locations. Our rules afford Public Mobile licensees
authority to operate an array of transmitters, including signal
boosters, on their licensed spectrum without prior Commission approval
if certain conditions are met. We propose to retain the transmitter
location rules for the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service. We tentatively
conclude that retaining the transmitter location rules provides
licensee flexibility. Further, we propose to apply this rule to
licensees that acquire their licenses through partitioning or
disaggregation (to the extent the service rules permit such
aggregation). We seek comment on our proposals, including specific
costs and benefits.
46. General Part 22 Rules. There are several additional technical
rules applicable to all part 22 services, including Sec. Sec. 22.365
(Antenna structures; air navigation safety), 22.377 (Certification of
transmitters) 22.379 (RF Exposure), and 22.383 (In-building radiation
systems). We propose to apply these general part 22 rules to the 450
MHz Air-Ground Service. Further, we propose to apply these rules to
licensees that acquire their licenses through partitioning or
disaggregation (to the extent the service rules permit such licenses).
We seek comment on our proposals, including specific costs and
benefits.
[[Page 12253]]
47. International Coordination. Current operations in the 450 MHz
band are in accordance with an August 2013 Statement of Intent signed
by the United States and Canada that established a Sharing Zone in
which each country has 6 of the 12 communications channels designated
for its primary use. Part 22 of our rules also contains an
international coordination rule. While our proposed rules are designed
to provide operational flexibility, we recognize that the Sharing Zone
exist from our Statement of Intent with Canada. Any rules adopted
stemming from this NPRM would be subject to current and future
international agreements. Nothing in this NPRM is meant to conflict
with any international agreements in place. The nationwide licensee
must continue to comply with the Sharing Zone and any other relevant
international coordination agreements. We seek comment on how to ensure
the nationwide licensee is in compliance with international agreements.
48. RTCA Standards. We note that the Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics, now referred to simply as ``RTCA,'' is working to develop
standards for UAS. RTCA is a standards development organization that
works with the FAA to develop standards that can be used as means of
compliance with FAA regulations. In other proceedings, the Commission
has adopted RTCA standards when they align with the goals of the
proceeding and the service. We note that the RTCA published DO-406
outlining minimum performance standards for UHF airborne radio systems
supporting UAS C2 link systems. We seek comment on incorporating RTCA
standards into our rules for the 450 MHz band. We seek comment on
whether, in the event the standards are adopted, its requirements will
be consistent with the AGRAS technical requirements as we propose to
amend them, and if not, what revisions if any should the Commission
adopt to accommodate the standard? For example, how might incorporation
of the RTCA standard impact a licensee's ability to engage in
partitioning and disaggregation in the 450 MHz Service? In the event
that accessing the standards is fee-based, should the Commission still
incorporate the standards into its rules for the 450 MHz band? Are
there any other relevant standards that the Commission should consider
adopting for the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service? Commenters should consider
the costs and benefits of their proposed standards.
6. Alternative Proposals
49. As discussed above, we propose to use a nationwide licensing
scheme for the 450 MHz spectrum band, but we seek comment on
alternative methods that would permit the filing of mutually exclusive
applications. On March 9, 2023, the Commission's authority to issue
licenses through systems of competitive bidding (i.e., auction
authority) expired. Accordingly, in the event we determine to adopt an
alternative mutually exclusive application approach, we seek comment on
how the Commission should resolve mutually exclusive applications for
new initial licenses in the 450 MHz band in light of the lapse in our
authority to use competitive bidding. In the event that the
Commission's statutory authority with respect to auctions is restored,
we delegate authority to the Bureau and the Office of Economics and
Analytics to seek comment on appropriate competitive bidding rules and
procedures, consistent with prior Commission guidance to inform the
Commission's decision on issues discussed in this NPRM.
III. UAS Detection in the 24.45-24.65 GHz Band
50. We seek comment on proposed changes to our rules to expand use
of the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to include federal and non-federal
radiolocation operations that would better facilitate the detection of
UAS, including AAM operations. We seek comment on proposed changes to
our rules to expand use of the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to include
radiolocation operations that would facilitate counter UAS detection
systems in this band. These operations would be secondary in the band
to the existing primary aeronautical radionavigation systems used for
detect and avoid (DAA) systems onboard aircraft or on the ground. We
seek comment on how best to carry out this expansion, how to do so
without causing harmful interference to co-channel and adjacent-channel
operations, and whether the changes that we propose will achieve these
objectives, or if we should consider alternative approaches. We view
these updates to our rules as an important step to ensure that, as UAS
operations continue to expand, they do so safely.
A. Background
51. Allocation. The U.S. Table assigns the 200 megahertz of
spectrum in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to radionavigation and inter-
satellite services on a primary basis for federal and non-federal use;
there is no allocation for secondary services, and the band is not
divided into channels. Radionavigation is radiodetermination for the
purposes of navigation, including obstruction warning. The Commission's
rules authorize airborne use of the 24.45-24.65 GHz band for
aeronautical radionavigation, including obstruction warning, as well as
ground-based radionavigation in limited circumstances. Radiolocation,
which is radiodetermination for purposes other than radionavigation, is
not presently permitted in the band.
52. Echodyne Petition for Rulemaking. On October 24, 2018, Echodyne
Corporation (Echodyne) filed a petition for rulemaking to allow
permanent radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band on a
secondary basis. Echodyne explained that it had developed a radar
designed for airborne DAA operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, and
that such operations fall under the radionavigation service. Echodyne
stated that it developed a ground-based version of the radar after
federal and non-federal customers expressed interest in it. Echodyne
argued that radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band would
facilitate users' ability to better detect UAS at sensitive sites,
including stadiums, prisons, and at the U.S. border. Echodyne therefore
asked the Commission to amend its rules to permit radiolocation
operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. Echodyne specifically requested
the addition of and revisions to portions of parts 87 and 90 of the
rules. The Commission sought comment on the Petition on October 30,
2018. Black Sage Technologies and In-Q-Tel supported Echodyne's
petition. There were no other comments.
53. Waivers. To date, the Bureau has granted requests from Echodyne
and MatrixSpace, Inc. (MatrixSpace) for limited waivers to conduct
ground-based radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, on a
site-specific basis, as Aviation Radionavigation Land stations (service
code AR, station class code RNV). These grants provide for a five-year
term with the possibility of extension, and they are subject to several
conditions.
B. Discussion
54. Radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band have the
potential to augment the safe and secure operation of certain sites,
including those that host large public gatherings or are by their
nature targets for illicit surveillance or contraband delivery. To
date, aside from some theoretical co-existence concerns, we have
received no indication that radiolocation operations
[[Page 12254]]
in this band would pose a threat to existing operations. Accordingly,
we propose to amend the U.S. Table and our rules to provide adequate
mechanisms to monitor increased UAS deployment in sensitive areas while
promoting public safety and the avoidance of harmful interference. Such
upgraded opportunities to enforce safe and lawful UAS deployment will
help promote community acceptance of advanced aviation.
55. Allowing radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band
would put this sparsely used spectrum to expanded use that will
facilitate UAS/AAM surveillance and counter UAS. With this proceeding,
we aim to ensure co-existence between future secondary radiolocation
operations in the band and those of existing primary users, including
co-channel licensees and adjacent-channel operations. We seek comment
on these proposed amendments to the U.S. Table and to our service
rules; and on whether there are any additional issues or proposals that
we should consider in this undertaking.
1. Radiolocation Allocation
56. We propose to add to the U.S. Table federal and non-federal
secondary allocations for radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65
GHz band, which is currently allocated only to radionavigation and
inter-satellite services. Those allocations are co-primary, federal and
non-federal, and there is no secondary allocation. Although there are
relatively few current primary licensees in the band, we propose to add
a secondary allocation in order to best ensure the protection of
existing licensees. We seek comment on our proposal.
57. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) supports adding a federal as well as non-federal secondary
allocation for radiolocation in this band. NTIA notes that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) maintains 185 assignments for
radar systems throughout the United States and its possessions on a
secondary non-interference basis in this band. There are no reported
cases of harmful interference to incumbent services in the band. We
tentatively conclude that federal and non-federal radiolocation
operations can coexist on a secondary basis in this band. We therefore
seek comment on adopting federal and non-federal secondary allocations
for radiolocation operations in the band, including how to best promote
coexistence between federal and non-federal users. What coexistence
measures should we adopt if we add both a federal and non-federal
secondary allocation for radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65
GHz band? Are there additional considerations for a federal allocation
in addition to the non-federal allocation? Commenters should discuss
the costs and benefits of this approach. In order to promote sound,
data-driven Commission decision-making, we encourage parties in favor
of adding a radiolocation allocation in the band to submit data,
analyses, studies, test results, or other relevant information
supporting their positions, including the effect on cross-border
operations.
58. We also observe that commenters in the Echodyne and MatrixSpace
waiver proceedings, notably AT&T and T-Mobile, raised potential
concerns regarding interference between radiolocation operations in the
24.45-24.65 GHz band and UMFUS operations in the 24.25-24.45 GHz band.
However, neither AT&T nor T-Mobile ultimately opposed the requests to
which they responded because they deemed any coexistence concerns to be
manageable in light of Echodyne's and MatrixSpace's technical
submissions.
59. Urban Air Mobility and AAM have the potential to significantly
increase the use of aeronautical radionavigation systems used for DAA.
We seek comment on the potential for harmful interference that could
result from radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. To
the extent possible, commenting parties should support with data any
concerns--or the absence of concern--related to harmful interference.
Where they exist, do interference concerns relate primarily to co-
channel operations, adjacent-channel operations, or both? How should
such concerns be accounted for in our technical rules? What mechanisms
should the Commission employ to address any interference concerns,
e.g., a density limitation, power control, licensee coordination,
others? For example, should the Commission adopt a density limitation
restricting the number of radiolocation devices in a specified
geographic area as a means to protect primary radionavigation
operations from secondary radiolocation operations? If so, what is an
appropriate density limitation? Commenters should discuss the costs and
benefits of their proposed approaches. Does interference need to be
addressed in a different manner than is described in the proposed
technical rules, discussed below? We also seek comment on the costs and
benefits that might result from this proposal. Finally, are there
potential issues not raised in this NPRM that might arise if we adopt
the proposal?
2. Licensing and Operating Rules
60. Frequencies. We propose to add the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to the
list of frequencies that are available to the Radiolocation Service in
part 90 of our rules, and in accord with our proposed addition to the
U.S. Table, we propose to establish that such radiolocation operations
will be on a secondary basis. We seek comment on these proposals--which
would align only in part with Echodyne's Petition--and their
implications. To that end, we note that Echodyne asks in its Petition
for amendment of certain provisions of part 87 of our rules as well. At
this time, we believe that such amendments are not necessary to enable
radiolocation operations in the band, and that they would instead
create redundancies and potential confusion for prospective licensees.
We seek comment on our proposal to amend part 90 but not part 87.
Should we, as Echodyne suggests, add to certain part 87 provisions
language that would permit airborne radiolocation devices? What are the
potential benefits or drawbacks to such an approach? What would
distinguish a request to conduct radiolocation operations under part 87
from a request to do so under part 90?
61. License Term, Performance Requirements, Renewal. In order to
streamline the application and authorization process for prospective
licensees, we propose to make use of our existing licensing rules to
enable secondary radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band.
These rules include, for example, that license applications must comply
with our part 1 rules, and that licenses will be granted for a term of
ten years upon initial grant or renewal. Given the purely operational
nature of this proposed expansion to the band, we believe that
deployment of the familiar application and authorization process and
terms will lend efficiency to the licensing of prospective new
radiolocation operations in the band. We seek comment on this proposal.
Is there any reason to depart from the Commission's established
licensing framework for secondary radiolocation operations in the
24.45-24.65 GHz band?
62. Applicability of Related Part 90 Rules. We further propose to
apply to nascent radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band
the additional licensing and operating rules that apply generally to
part 90 services. These are the rules that govern, for example, foreign
ownership, construction requirements, and applications for
[[Page 12255]]
temporary permits. We seek comment on our proposal to apply these
general part 90 rules to radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65
GHz band. We note that Echodyne petitions for an addition to Sec.
90.103 that would permit licensees to deploy multiple fixed stations
over a given geographic area without precise fixed locations. We
nevertheless propose not to depart from our existing part 90 site-based
licensing regime for radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz
band. The geographic approach that Echodyne proposes is akin to how we
have handled part 90 operations at temporary locations. We believe that
a traditional site-based approach is better suited to the long-term
radiolocation operations that we propose to license after this
proceeding. We seek comment on this proposal, and whether a more
flexible geographic approach might offer benefits or drawbacks to these
new operations. As noted above, we also seek comment on the relevance
and applicability of part 87 to our proposal, including its general
licensing and operating rules.
3. Technical Rules
63. We further propose to preserve and apply, with minimal
amendment, provisions of the Commission's technical rules to enable
more effective UAS detection in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band while avoiding
harmful interference. We endeavor to tailor these changes as narrowly
as necessary to deploy secondary radiolocation operations in the band.
We seek comment on the proposed technical rules, and we ask commenters
to address whether additional provisions should be amended in order to
effectively implement the expansion of the band's usage. Conversely, we
seek comment on whether any of the proposed changes might be
unnecessary or present technical challenges. We encourage commenters to
offer alternative proposals, and to be specific about the provisions
and changes that they recommend, including the rationale for such
proposals and their costs and benefits.
64. Power Levels and Emissions. For radiolocation operations in the
24.45-24.65 GHz band, we propose to consider and authorize requested
transmitter power on a case-by-case basis, consistent with other part
90 licenses. We further propose to retain the emission type limitations
that govern radiolocation operations; essentially, such limitations
would be determined on a case-by-case basis and established upon a
satisfactory showing of need. In its Petition, Echodyne requested
retention of these flexible, case-by-case standards, submitting that
they can ``accommodate use of this band'' for radiolocation, and we
seek comment on the appropriateness of extending them to potential new
radiolocation operations.
65. Out-of-Band Emissions. We propose to apply the existing out-of-
band emissions limit in Sec. 90.210(b) of our rules (Emission Mask B)
to radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. We seek
comment on this proposal, which Echodyne argued would be sufficient to
protect neighboring licensees from interference resulting from
secondary radiolocation operations. Are there any technical
considerations distinct to radiolocation versus radionavigation
operations that merit a different out-of-band emissions limit?
Commenters should specifically address, as appropriate, the potential
impacts on existing primary operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, as
well as those of UMFUS licensees operating in the neighboring 24.25-
24.45 GHz band, and any other potentially affected operations. As noted
above, we seek comment on the implications of preserving this out-of-
band-emissions limit, whether it is sufficient, or if a more stringent
requirement might be necessary to avoid harmful interference that might
result from new radiolocation operations. We also seek comment on the
costs and benefits attendant to this proposal.
66. Other Technical Rules. Finally, we propose to apply the general
part 90 technical rules, with certain amendments, to radiolocation
operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. These rules govern
authorization of equipment, bandwidth limitations, and frequency
stability. We propose to leave unchanged the rules requiring equipment
authorization. In its Petition, Echodyne seeks an addition to Sec.
90.103 to note that transmitters that have received part 87
authorization need not receive separate part 90 authorization. We
propose not to adopt this change, and instead to require that devices
intended for radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band be
re-authorized under part 90, consistent with other part 90 licensees.
We believe that this proposal would help ensure that radiolocation
operations in the band are conducted in compliance with the applicable
part 90 technical requirements, and that having a complete, searchable
list in our Equipment Authorization System of devices capable of such
operations will facilitate tracking and accountability to that end. We
seek comment on this proposal and any alternatives. What, if any,
amendments to our part 90 rules might be necessary to effect this
proposal? What costs and benefits will result from our re-authorization
proposal? Further, we presently review and authorize, on a case-by-case
basis, bandwidth limits for stations that operate in all frequency
bands above 2500 MHz, and we propose to leave that provision unchanged.
We propose to add radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band
to the table in Sec. 90.213 of our rules to establish the frequency
stability standard that will govern such operations. We note that the
part 90 frequency stability table does not currently impose a
particular frequency stability standard for operations above 2.45 GHz;
we seek comment on whether the status quo should be altered, as we
propose, for the 24.45-24.65 GHz band only.
67. We seek comment on all of these proposed changes to, and
applications of, our existing service rules. Are these proposals
sufficient to enable radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz
band? Should we consider modification of additional rule provisions?
Are any of the proposed changes unnecessary, or do they present
potential technical, operational, cost-intensive, or regulatory issues?
Commenters who suggest that we amend part 87 as well as part 90 should
also address whether and to what extent part 87's technical rules
should be amended in order to enable radiolocation in the band.
IV. Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems
68. Finally, we seek to facilitate the provision of broadband
service on commercial aircraft by modernizing legacy power rules for
Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. AAM is anticipated to
strengthen regional air travel, and Commercial Aviation Air-Ground
Systems could be beneficial for passengers taking AAM flights. For
example, connectivity on these flights would allow passengers to check
the status of a connecting flight, coordinate transportation for after
the flight, and maintain communication with others.
A. Background
69. Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems operate in the 849-851
MHz and 894-896 MHz band and are governed by part 22 of the
Commission's rules. In 2005, the Commission adopted a revised regime
for air-ground operations, determining that nationwide licenses would
be assigned to the entities and their respective band plans receiving
the highest gross aggregate bid at auction. In 2006, the Commission
auctioned
[[Page 12256]]
nationwide licenses for this band; Gogo Business Aviation LLC (Gogo)
won a license for three megahertz and LiveTV, LLC won a license for one
megahertz. In 2013, Gogo acquired LiveTV, LLC, and became the sole
nationwide licensee in this band. Through use of the Commercial
Aviation Air-Ground Systems band, Gogo provides a variety of in-flight
airborne services. When operating, commercial aircraft connect to
ground station transmitters, which then power Gogo's commercial
services. For this band, effective radiated power (ERP) is measured by
peak power.
1. Procedural History
70. Gogo's Waiver Request. On May 26, 2021, Gogo sought a waiver of
Sec. 22.867 of the Commission's rules, which regulates how ERP is
measured for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. In its waiver
request, Gogo sought to measure ERP by average power rather than by
peak power, as specified by the Commission's rules. Gogo argued that
without the waiver and with the prescribed peak power measurement
technique, the average operational power of Gogo's Orthogonal Frequency
Division Multiplex (OFDM) technology would be unduly constrained, and
the overall utility of the band would be unnecessarily hindered. On
July 7, 2021, the Bureau sought comment on Gogo's waiver request.
Following discussions with stakeholders, on June 21, 2022, the Division
granted Gogo's waiver request. The Division found that for non-constant
envelope technologies like OFDM, applying the peak power measurement
technique in Sec. 22.867 would force Gogo's average operating power to
be lower due to the occurrence of very short duration spikes in signal
strength that do not represent a significant interference threat, but
rather are characteristic of spectrally efficient higher order
modulation techniques. Measuring such modulation techniques by average
operational power with a limit on the PAR of the modulation used would
allow Gogo to maintain sufficient capacity to meet the expected and re-
emerging growth in the competitive general aviation market and regional
commercial airline market. Presently, Gogo is able to regulate by
average power with an appropriate PAR limit pursuant to this waiver
grant.
71. Gogo's Petition for Rulemaking. As a condition of the grant, on
July 21, 2022, Gogo filed a petition asking the Commission to initiate
a rulemaking to modernize the legacy power rules for the 849-851 MHz
and 894-896 MHz band. More specifically, Gogo proposes amending the
rule measuring ERP by peak power to instead measure by average power
with an appropriate PAR limit and requests power regulation relief
similar to that given to other legacy services, including the Personal
Communications Service (PCS), Advanced Wireless Service (AWS), and 800
MHz Cellular Radiotelephone Service (Cellular Service). Furthermore,
Gogo recommends modifying seven additional rules to enable more
flexible use of the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. On
June 20, 2024, the Bureau placed Gogo's petition for rulemaking on
public notice. In response to the Public Notice, the Commission
received one comment and one reply comment, and both commenters support
proceeding with an NPRM.
72. APCO's Petition for Reconsideration of Gogo's Waiver. On July
22, 2022, APCO filed a petition seeking reconsideration of Gogo's
waiver grant, which permits Gogo to measure ERP by average power,
rather than peak power. In its petition, APCO argues that the Bureau
should strengthen the waiver's conditions related to Gogo's
responsibility to identify and resolve interference to public safety
operations, analyze the interference potential, and address the peak
power rule through a rulemaking proceeding instead. On August 1, 2022,
Gogo filed in opposition to this petition, defending against the
arguments in APCO's petition and asserting that the petition was
procedurally defective because it was filed one day after the deadline.
On August 5, 2022, APCO responded to Gogo's opposition. The Bureau has
not taken action on APCO's petition for reconsideration.
B. Discussion
73. We tentatively conclude that it would be in the public interest
to revise the power rules for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems.
We believe that reforming these rules would provide flexibility for
operational power in this band and promote technology neutrality.
Further, by amending these rules, we would harmonize Commercial
Aviation Air-Ground Systems power rules with other legacy service power
rules, including PCS, AWS, and the Cellular Service. Additionally, we
believe these proposed rules would advance the Commission's
longstanding commitment to ensuring that spectrum is put to its highest
and best use, as Gogo would be able to more efficiently utilize this
band. Finally, we tentatively conclude that revising our rules would
protect public safety licensees from interference due to operations in
the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. We seek comment on
these tentative conclusions.
1. Power Measurement: Peak vs. Average
74. We propose to regulate power for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground
Systems on an average basis. The Commission's Commercial Aviation Air-
Ground Systems rules currently measure permissible ERP on a peak basis.
Specifically, Sec. 22.867 restricts peak ERP for airborne mobile
station transmitters to 12 watts ERP and ground station transmitters to
500 watts ERP in the 849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz band. In its petition
for rulemaking, Gogo proposes that the Commission amend Sec. 22.867 to
regulate based on average power rather than on peak power. Gogo asserts
that employing peak power unnecessarily impedes the overall utility of
its in-flight services without reducing the risk of harmful
interference to co-channel or adjacent channel licensees. Further, it
argues that revising this rule would align it with the power rules for
other legacy services. Finally, Gogo asserts that changing this rule
and the related ones will serve the public interest and allow it to
deploy its next generation technology ``to deliver higher capacity,
higher quality broadband connectivity to several thousand aircraft
operating throughout the United States and Canada.''
75. We tentatively conclude that it would serve the public interest
to amend Sec. 22.867 to change the manner in which power levels are
measured for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. The Commission's
long-standing policy has been to promulgate rules that are technology
neutral in order to allow ``competing telecommunications technologies
to succeed or fail in the marketplace on the basis of their merits and
other market factors, and not primarily because of government
regulation,'' such as in the 2005 PCS and AWS Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. More recently, wireless network operators have
transitioned to wideband technologies in order to improve network
efficiencies. Peak power, however, is not technologically neutral
because the rule disadvantages wider bandwidth technologies, which tend
to produce larger power spikes, where peak power is higher than average
power, which is not the case for narrower bandwidth technologies. As a
result, operators such as Gogo, must operate at lower average operating
power due to the occurrence of these very short duration spikes in
signal strength. Further, as explained by Gogo, the wideband
technology's average operational power can be
[[Page 12257]]
excessively constrained, and the utility of the in-flight commercial
airborne services can be unnecessarily curtailed. We tentatively
conclude that our proposal promotes operational flexibility and
efficient spectrum usage, as the use of wideband technologies would not
be hampered under an average power measurement technique, as compared
to a peak power measurement technique.
76. Furthermore, we tentatively conclude that amending our rules to
regulate by average power would be consistent with prior Commission
decisions for similar legacy services and would harmonize the legacy
service rules. For example, the Commission revised the peak power rules
for PCS and AWS in 2008, and for the Cellular Service in 2017,
replacing peak power with average power, primarily due to the increased
pervasiveness of wideband technologies. In reforming the radiated power
rules for PCS and AWS, the Commission concluded that, for non-constant
envelope technologies, such as OFDM, CDMA, and Wideband Code Division
Multiple Access (WCDMA), limiting PCS and AWS power on an average basis
would more accurately predict the interference potential for such
technologies, and the Commission reiterated this finding in revising
the Cellular Service rules. The record in the PCS and AWS proceeding
demonstrated that using peak power measurements for non-constant
envelope technologies inaccurately suggested a much higher overall
operational power, compared to average power levels, due to short
duration power spikes. The current rules for PCS, AWS, and the Cellular
Service reflect these conclusions. We tentatively conclude that the
Commission's conclusions in these prior proceedings are applicable to
Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems, as its peak power rule is
incompatible with modern, more efficient wideband technologies, such as
OFDM, and application of this rule would hamper operations, thereby
shrinking coverage of Gogo's in-flight commercial services.
77. In its comments regarding Gogo's Petition for Rulemaking, APCO
specifically asks us to scrutinize Gogo's proposal to replace peak
power regulation with average power regulation. APCO urges the
Commission to evaluate Gogo's interference assumptions to confirm that
Gogo's proposals do not increase the potential for interference to
public safety entities, conduct a comprehensive and independent
technical analysis to be included in an applicable rulemaking
proceeding, and ensure we receive technical studies that can be made
available for comment.
78. Ultimately, we propose to depart from the current peak power
rule to measure instead by average radiated power for the Commercial
Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. We seek comment on our proposal,
including its costs and benefits. Generally, we request that commenters
consider the advantages and disadvantages of peak and average radiated
power limits in terms of controlling the interference potential of
stations, conforming to current industry measurement procedures using
available measuring instruments, minimizing the burden of compliance
with the rules, and having applicability to the wide range of
technologies in use currently and which may be in use in the future.
Further, we seek comment on requiring measurement of average power to
be made during a period of continuous transmission and what the
resolution bandwidth should be. We also seek comment on the potential
impact that our proposal to regulate by average power could have on
adjacent licensees, including public safety licensees, and whether any
additional measures should be implemented to protect other licensed
operations, including public safety operations. Finally, we seek
comment on any other issues related to measuring by peak or average
radiated power that commenters believe are related and pertinent.
Commenters are encouraged to submit technical analyses or other data to
support their power-related proposals.
2. ERP vs. EIRP
79. We propose continuing to express power limits as ERP for the
Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band, instead of adopting EIRP.
When the Commission revised its rules for air-ground operations in
2005, it determined that a ground station maximum power limit of 500
watts ERP and an airborne mobile station maximum power limit of 12
watts ERP would provide a licensee with sufficient flexibility to
deploy its technology while limiting potential harmful interference to
services operating in adjacent spectrum. While there is not complete
uniformity in how the radiated power limits are expressed in the
various commercial wireless service bands, the power limits for AWS and
the Cellular Service are expressed in terms of ERP. We tentatively
conclude that it serves the public interest to continue to express
limits in ERP for the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band as
prescribed by Sec. 22.867 because it will ensure consistency and
minimize difficulty for measuring operational power in this band. We
seek comment on our proposal to maintain power limits in terms of ERP
or whether we should convert this power requirement to EIRP. Finally,
given our proposal to change power measurements for this band, we seek
comment on whether this proposal would create any interference issues
for part 90 licensees in the 800 MHz band with respect to Sec. 22.877.
Commenters should address the costs and benefits of their
recommendations.
3. Peak-to-Average Ratio (PAR)
80. We propose to implement a PAR limit of 13 dB for Commercial
Aviation Air-Ground Systems. When accompanying an average power
approach, a PAR limit guards against interference by restricting the
magnitude of power spikes. Because regulating on an average power basis
will allow for emissions higher than permitted under the current peak
power basis, we tentatively conclude that it serves the public interest
to adopt a PAR limit to mitigate the potential for undesirable
interference that could result otherwise. The Commission reached this
same conclusion in the 2008 PCS and AWS Order and 2017 Cellular Service
Order when adopting an average power measurement technique and a PAR
limit of 13 dB for each service. We tentatively conclude that these
conclusions are equally applicable to adopting a PAR limit to accompany
average power measurement for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems.
81. We propose to implement a PAR, specifically a PAR limit of 13
dB, to accompany the proposed average power measurement technique.
Additionally, we propose for the limit to apply to the highest peak
power density relative to the highest average power density measured
over the entire occupied bandwidth. Finally, we propose to define PAR
as ``the ratio of a radiated emission's peak power to its average
power.'' In its Petition for Rulemaking, Gogo urges us to adopt a PAR
limit of 13 dB because this limit would reduce the risk of harmful
interference while striking the right balance between enabling use of
modulation schemes with high PARs and protecting other licensees from
high PAR transmissions. We tentatively conclude it would serve the
public interest to adopt a PAR limit of 13 dB because it will mitigate
harmful interference by restricting the magnitude of power spikes
occurring due to regulating by average power while also allowing more
flexible operational power in the band.
[[Page 12258]]
82. We seek comment on whether, if we adopt an average power
requirement, it should be accompanied by a PAR limit. We also seek
comment on whether 13 dB is an appropriate PAR limit or if some other
value is more appropriate. If we adopt a PAR to be applied over an
emission's bandwidth, we seek comment on applying that limit to the
highest peak power density relative to the highest average power
density measured over the entire occupied bandwidth. We also seek
comment on adding our proposed definition of PAR to Sec. 22.99.
Finally, we seek comment on whether any other part 22 rules regarding
equipment standards and measurement need to be updated or modified to
be consistent with the equipment certification rules in part 2. We seek
detailed and specific comments on all questions and issues mentioned
above regarding adopting a PAR limit and any other issues that
commenters believe are related and pertinent. Commenters should address
the costs and benefits of any recommendations.
4. Power Spectral Density (PSD) Model
83. We propose to adopt a PSD model for Commercial Aviation Air-
Ground Systems. PSD describes the amount of ERP that would be allowed
per unit of bandwidth from a base station antenna, such that wideband
emissions would be permitted more power commensurate with their
bandwidth. Calculating power per megahertz is important as bandwidth
changes depending on the use of the bandwidth. As stated in the 2008
PCS and AWS Order and 2017 Cellular Service Order, our goal is to
promote spectral efficiency and provide licensees with flexibility to
select the technology that best suits their needs, whether narrowband
or wideband, without being disfavored. The Commission adopted a PSD
model for PCS, AWS, and the Cellular Service to utilize spectrum more
efficiently and accommodate newer wideband technologies. Implementing a
PSD model for these services also fostered technology neutrality, as
existing narrowband emission technologies carry three to eight voice
conversations per emission, while existing wideband emission
technologies carry as many as 20 to 40 voice conversations per
emission. When a power rule makes no distinction between wideband and
narrowband emissions, it applies the same peak radiated power limit to
both. Consequently, a wideband emission system is allowed to provide
only about one fifth of the radiated power for each voice conversation
that a narrowband emission system is allowed to provide, assuming that
each system is operating at the maximum power permitted by rule. Thus,
the average voice conversation on a wideband emission system would have
a lower signal-to-noise ratio, which, despite the partially
compensating processing gain provided by signal spreading, would reduce
the coverage range.
84. Adding a PSD model would also advance the Commission's long-
standing goal of harmonizing our rules across commercial wireless
services to the extent practicable, taking into account the unique
features of each service band. Simultaneously, we are mindful of the
need to protect licensees in the immediately adjacent bands. The
Commission has previously balanced these same interests and instituted
a PSD model for several legacy services. In bands with similar
propagation characteristics to the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground
Systems band, the Commission has transitioned to PSD limits where PSD
limits were not initially adopted, including in the 800 MHz Cellular
Radiotelephone Service, which is adjacent to the Commercial Aviation
Air-Ground Systems band. The Commission's reasoning for adopting these
PSD limits for the Cellular Service was to provide enhanced
technological flexibility for Cellular carriers while also protecting
public safety communications from increased interference, and these are
goals that we seek to achieve in the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground
Systems band as well.
85. Consistent with the Commission's previous decisions to adopt
PSD limits, we propose to revise the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground
Systems power rules to implement power measurement of airborne mobile
station transmitters and ground station transmitters using a PSD model.
We tentatively conclude it serves the public interest to adopt a PSD
model because it will allow for efficient use of wideband technologies
in this band. We seek comment on implementing a PSD model for the
Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band, as we have for other
wireless services utilizing wideband technologies, and, if implemented,
what those limits should be. We also seek comment on whether we should
implement guardrails for the 800 MHz band to prevent or address
interference. Additionally, we seek comment on how we should craft the
power measurement rules to accommodate the various technologies used in
the band and others that may be used in the future. Finally, we seek
detailed and specific comments on any other issues that commenters
believe are related and pertinent, including costs and benefits of any
proposals.
5. Other Related Rules
86. We propose eliminating certain rules that are obsolete or no
longer relevant for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. First, we
propose eliminating Sec. 22.853, which restricts a licensee from
holding more than three megahertz of spectrum in the Commercial
Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. In its petition for rulemaking, Gogo
argues that this rule is too restrictive because the additional one
megahertz of spectrum would otherwise be unused due to previous
licensees' inability ``to develop an economically viable use of the
spectrum'' and highlights that the Bureau granted Gogo's request for
waiver of this rule. We tentatively conclude that we should act
consistent with the Bureau's findings in the 2013 Gogo Waiver Order,
which allows Gogo to operate in all four megahertz of commercial air-
ground spectrum, because it maximizes use of this spectrum and ensures
the additional one megahertz does not remain fallow. Additionally, we
propose deleting Sec. 22.859, which concerns continued incumbent
operations in Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems that were
authorized before January 1, 2004 following the adoption of the 2005
Air-Ground Order. In its Petition for Rulemaking, Gogo asserts that
this section is obsolete due to the completed transition of the
incumbents out of the band. We tentatively conclude that Sec. 22.859
should be deleted because it does not serve its intended purpose since
the incumbents referred to in the rule no longer operate in the
Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. We also propose deleting
Sec. 22.165(f) because the cross-reference is no longer relevant.
Finally, we propose to remove Sec. 1.929(e)(2), which addresses
whether a filing is classified as major or minor. Gogo urges removal of
this section because, following the 2005 Air-Ground Order, the rule
contains a cross-reference to a list of ground stations that no longer
exists. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that Sec. 1.929(e)(2) is
obsolete. We tentatively conclude these proposals serve the public
interest because they revise obsolete and irrelevant rules. We seek
comment on whether we should remove these sections from the
Commission's rules and any other issues that commenters believe are
related and pertinent.
87. Additionally, we propose amending Sec. Sec. 22.313 (station
identification), 22.861 (emission limitations), and 22.863 (frequency
[[Page 12259]]
stability) to allow for more flexible use of the Commercial Aviation
Air-Ground Systems band. More specifically, Gogo urges us to
reincorporate the station identification exemption for commercial air-
ground operators in Sec. 22.313 and include language in Sec. Sec.
22.861 and 22.863 to account for common control of air-ground licenses
held by the same licensee. These proposed rule changes can be found in
Appendix A. In response to Gogo's Petition for Rulemaking, APCO urges
us to scrutinize Gogo's proposal to ``add commercial [air-ground]
operations to the station identification exemption list.'' In its
reply, Gogo asserts that ``[a] signal identifier alone lacks sufficient
information to determine whether a signal is the source of harmful
interference'' and that it is unnecessary as Gogo is the sole licensee
in the band. Consistent with Gogo's argument in its reply, we
tentatively conclude that maintaining Sec. 22.313 as it currently
exists would leave a rule that is ``outdated and uniquely burdensome.''
To this end, the Commission previously has eliminated this requirement
for similar radio services. Therefore, we propose to amend Sec. 22.313
to include stations operating in the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground
Systems band to the station identification exemption list. We seek
comment on our proposal for Sec. 22.313. We tentatively conclude our
proposed modifications to Sec. Sec. 22.313, 22.861, and 22.863 serve
the public interest by clarifying and modernizing our rules and
allowing more flexibility for licensees. We seek comment on amending
these sections.
88. We also take the opportunity to eliminate an outdated reference
to licensees authorized in the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems
band prior to January 1, 2004. This reference appears in both
Sec. Sec. 22.878 and 22.879, but these licensees no longer exist in
this band, so the language distinguishing them is now obsolete. We
tentatively conclude that this change would clarify and simplify our
rules. Therefore, we seek comment on amending Sec. Sec. 22.878 and
22.879 to remove the reference to licensees authorized prior to January
1, 2004. We seek comment on whether there are additional rules that
should be amended or adopted concerning operations for Commercial
Aviation Air-Ground Systems. Overall, we seek detailed and specific
comments on all questions and issues regarding these related rules and
any other issues that commenters believe are relevant and pertinent,
including any costs and benefits.
89. Finally, we seek comment on APCO's continuing concerns
regarding the potential impact to public safety entities as a result of
Gogo's operations. Are there additional rules that should be amended or
adopted to protect public safety entities? For example, should we
require Gogo to respond to reports of interference in a timely manner,
as APCO recommends? Given that Gogo has been operating pursuant to its
waiver, we invite stakeholders to opine on whether additional measures
are necessary to protect public safety licensees and/or help them
identify sources of harmful interference, without disproportionately
burdening Gogo. We also seek comment on whether to codify in our rules
any of the conditions stipulated in the Gogo Waiver Order.
90. Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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 the possible impact
of the rule and policy changes addressed in this NPRM. The IRFA is set
forth in Appendix B. The Commission invites the general public,
particularly small businesses, to comment on the IRFA.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
91. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes amendments to several
areas of its service rules in order to facilitate the deployment of
various manifestations of Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) and other
uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) operations. The NPRM proposes to
address operations in three distinct bands of spectrum: the 450 MHz
band; the 24.45-24.65 GHz band; and the 800 MHz Commercial Aviation
Air-Ground Systems band. The changes that the Commission proposes for
each band seek to advance its goal of safe and effective facilitation
of facets of AAM and UAS services.
92. Air-Ground Communications in the 450 MHz Band. The NPRM in this
proceeding acts, in part, on a February 2021 petition for rulemaking by
AURA Network Systems OpCo, LLC (AURA) and A2G Communications, LLC
(A2G), which recommended that the Commission commence a rulemaking
proceeding to amend portions of its rules as necessary to allow the
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service (AGRAS) 450 MHz band to be used to
provide UAS Control and Non-Payload Communications (CNPC). The NPRM now
proposes and seeks comment on several rule amendments to update the
rules governing the use of the 450 MHz band by proposing to create new
service rules that allow for UAS CNPC operations in the band. First,
the NPRM proposes to amend the allocation in the 450 MHz band to
include UAS CNPC in addition to the existing air-ground radiotelephone
service. Next, the NPRM proposes to transition the licensing regime in
the 450 MHz band from site-based licensing to a geographic licensing
structure with a single nationwide license that has additional rights
and greater flexibility. Finally, the NPRM proposes to adopt flexible
licensing and operating rules and technical rules that will facilitate
robust use of the band in the public interest and will minimize
interference to neighboring operations. The objective of this proposal
is to position the 450 MHz band as one of several alternatives for
local, regional, and nationwide UAS CNPC used for the safety of flight
for UAS. This proposal is consistent with the Commission's efforts in
other frequency bands to improve spectrum efficiency and expand
operational flexibility.
93. UAS Detection in the 24.45-24.65 GHz Band. The NPRM acts on an
October 2018 petition for rulemaking by Echodyne Corporation
(Echodyne), which recommended that the Commission permanently allow
radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band on a secondary
basis. The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on revisions to the U.S.
Table and corresponding amendments to the Commission's rules that would
enable the detection of UAS by permitting such operations in the band.
The Commission's objective for the 24.45-24.65 GHz band is to thereby
facilitate UAS detection at sensitive sites that include stadiums,
prisons, the U.S. border, and critical infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities), and to elevate the potential of an underused segment of
spectrum while minimizing the risk of harmful interference.
94. Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. Finally, the Commission
proposes and seeks comment on modernizing the legacy rules governing
Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. The NPRM acts on the petition
for rulemaking filed by Gogo Business Aviation, LLC in July 2022, which
recommended amending several of the Commission's rules to enable more
flexible air-ground operations in the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground
Systems band. In this band, licensees
[[Page 12260]]
facilitate the provision of broadband service on commercial aircraft.
The legacy rules for this band impose power limits that have fallen out
of step with the realities of operations in this band. Namely, the
Commission's rules currently require that operational power be
regulated by peak power, which is not technology neutral for broadband
technologies. The Commission proposes instead to measure and regulate
the effective radiated power of Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems
operations according to their average power. Further, the Commission
proposes adopting a peak-to-average ratio (PAR) and a power spectral
density (PSD) model. The changes the Commission proposes would bring
these rules into harmony with those that govern similar operations in
other bands, enable more efficient use of the spectrum, and promote
technology neutrality.
B. Legal Basis
95. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1, 4,
301, 303, 307-310, 316, 318, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307-310, 316, 318, and 332.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
96. 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 which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
97. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service is a wireless service in which licensees are authorized to
offer and provide radio telecommunications service for hire to
subscribers in aircraft. A licensee may provide any type of air-ground
service (i.e., voice telephony, broadband internet, data, etc.) to
aircraft of any type, and serve any or all aviation markets
(commercial, government, and general). A licensee must provide service
to aircraft and may not provide ancillary land mobile or fixed services
in the 800 MHz air-ground spectrum.
98. The closest industry with an SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite). The SBA small business 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
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
99. Based on Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately four licensees with 110 active licenses in the Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service. The Commission's small business size standards
with respect to Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service involve eligibility
for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of
licenses. For purposes of auctions, the Commission defined ``small
business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40
million for the preceding three years, and a ``very small business'' as
an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests,
has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the
preceding three years. In the auction of Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service licenses in the 800 MHz band, neither of the two winning
bidders claimed small business status.
100. 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, the Commission
does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees
providing these services therefore, 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.
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. 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
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.''
104. 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
[[Page 12261]]
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.
105. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
106. 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 businesses 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 firms
had fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
107. Uncrewed Aircraft Radio Equipment Manufacturers. Neither the
SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard
specifically applicable to uncrewed aircraft radio equipment
manufacturers. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing is the closest industry with a
SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies businesses 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 firms had fewer than 250 employees. In addition, the SBA
provides a size standard for the Aircraft Manufacturing industry which
includes the manufacture of uncrewed and robotic aircraft. The SBA
small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses
having 1,500 employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2017 show that there were 254 firms in this industry that operated for
the entire year. Of this number, 227 firms had fewer than 250
employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of
manufacturers in this industry are small.
108. Uncrewed Aircraft System Operators. Neither the Commission nor
the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically
applicable to UAS operators. The Commission lacks data on the number of
operators in the United States that could be subject to the rules,
therefore it is not possible to determine the number of affected small
entity operators at this time. We find, however, that the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Remote ID rule is helpful. In this analysis, the FAA assessed the
impact of the rule on small entity non-recreational UAS operators based
on an analysis that the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems
International (AUVSI) performed relating to part 107 waivers. In the
analysis, the AUVSI determined that 92 percent of the waivers were
issued to entities with fewer than 100 employees. Based on this data,
the FAA determined that a majority of entities operating uncrewed
aircraft for other than recreational purposes are small. Accordingly,
based on the FAA's determination we conclude that a majority of
uncrewed UAS operators are small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
109. The proposed changes to the Commission's service rules in the
NPRM, if adopted, could impose new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements on some small entities. At this time, however,
the record does not include sufficient cost/benefit analyses to allow
the Commission to quantify the costs of compliance for small entities
including whether it will be necessary for small entities to hire
professionals to comply with the proposed rules if adopted. The NPRM
nevertheless seeks comment, particularly from small entities, on the
costs and burdens of the proposed rules and whether there are any
actions the Commission should take to minimize concerns by small
entities regarding their compliance requirements. Below is an overview
of the potential compliance obligations small entities may face due to
the proposed rule changes for the three distinct bands of spectrum
discussed in the NPRM.
110. Air-Ground Communications in the 450 MHz Band. As discussed
above, the potential rule changes proposed in the NPRM, if adopted,
could impose new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements on some small entities. In addition to the proposed rule
changes associated with the amended allocation in the 450 MHz band,
there could also be new service rule compliance obligations. For the
new operations allowed and the new licensing framework in the band, the
NPRM seeks comment on various service rules that should apply,
including performance, construction, and technical operating
requirements. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment on the costs and
benefit of the proposed approaches and any associated rule changes or
requirements.
111. Application Freeze. In order to maintain the existing
licensing landscape in the band, and to permit the incumbent licensee
to submit necessary filings, while this rulemaking proceeding is
pending, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau suspended acceptance
and processing of new applications to conduct part 22 general aviation
air-ground service operations in the 450 MHz band.
112. Voluntary Transition to a Nationwide License. The NPRM
proposes to voluntarily transition the band to a geographic licensing
structure with a single nationwide license, thereby creating a less
burdensome environment for small entity compliance. It tentatively
concludes
[[Page 12262]]
that the licensing regime is in the public interest because of the
public safety need for UAS CNPC across the country. Further, the NPRM
proposes certain eligibility restrictions an entity must meet in order
to qualify for the geographic license with nationwide coverage.
Specifically, it proposes to define ``covered incumbent'' as an
applicant eligible for the nationwide 450 MHz Air-Ground Service
license that can demonstrate that: (1) it provides coverage at 25,000
feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii using all available communication
frequencies; and (2) the locations of the sites used to provide this
coverage prevent the authorization of any other entity to provide
contiguous, regional service using multiple communication frequencies.
The covered incumbent eligibility criteria intends to ensure expanded
operations are expeditiously deployed in the band, putting the spectrum
to its highest and most efficient use.
113. In addition, the NPRM proposes to transition to a geographic
license framework by converting a single incumbent's site-based
licenses into a nationwide license. Under the proposed approach, a
covered incumbent seeking the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service nationwide
license would apply to modify one of its site-based licenses into the
nationwide license and turn in its remaining site-based licenses. This
application for modification would be completely voluntary.
114. Certification. The NPRM proposes that a request to modify a
site-based license into the new nationwide license must include as an
attachment a certification that the applicant has satisfied the
eligibility criteria (Eligibility Certification). The proposed criteria
for a covered incumbent are: (1) it provides coverage at 25,000 feet
over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii using all available communication
frequencies; and (2) the locations of the sites used to provide this
coverage prevent the authorization of any other entity to provide
contiguous, regional service using multiple communication frequencies.
The NPRM further proposes that, in order to meet the first prong of
covered incumbent criteria, the Eligibility Certification must list the
licenses and frequencies that the applicant holds in the 450 MHz band
to demonstrate that it meets the proposed threshold. The NPRM proposes
that the covered incumbent can meet the second prong of the covered
incumbent criteria by providing a coverage map that demonstrates how
the incumbent's site locations and service prevent the authorization of
any other entity to provide contiguous, regional service using multiple
communication frequencies. Lastly, the NPRM proposes to require the
covered incumbent to submit the Eligibility Certification and coverage
map in ULS.
115. License and Operating Rules. The NPRM proposes to adopt
additional service rules that would provide UAS operators with the
ability to conduct control and non-payload operations in the band. In
addition, the NPRM proposes specific eligibility criteria for the
covered incumbent to modify one of its site-based licenses into a
nationwide license and proposes to maintain the existing part 22
general eligibility standard for licenses in the 450 MHz band. It also
proposes to license the 450 MHz band on an exclusive, nationwide
license basis. Lastly, the NPRM tentatively concludes that the license
term for the nationwide license should be 15 years.
116. Performance Benchmarks. The NPRM proposes two options to meet
the performance requirements and proposes to have an interim and final
performance requirement in each option. In the proposed Option 1, to
meet the interim performance benchmark, the licensee must continue to
provide service at 25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii and
service at 400 feet covering 17.5 percent or more of each REAG
geographic area. To meet the final performance requirement under
proposed Option 1, the licensee must provide service in CONUS, Alaska,
and Hawaii at 25,000 feet and service at 400 feet covering 35 percent
or more of each individual license area REAG geographic area. Under the
proposed Option 2, to meet the interim performance benchmark, the
licensee must provide service at 400 feet covering 35 percent or more
of each individual REAG geographic area. To meet the final performance
requirement under this option, the licensee must provide service
covering 70 percent or more of each individual license area REAG
geographic area. The NPRM proposes that the licensee may choose to
fulfill its performance requirement either by a combination of high and
low altitude services under Option 1 or significant service at low
altitude under Option 2. The NPRM further proposes that, in the event
the nationwide licensee fails to meet the first performance benchmark
in any REAG, the licensee's second benchmark and license term would be
reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the second
performance benchmark two years sooner (at 6 years into the license
term) and reducing its license term to 13 years. Lastly, the NPRM
proposes that if the nationwide licensee fails to meet the second
performance benchmark in any REAG, its authorization for the license
shall terminate automatically without Commission action.
117. Compliance Procedures. The NPRM proposes a rule requiring
licensees to submit electronic coverage maps in the ULS that accurately
depict both the boundaries of the licensed area and the coverage
boundaries of the actual area to which the licensee provides service.
The NPRM proposes that the covered incumbent must notify the Commission
by filing FCC Form 601 when it meets its construction obligations
within the construction period. It proposes that the notification must
be filed within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable
construction period. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment on this
proposal and any alternatives. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether a
covered incumbent has any special or unique issues such that they would
require additional time to comply.
118. General Applicability of Other Part 22 and Part 1 Rules. The
NPRM proposes that the nationwide licensee in the 450 MHz band should
be governed by licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all
part 22 services, including foreign ownership and permanent
discontinuance of operations. The NPRM also proposes to retain existing
station identification rules for general aviation air-ground stations
(ground and mobile) and not to require station identification for
ground and mobile stations providing UAS CNPC. FAA rules presently
regulate remote identification of UAS, so the NPRM proposes not to
adopt duplicative rules.
119. Technical Rules. The NPRM seeks comment on the appropriate
power levels in the 450 MHz band and proposes to eliminate the 20
kilohertz channel requirement. The NPRM further proposes to apply the
existing 43 + 10 log (P) dB out of band emissions limit at the edge of
the last channel at the legacy band edges. Additionally, it also
proposes to eliminate the channel siting requirement in the
Commission's rules for the 450 MHz band. The NPRM proposes to retain
the transmitter location rules for the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service. The
NPRM also notes that there are several additional technical rules
applicable to all part 22 services, including Sec. Sec. 22.365
(Antenna structures; air navigation safety), 22.377 (Certification of
transmitters) 22.379 (RF Exposure), and 22.383 (In-building radiation
systems). It proposes to apply these general part 22 rules to the 450
MHz Air-Ground Service. Further, the NPRM proposes to apply these rules
to
[[Page 12263]]
licensees that acquire their licenses through partitioning or
disaggregation (to the extent the service rules permit such licenses).
Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on incorporating RTCA standards into
our rules for the 450 MHz band.
120. UAS Detection in the 24.45-24.65 GHz Band. The NPRM proposes
and seeks comment on changes to the Commission's rules to expand use of
the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to include radiolocation operations that would
better facilitate the detection of UAS, including AAM operations. These
changes would primarily impose existing part 90 technical, licensing,
and operating compliance requirements on new radiolocation operations
in the band. The NPRM also proposes to establish a frequency stability
standard on radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, and
it would require that the devices used to conduct such operations
receive authorization to do so under the Commission's part 90 rules.
121. Radiolocation Allocation in the 24.45-24.65 GHz Band. The NPRM
proposes to add to the U.S. Table a federal and a non-federal secondary
allocation for radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band.
The band is currently allocated only to radionavigation and inter-
satellite services. The NPRM seeks comment on this approach, especially
with regard to any potential for harmful interference between
radiolocation operations and existing co-channel and adjacent-channel
operations.
122. Part 90 Licensing and Operating Rules for Radiolocation
Operations. The NPRM proposes to add the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to the
list of frequencies available to the Radiolocation Service in part 90
of the Commission's rules, and to apply the existing part 90 rules
related to license applications, term, performance requirements, and
license renewal to such operations. The NPRM further proposes to apply
to radiolocation operations the additional rules that govern part 90
services generally. Such rules include those that govern foreign
ownership, construction requirements, and applications for temporary
permits.
123. Part 90 Technical Rules for Radiolocation Operations. The NPRM
proposes to preserve and apply, with minimal amendments, existing
provisions of the Commission's part 90 technical rules to radiolocation
operations in the 24.45-25.65 GHz band. For example, the NPRM proposes
to impose power limits on a case-by-case basis, as described in Sec.
90.205, consistent with comparable part 90 licenses. The NPRM similarly
proposes, per Sec. 90.207, to determine emissions-type limitations on
a case-by-case basis, and to establish them upon a satisfactory showing
of need. The NPRM also proposes to apply Sec. 90.210's Emission Mask B
to radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. Finally, the
NPRM proposes to continue to review and authorize on a case-by-case
basis bandwidth limits for stations conducting radiolocation operations
in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, consistent with Sec. 90.209, and to
establish a frequency stability standard for such operations in Sec.
90.213.
124. Equipment Authorization for Radiolocation Operations. The NPRM
proposes to require transmitters used to conduct radiolocation
operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to receive authorization to
operate under part 90 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for
such authorization are set forth in Sec. 90.203.
125. Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. The Commission
proposes changes to the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems rules to
more efficiently utilize this spectrum, harmonize these rules with
rules of similar legacy technologies, and promote technology
neutrality. More specifically, we propose to amend the rules to
regulate by average power rather than by peak power, adopt a PAR limit,
and implement a PSD model. While the Commission does not propose any
new reporting or recordkeeping requirements for this band, we do
propose compliance requirements for licensees.
126. Power Measurement. The Commission proposes to regulate power
for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems on an average basis. The
rules for this band currently measure permissible ERP on a peak basis.
More specifically, Sec. 22.867 restricts peak ERP for airborne mobile
transmitters to 12 watts ERP and ground station transmitters to 500
watts ERP in the 849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz. We do not yet specify
particular limits for these airborne mobile and ground station
transmitters, but, if this rule is adopted, we would require licensees
to regulate by average power not to exceed a certain level.
127. Peak-to-Average Ratio. The Commission proposes to implement a
PAR limit of 13 dB for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. When
accompanying an average power approach, a PAR limit guards against
interference by restricting the magnitude of power spikes. Because
regulating on an average power basis would allow for emissions higher
than permitted under the current peak power basis, we tentatively
conclude that it serves the public interest to adopt a PAR limit to
mitigate the potential for undesirable interference that could result
otherwise. In the event the Commission adopts a PAR, the Commission
would restrict licensees to a PAR limit of 13 dB.
128. Power Spectral Density Model. In the NPRM, the Commission
proposes to adopt a PSD model for the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground
Systems band. PSD describes the amount of ERP that would be allowed per
unit of bandwidth from a base station antenna, such that wideband
emissions would be permitted more power commensurate with their
bandwidth. We have previously implemented a PSD model for similar
bands, such as the 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone Service, to promote
technology neutrality for entities utilizing broadband technologies in
these bands. While existing Commission rules do not yet specify a
certain PSD limit for this band, if a PSD model is adopted and a limit
is specified, we would allow entities employing wideband technologies
to utilize a PSD model.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
129. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance 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.''
130. Air-Ground Communications in the 450 MHz Band. The proposals
contained in the NPRM are designed to facilitate more intensive use of
650 kilohertz of low-band spectrum for air-ground communications
through flexible rights and policies, in order to position the 450 MHz
band as one of several alternatives considered for local, regional, and
nationwide UAS networks. This action is critical to modernize the
legacy, site-based general aviation air-ground service rules that
currently limit service to voice communications with aircraft at high
altitudes, thereby prohibiting data
[[Page 12264]]
communications, and effectively prohibiting wide-area, low-altitude
service. The Commission has taken steps to enable it to minimize the
economic burden on small entities that could occur if some of the rule
changes or approaches proposed in the NPRM are adopted. Specifically,
in the NPRM, the Commission seeks to identify whether a covered
incumbent will face any special or unique issues with respect to the
proposed licensing and operating rules such that they would require
certain accommodations or additional time to comply by seeking comment
on this issue. The Commission also seeks to identify and consider other
modifications that could be made to our rules regarding administrative
processes that would reduce the economic impacts of proposed rule
changes on the covered incumbent. Additionally, we seek to obtain any
information, through comments or otherwise, specific to the interests
of small entities, which should provide the Commission with the
requisite data it needs to effectively consider the most cost-effective
approach to minimize the economic impact for such entities while
achieving its statutory objectives.
131. The proposed transition to a geographic licensing regime would
be completely voluntary, which may minimize impact of the rules on
small entities. Further, the NPRM considers and seeks comment on
allowing the covered incumbent to choose between two performance
requirement options. The NPRM proposes a license term of 15 years. The
certainty of a longer license term would provide a licensee that is a
small entity sufficient incentive to make the long-term investments
necessary for compliance. Additionally, certain applicable technical
rules would be eliminated or remained unchanged, which would either
reduce or, at least maintain, the existing economic obligations of
small entities.
132. The Commission finds an overriding public interest in
encouraging investment in wireless networks, facilitating access to
scarce spectrum resources, and promoting the rapid deployment of mobile
services to both the American public and its small businesses. All
licensees, including small entities, play a crucial role in achieving
these goals. Thus, to identify additional approaches that could further
minimize the economic impact on small entities the Commission seeks
comment on alternative obligations, timing for implementation, scope of
subject licenses, and other measures that could accommodate the needs
and resources of small entities. Prior to adopting final rules in this
proceeding, the Commission will evaluate comments filed in response to
the NPRM, and carefully consider the matters and the impact of all rule
changes on small entities.
133. UAS Detection in the 24.45-24.65 GHz Band. The NPRM proposes
and seeks comment on modest rule changes to enable radiolocation
operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. We believe that very few
changes to our part 90 rules will be required in order to facilitate
this expanded utility of a band of spectrum that is presently
underused. We therefore propose to retain and apply relevant, familiar,
and generally applicable part 90 licensing, operation, and technical
rules wherever possible. This approach is tailored to minimize any new
burden on small entity and all other applicants. We nevertheless seek
comment on the costs and benefits of our various proposals, including
the application of existing rules, as well as our proposals to add a
federal and a non-federal, secondary radiolocation allocation to the
U.S. Table, and to require new part 90 equipment authorization for
transmitters that will conduct radiolocation operations in the 24.45-
24.65 GHz band.
134. Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. The NPRM proposes and
seeks comment on the adoption of average power regulation, a PAR limit,
and a PSD model for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems, as well as
considers the advantages and disadvantages of peak and average radiated
power limits in terms of controlling the interference potential of
stations, and conforming to current industry measurement procedures
using available measuring instruments. The NPRM invites interested
parties to comment on these proposals as well as consider the costs and
benefits of each proposal. The Commission believes that, if adopted,
these rules would enable the licensee to provide connectivity for
passengers on commercial aircraft in a more efficient manner for its
broadband technologies, and this connectivity is available to all
individuals and entities onboard. For example, small businesses would
be able to utilize this connectivity while on a commercial flight.
135. Additionally, these proposals would put the Commercial
Aviation Air-Ground Systems licensee, regardless of size, more on
regulatory par with other wireless service licensees. The Commission
has historically valued harmonization in the rules for wireless
licensees by eliminating burdensome requirements, as appropriate. These
proposals align the rules for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems
with the rules for the Personal Communications Service, Advanced
Wireless Service, and Cellular Radiotelephone Service, which would
reduce confusion and ease the regulatory burden on small entities
providing or receiving those services. Further, we anticipate that
these modernized rules would encourage the licensee to invest in and
deploy more advanced technologies as they evolve.
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 Sec. 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 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Radio, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 2
Radio, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 22
Communications, Communications common carriers, Public mobile
services, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 90
Communications, Private land mobile radio service, Radio,
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, The Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 22, and
90 to read as follows:
[[Page 12265]]
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 47
U.S.C. 1754, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1.907 by revising the definitions of ``Covered
geographic licenses'' and ``Covered site-based licenses'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.907 Definitions.
* * * * *
Covered geographic licenses. Covered geographic licenses consist of
the following services: 1.4 GHz Service (part 27, subpart I, of this
chapter); 1.6 GHz Service (part 27, subpart J); 24 GHz Service and
Digital Electronic Message Services (part 101, subpart G, of this
chapter); 218-219 MHz Service (part 95, subpart F, of this chapter);
220-222 MHz Service, excluding public safety licenses (part 90, subpart
T, of this chapter); 600 MHz Service (part 27, subpart N); 700 MHz
Commercial Services (part 27, subparts F and H); 700 MHz Guard Band
Service (part 27, subpart G); 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service
(part 90, subpart S); 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (part
90, subpart S); 900 MHz Broadband Service (part 27, subpart P); 3.45
GHz Service (part 27, subpart Q); 3.7 GHz Service (part 27, subpart O);
Advanced Wireless Services (part 27, subparts K and L); Air-Ground
Service (450 MHz Air-Ground Service and Commercial Aviation Air-Ground
Systems) (part 22, subpart G, of this chapter); Broadband Personal
Communications Service (part 24, subpart E, of this chapter); Broadband
Radio Service (part 27, subpart M); Cellular Radiotelephone Service
(part 22, subpart H); Citizens Broadband Radio Service (part 96,
subpart C, of this chapter); Dedicated Short Range Communications
Service, excluding public safety licenses (part 90, subpart M);
Educational Broadband Service (part 27, subpart M); H Block Service
(part 27, subpart K); Local Multipoint Distribution Service (part 101,
subpart L); Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (part 101,
subpart P); Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (part 90,
subpart M); Multiple Address Systems (EAs) (part 101, subpart O);
Narrowband Personal Communications Service (part 24, subpart D); Paging
and Radiotelephone Service (part 22, subpart E; part 90, subpart P);
VHF Public Coast Stations, including Automated Maritime
Telecommunications Systems (part 80, subpart J, of this chapter); Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service (part 30 of this chapter); and Wireless
Communications Service (part 27, subpart D).
Covered site-based licenses. Covered site-based licenses consist of
the following services: 220-222 MHz Service (site-based), excluding
public safety licenses (part 90, subpart T of this chapter); 800/900
MHz (SMR and Business and Industrial Land Transportation Pool) (part
90, subpart S); Aeronautical Advisory Stations (Unicoms) (part 87,
subpart G); Alaska--Public Fixed Stations (part 80, subpart O);
Broadcast Auxiliary Service (part 74, subparts D, E, F, and H); Common
Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point, Microwave Service (part 101, subpart I);
Industrial/Business Radio Pool (part 90, subpart C); Local Television
Transmission Service (part 101, subpart J); Multiple Address Systems
(site-based), excluding public safety licenses (part 101, subpart H);
Non-Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (part 90, subpart
M); Offshore Radiotelephone Service (part 22, subpart I); Paging and
Radiotelephone Service (site-based) (part 22, subpart E); Private
Carrier Paging (part 90, subpart P); Private Operational Fixed Point-
to-Point Microwave Service, excluding public safety licenses (part 101,
subpart H); Public Coast Stations (site-based) (part 80, subpart J);
Radiodetermination Service Stations (Radionavigation and Radiolocation
Land Stations) (part 87, subpart Q); Radiolocation Service (part 90,
subpart F); and Rural Radiotelephone Service (including Basic Exchange
Telephone Radio Service) (part 22, subpart F).
* * * * *
Sec. 1.929 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 1.929, remove paragraph (e) and redesignate paragraphs (f)
through (k) as paragraphs (e) through (j).
0
4. Amend Sec. 1.950 by adding paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(2)(v) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1.950 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) 450 MHz Air-Ground Service Licensees must comply with Sec.
22.811 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(v) 450 MHz Air-Ground Service Licensees must comply with Sec.
22.811 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 1.9005 by adding paragraph (qq) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.9005 Included services.
* * * * *
(qq) The 450 MHz Air-Ground Service in the 450 MHz band (part 22 of
this chapter).
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
6. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
7. Amend Sec. 2.106 by revising paragraph (a) U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations pages 28, 29, and 55 to read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
(a) * * *
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 12266]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17MR25.002
[[Page 12267]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17MR25.003
* * * * *
[[Page 12268]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17MR25.004
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
* * * * *
[[Page 12269]]
PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
0
8. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309, and 332.
0
9. Amend Sec. 22.99 by adding in alphabetical order definitions for
``450 MHz Air-Ground Service,'' ``Control and non-payload
communications of uncrewed aircraft systems,'' ``Peak-to-average ratio
(PAR),'' ``Uncrewed aircraft (UA),'' ``Uncrewed aircraft station,'' and
``Uncrewed aircraft system (UAS)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 22.99 Definitions.
450 MHz Air-Ground Service. A radio service in which licensees are
authorized to provide air-ground radiotelephone service and control and
non-payload communications of uncrewed aircraft systems.
* * * * *
Control and non-payload communications of uncrewed aircraft
systems. Any transmission that is sent between the uncrewed aircraft
(UA) component and the uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) ground station of
the UAS and that supports the safety or regularity of the UA's flight.
* * * * *
Peak-to-average ratio (PAR). The ratio of a radiated emission's
peak power to its average power.
* * * * *
Uncrewed aircraft (UA). An aircraft operated without the
possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the
aircraft.
Uncrewed aircraft station. A mobile station authorized under this
part and located on board a UA.
Uncrewed aircraft system (UAS). A UA and its associated elements
(including an uncrewed aircraft station, communication links, and the
components not on board the UA that control the UA) that are required
for the safe and efficient operation of the UA in the airspace of the
United States.
* * * * *
Sec. 22.165 [Amended]
0
10. Amend Sec. 22.165 by removing and reserving paragraph (f).
0
11. Amend Sec. 22.313 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3), and
(c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 22.313 Station identification.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) General aviation ground stations providing air-ground
radiotelephone service; and ground and mobile stations providing
control and non-payload communications of uncrewed aircraft systems in
the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service;
(3) Commercial aviation air-ground systems in the Air-Ground
Service.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) For general aviation airborne mobile stations in the 450 MHz
Air-Ground Service, the official FAA registration number of the
aircraft;
* * * * *
0
12. Revise Sec. 22.357 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.357 Emission types.
Any authorized station in the Public Mobile Services may transmit
emissions of any type(s) that comply with the applicable emission rule,
i.e. Sec. Sec. 22.359, 22.861, 22.917, and 22.815.
0
13. Amend Sec. 22.359 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 22.359 Emission limitations.
The rules in this section govern the spectral characteristics of
emissions in the Public Mobile Services, except for the Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service (see Sec. 22.861, instead), the Cellular
Radiotelephone Service (see Sec. 22.917, instead), and the 450 MHz
Air-Ground Service (see Sec. 22.815, instead).
* * * * *
0
14. Revise Sec. 22.379 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.379 RF exposure.
Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the
Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sec. Sec.
1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.
Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices
operating under this section must contain a statement confirming
compliance with these requirements. Technical information showing the
basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon
request.
0
15. Revise the title of subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G--Air-Ground Service
0
16. Revise Sec. 22.801 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.801 Scope.
The rules in this subpart govern the licensing and operation of
air-ground stations and systems and control and non-payload
communications of uncrewed aircraft systems stations and systems. The
licensing and operation of these stations and systems is also subject
to rules elsewhere in this part and in part 1 of this chapter that
generally apply to the Public Mobile Services. In case of conflict,
however, the rules in this subpart govern.
0
17. Revise the undesignated center heading ``General Aviation Air-
Ground Stations'' to read as follows:
450 MHz Air-Ground Service
0
18. Add Sec. 22.803 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.803 Initial authorization.
(a) Frequencies. The 454.6625-454.9875 MHz and 459.6625-459.9875
MHz bands are available for assignment on a geographic basis.
(b) Service area. The service area for the 450 MHz Air-Ground
Service is nationwide, including the United States, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Island, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Island, and American Samoa.
0
19. Revise Sec. 22.805 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.805 Eligibility.
(a) Eligibility. For an applicant to be eligible for the nationwide
450 MHz Air-Ground Service license, it must demonstrate that:
(1) it provides coverage at 25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and
Hawaii using all available communication frequencies; and
(2) the locations of the sites used to provide this coverage
prevent the authorization of any other entity to provide contiguous,
regional service using multiple communication frequencies.
(b) Application. (1) Applications must be filed in accordance with
part 1 of this chapter.
(2) An applicant for the nationwide 450 MHz Air-Ground Service
license must submit with its application an Eligibility Certification
that:
(i) Lists licenses and frequencies that the applicant holds in the
450 MHz band to demonstrate that it meets the eligibility criteria
listed in paragraph (a) of this section; and
(ii) Includes a coverage map which demonstrates how the incumbent's
site locations and service prevent the authorization of any other
entity to provide contiguous, regional service using multiple
communication frequencies.
0
20. Revise Sec. 22.807 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.807 License period.
Authorizations for 450 MHz Air-Ground Service licenses in the
454.6625-454.9875 MHz and 459.6625-459.9875 MHz bands will have a term
not to exceed 15 years from the date of initial issuance.
0
20. Revise Sec. 22.809 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.809 Performance requirements.
(a) Construction notification(s). The 450 MHz Air-Ground Service
licensee shall demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by
filing a
[[Page 12270]]
construction notification with the Commission within 15 days of the
expiration of the applicable benchmark in accordance with the
provisions set forth in Sec. 1.946(d) of this chapter. The licensee
must certify whether it has met the applicable performance
requirements. The licensee must file a description and certification of
the areas for which it is providing service. The construction
notifications must include electronic coverage maps and supporting
technical documentation regarding the type of service it is providing
for each licensed area within its service territory and the type of
technology used to provide such service, and certify the accuracy of
such documentation. Supporting documentation must include the
assumptions used to create the coverage maps, including the propagation
model and the signal strength necessary to provide reliable service
with the licensee's technology.
(b) Licensee options. The 450 MHz Air-Ground Service licensee must
meet either a high-altitude and low-altitude combination performance
requirement or a significant coverage low-altitude performance
requirement. To demonstrate compliance with the performance
requirement, 450 MHz Air-Ground Service licensees shall use the
Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs) as defined in Sec. 90.7 of
this chapter.
(1) Option one (Combination High Altitude and Low Altitude Metric).
(A) Within 4 years of the license grant the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service
licensee shall provide service at 25,000 feet above CONUS, Alaska, and
Hawaii and service at 400 feet over 17.5% of each individual REAG.
(B) Within 8 years of the license grant the 450 MHz Air-Ground
Service licensee shall provide service at 25,000 feet above CONUS,
Alaska, and Hawaii and service at 400 feet over 35% of each individual
REAG.
(2) Option two (Low Altitude Metric). (A) Within 4 years of the
license grant the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service licensee shall provide
service at 400 feet over 35% of each individual REAG.
(B) Within 8 years of the license grant the 450 MHz Air-Ground
Service licensee shall provide service at 400 feet over 70% of each
individual REAG.
(c) Failure to meet performance requirements. (1) If the 450 MHz
Air-Ground Service licensee fails to meet the first performance
benchmark, we require that the licensee meet the final performance
benchmark two years sooner (i.e., at 6 years into the license term) and
reduce the license term from 15 years to 13 years.
(2) If the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service licensee fails to meet the
second performance benchmark, its authorization for the license shall
terminate automatically without Commission action.
0
21. Add Sec. 22.811 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.811 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
(a) Eligibility. A party holding a nationwide 450 MHz Air-Ground
Service license may request from the Commission an authorization for
partial assignment of its license pursuant to Sec. 1.948 of this
chapter.
(b) Technical standards--(1) Partitioning. In the case of
partitioning, applicants and licensees must file FCC Form 603 pursuant
to Sec. 1.948 of this chapter and list the partitioned service area on
a schedule to the application. The geographic coordinates must be
specified in degrees, minutes, and seconds to the nearest second of
latitude and longitude and must be based upon the 1983 North American
Datum (NAD83).
(2) Disaggregation. Spectrum may be disaggregated in any amount.
(3) Combined partitioning and disaggregation. The Commission will
consider requests for partial assignment of the nationwide license that
propose combinations of partitioning and disaggregation.
(4) Demonstration. The licensee seeking partitioning and/or
disaggregation must demonstrate in its application how the operations
of co-channel licensees will be protected upon partitioning or
disaggregation. Those technical protections bind all parties to the
partitioning/disaggregation transaction.
(c) License term. The license term for a partitioned license area
and for disaggregated spectrum shall be the remainder of the nationwide
licensee's license term as provided for in Sec. 22.807.
0
22. Revise Sec. 22.813 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.813 Power limits.
The transmitting power of ground and airborne mobile transmitters
operating in the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service must not exceed the limits
in this section.
(a) Ground station transmitters. The effective radiated power of
ground stations must not exceed 100 Watts and must not be less than 50
Watts.
(b) Airborne mobile transmitters. The transmitter power output of
airborne mobile transmitters must not exceed 25 Watts and must not be
less than 4 Watts.
0
23. Revise Sec. 22.815 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.815 Emission limits.
The rules in this section govern the spectral characteristics of
emissions for the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service. Transmitters in the 450
MHz Air-Ground Service may use any type of emission or technology that
complies with the technical rules in this subpart.
(a) Out of band emissions. The power of any emission outside of the
authorized operating frequency ranges must be attenuated below the
transmitting power (P) by a factor of at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB.
(b) Measurement procedure. Compliance with these rules is based on
the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth
of 100 kHz or greater. In the 1 MHz bands immediately outside and
adjacent to the frequency block a resolution bandwidth of at least one
percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the
transmitter may be employed. A narrower resolution bandwidth is
permitted in all cases to improve measurement accuracy provided the
measured power is integrated over the full required measurement
bandwidth (i.e., 100 kHz or 1 percent of emission bandwidth, as
specified). The emission bandwidth is defined as the width of the
signal between two points, one below the carrier center frequency and
one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions
are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter power.
(c) Interference caused by out of band emissions. If any emission
from a transmitter operating in this service results in interference to
users of another radio service, the FCC may require a greater
attenuation of that emission than specified in this section.
Sec. 22.853 [Removed and Reserved]
0
24. Remove and reserve Sec. 22.853.
Sec. 22.859 [Removed and Reserved]
0
25. Remove and reserve Sec. 22.859:
0
26. Amend Sec. 22.861 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 22.861 Emission limitations.
* * * * *
(e) Common control exception. If each Commercial Aviation Air-
Ground System license is under common control, the out-of-band
emissions limits in this section shall not apply at the internal
boundaries of those licenses (850.5 MHz and 895.5 MHz). Individuals and
entities with either de jure or de facto control of a licensee in these
bands will be considered to have a controlling interest in its
license(s). For purposes of this rule, the definitions of ``controlling
interests'' and ``affiliate''
[[Page 12271]]
set forth in Sec. 1.2110(c)(2) and (5) of this chapter shall apply.
0
27. Section 22.863 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.863 Frequency stability.
The rules in this section govern frequency stability in Commercial
Aviation Air-Ground Systems.
(a) The frequency stability of equipment used under this subpart
shall be sufficient to ensure that, after accounting for Doppler
frequency shifts, the occupied bandwidth of the fundamental emissions
remains within the authorized frequency bands of operation.
(b) If each Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems license is under
common control, the frequency stability limitation in this section
shall not apply at the internal boundaries of those licenses (850.5 MHz
and 895.5 MHz). Individuals and entities with either de jure or de
facto control of a licensee in these bands will be considered to have a
controlling interest in the license(s). For purposes of this rule, the
definitions of ``controlling interests'' and ``affiliate'' set forth in
paragraphs Sec. 1.2110(c)(2) and (5) of this chapter shall apply.
0
28. Revise Sec. 22.867 to read as follows:
Sec. 22.867 Effective radiated power limits.
Licensees in this service are subject to the effective radiated
power (ERP) limits and other requirements in this section.
(a) Maximum ERP. The ERP of ground and airborne stations operating
on the frequency ranges listed in Sec. 22.857 must not exceed the
limits in this section.
(1) The average ERP of airborne mobile station transmitters must
not exceed XXX watts per authorized bandwidth or XXX watts/MHz.
(2) The average ERP of ground station transmitters must not exceed
XXX watts per authorized bandwidth or XXX watts/MHz.
(b) Power measurement. Measurement of ERP of the airborne mobile
station transmitters and ground station transmitters must be made using
an average power measurement technique with the limitations set forth
in this section. The peak-to-average ratio (PAR) of the transmission
must not exceed 13 dB.
0
29. Amend Sec. 22.878 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 22.878 Obligation to abate unacceptable interference.
This section applies only to commercial aviation ground stations
transmitting in the 849-851 MHz band.
* * * * *
0
30. Amend Sec. 22.879 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 22.879 Interference resolution procedures.
This section applies only to commercial aviation ground stations
transmitting in the 849-851 MHz band.
* * * * *
0
31. Section 22.881 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.881 Air-Ground Service subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for the 450 MHz Air-Ground
Service licenses and mutually exclusive initial applications for
commercial Air-Ground Service licenses are subject to competitive
bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in part
1, subpart Q, of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in
this subpart.
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
32. 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
33. Amend Sec. 90.103 by adding in numerical order an entry for
``24,450 to 24,650'' to the table in paragraph (b) and adding a new
paragraph (c)(31) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.103 Radiolocation service.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Radiolocation Service Frequency Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency or band Class of station(s) Limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Megahertz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24,450 to 24,650.................. Radiolocation land 31
or mobile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(31) This frequency band is shared with and is on a secondary basis
to the Government and Non-Federal Inter-Satellite Service (part 25) and
the Government and Non-Federal Radionavigation Service (part 87).
* * * * *
0
34. Amend Sec. 90.213 by adding in numerical order an entry for
``24,450-24,650'' to the table in paragraph (a) as follows:
Sec. 90.213 Frequency stability.
(a) * * *
[[Page 12272]]
Table 1 to Sec. 90.213(a)--Minimum Frequency Stability
[Parts per million (ppm)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile stations
Fixed and base ---------------------------------
Frequency range (MHz) stations Over 2 watts 2 watts or less
output power output power
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24,450-24,650................................................ 5000 5000 5000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-03602 Filed 3-14-25; 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 March 17, 2025.
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.