Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100-3550 MHz Band
| Published date | 21 October 2020 |
| Record Number | 2020-22529 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 204 (Wednesday, October 21, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66888-66906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22529]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 27
[WT Docket No. 19-348; FCC 20-138; FRS 17121]
Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100-3550 MHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes rules to govern
commercial wireless operations in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. It proposes
to add a new primary allocation for fixed and mobile (except
aeronautical mobile) services and to adopt technical, licensing, and
competitive bidding rules governing licenses in this band. The
Commission proposes and seeks comment on coexistence and coordination
between new commercial wireless licensees and incumbent federal
radiolocation and radionavigation operations, which will continue to
operate on a limited basis, but which will remain co-primary with
commercial operations. The Commission also proposes and seeks comment
on relocation and sunset procedures for incumbent non-federal,
secondary operations, which are being cleared from the band.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before November 20,
2020; and reply comments on or before December 7, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 19-348,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ in
docket number WT Docket No. 19-348. See Electronic Filing of Documents
in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express,
and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington,
DC 20554
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general
public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking
number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Jones, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-1327 or
[email protected], or Ira Keltz, Office of Engineering and
Technology, (202) 418-0616 or [email protected]. For information
regarding the PRA information collection requirements, contact Cathy
Williams, Office of Managing Director, at 202-418-2918 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WT Docket No. 19-348, FCC 20-138,
adopted September 30, 2020, and released October 2, 2020. The full text
of the FNPRM is available for public inspection at the following
internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-138A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by
sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432
(TTY).
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 on or before
the dates indicated on the first page of this document.
Ex Parte Rules
This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules (47 CFR 1.1200). 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
[[Page 66889]]
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
rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 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.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. It requests written
public comment on the IRFA, contained at Appendix E to the FNPRM.
Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as
comments filed in response to the FNPRM as set forth on the first page
of this document and have a separate and distinct heading designating
them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a
copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis
This document contains proposed information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
The FNPRM is part of the Commission's comprehensive strategy to
Facilitate America's Superiority in 5G Technology (the 5G FAST Plan).
Collectively, the 3.45-3.55 GHz band and neighboring 3.5 GHz and 3.7
GHz bands could offer 530 megahertz of mid-band spectrum for flexible
use.
II. Background
The lower 3 GHz band--and the 3,450 MHz to 3,550 MHz portion of the
band (3.45-3.55 GHz band) in particular--has been targeted as spectrum
to support 5G both here and abroad, and assessed within the federal
government, across the legislative and executive branches, as well as
within the Commission.
Congress addressed the pressing need for spectrum to support
broadband, including mid-band spectrum, in the Fiscal Year 2018 omnibus
spending bill, which included the Making Opportunities for Broadband
Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless
Act (MOBILE NOW Act) under Title VI of RAY BAUM'S Act. See Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law 115-141, Division P, the Repack
Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services (RAY
BAUM'S) Act, Title VI (the Making Opportunities for Broadband
Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless
Act or MOBILE NOW Act). The MOBILE NOW Act mandated that the Secretary
of Commerce, working through NTIA: (1) Submit, in consultation with the
Commission, a report by March 23, 2020, on the feasibility of
``allowing commercial wireless service, licensed or unlicensed, to
share use of the frequencies between 3,100 megahertz and 3,550
megahertz, and (2) identify with the Commission ``at least 255
megahertz of Federal and non-Federal spectrum for mobile and fixed
wireless broadband use'' by December 31, 2022. MOBILE NOW Act Sec.
605(a). Shortly before Congress signed the 2018 omnibus spending bill,
NTIA announced that it had identified the 3.45-3.55 GHz band for study
for potential repurposing to spur commercial wireless innovation. In
2020, the White House and the DoD formed America's Mid-Band Initiative
Team (AMBIT) with the goal of making 100 megahertz of contiguous mid-
band spectrum available in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band for full commercial
use.
III. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Reallocating the 3.45-3.55 GHz Band for Commercial Wireless Use
The Commission proposes to reallocate the 3.45-3.55 GHz band on a
co-primary basis for non-federal fixed and mobile (except aeronautical
mobile) services and seeks comment on its proposal. Under Section
303(y) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission is
permitted to allocate spectrum for flexible uses 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 users. The Commission anticipates that its
proposal to add co-primary allocations for non-federal fixed and mobile
(except aeronautical mobile) services to the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band would meet these criteria.
The Commission tentatively concludes that its proposal would serve
the public interest by advancing U.S. leadership in next-generation 5G
networks. A key element of such leadership is making additional
critical mid-band spectrum available for 5G services as proposed in the
FNPRM. In addition, the Commission expects that its proposal will
promote, rather than deter, investments in the band by flexible use
licensees. Mid-band spectrum is particularly well-suited for 5G
buildout due to its desirable coverage, capacity, and propagation
characteristics and the Commission anticipates that this spectrum
should attract investment from 5G network operators. Further, the
actions the Commission takes in the accompanying Report and Order and
proposes in the FNPRM should not result in harmful interference among
users of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. To the contrary, the Commission's
decision in the Report and Order to remove all secondary allocations
and relocate certain secondary operations from the band will minimize
the potential for interference to new flexible use licensees; and the
Commission's proposals in the FNPRM should enable coordination with
incumbent federal operations. In addition, the Commission's proposed
allocation would harmonize the Commission's allocation for the 3.45-
3.55 GHz band with international allocations.
[[Page 66890]]
The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to add this allocation
and on its initial assessment that doing so is consistent with the
requirements of Section 303(y). The Commission also asks commenters to
provide quantitative estimates of its proposal's costs and benefits to
current and potential non-federal users of the band.
A. Future of Federal Incumbent Use in the 3.45-3.55 GHz Band
The 3.45-3.55 GHz band currently is used by the DoD for high-
powered radar systems on fixed, mobile, shipborne, and airborne
platforms. In July 2020, consistent with the requirements of the MOBILE
NOW Act to provide an evaluation of the feasibility of sharing portions
of the 3.1-3.55 GHz band, NTIA released a report identifying the 3.45-
3.55 GHz band for such sharing. As directed by Section 605(d) of the
MOBILE NOW Act, the Commission seeks comment on that report,
specifically its findings as to the sharing of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band,
with commercial wireless services. While NTIA has identified the
uppermost 100 megahertz of the 3.1-3.55 GHz band for commercial
wireless operations, consistent with the MOBILE NOW Act, the Commission
seeks comment on whether such operations are feasible below 3.45 GHz.
In particular, the Commission asks commenters to provide input on the
feasibility of reallocating the 100 megahertz of spectrum between 3.35
GHz and 3.45 GHz for commercial wireless service at the same power
levels that it proposes for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band throughout the
contiguous United States and on what additional steps would be
necessary to make such use feasible. The Commission seeks specific
comment on whether clearing this spectrum of federal operations for
exclusive commercial use is feasible, what steps need to be taken, what
the timeline for such clearing would be, and whether limited sharing
through geographic coordination zones could speed making this spectrum
available to the commercial market.
Also consistent with Congress's directive in the MOBILE NOW Act,
and following the Commission's proposal in 2019 to take the first steps
to make the 3.1-3.55 GHz band available for flexible use commercial
operations, the DoD recently indicated that it intends to promote
cooperative sharing of the band with new fixed and mobile, except
aeronautical mobile, systems to the extent possible. The DoD intends to
allow for commercial deployments in the band by adjusting its concept
of operations for many of these systems to the extent possible without
fully vacating the band. To this end, the AMBIT selected the specific
frequency band 3450-3550 MHz for commercial access. Consistent with the
AMBIT study, the Commission proposes that federal systems operating in
the band may not cause harmful interference to non-federal operations
in the band, except in limited circumstances and locations. Non-federal
systems are not entitled to protection against harmful interference
from federal operations (and limited restrictions may be placed on non-
federal operations), under the following circumstances: (1) In
Cooperative Planning Areas; (2) in Periodic Use Areas; and (3) during
times of National Emergency. The Commission seek comment on its
proposal.
Upon completion of the AMBIT study, a number of circumstances were
identified where the DoD will require continued access to the band.
Specifically, the DoD has identified a list of ``Cooperative Planning
Areas,'' in which it anticipates that federal operations will continue
subsequent to the assignment of flexible use licenses in the band.
These areas are limited in size and scope and include military training
facilities, test sites, Navy home ports, and shipyards. The Commission
will work with the DoD to minimize the size of Cooperative Planning
Areas where possible. For each Cooperative Planning Area, the DoD
intends to receive input from and provide information to the wireless
industry, including commercial operators, in the near future (i.e.,
before the spectrum is auctioned) regarding commercial network planning
and deployments in order to minimize impacts from incumbent federal
operation on future commercial operations and to enable effective
federal operations. For example, the DoD anticipates holding workshops
with wireless carriers to begin discussing such issues, similar to
information sharing and transition planning that occurred with industry
as part of the AWS-3 auction. The DoD anticipates that, once licenses
are issued, it would reach mutual agreements with individual licensees
for commercial network planning. In addition, the DoD has identified a
number of ``Periodic Use Areas'' that overlap with certain Cooperative
Planning Areas, in which the DoD will need episodic access to all or a
portion of the band in identified, limited geographic areas. The DoD
anticipates that it will need to coordinate federal usage of the
spectrum with affected licensees for specific times, bandwidths, and
locations. In both cases, the coordination procedures would need to
ensure that the DoD has authority to radiate and that protection from
interference would be adequate to preserve military readiness,
capabilities, and national security. The Commission seeks comment on
these concepts and how to incorporate them into future coordination
procedures. Should the Commission also adopt a process for sharing of
sensitive and classified information between federal and commercial
operators? If so, should the Commission base this process on the
procedures used in the AWS-3 proceeding?
In light of the AMBIT agreement recently reached between the DoD
and the White House, the Commission seeks comment on an appropriate
coordination regime that would promote productive ongoing negotiations
between federal incumbents and new, commercial flexible use licensees.
What aspects of network planning should be considered during
coordination efforts and what are the ramifications of such
negotiations? For example, should federal incumbents and new,
commercial licensees be required to coordinate network architecture,
power levels, shielding, antenna backlobe/sidelobe and/or filter
requirements to minimize potential co- and adjacent channel
interference to and from commercial systems? How should disagreements
be resolved? Should timelines be applied to such negotiations? What
other safeguards would be appropriate to ensure efficient and
productive coordination negotiations? For Periodic Use Areas, how would
commercial licensees be notified of each periodic use and with how much
advance notice? Would cooperative agreements between federal and non-
federal operators in Periodic Use Areas further increase the commercial
utility of the spectrum in the vicinity of such areas? What costs would
be involved in the proposed coordination regime, and how large would
these costs be? What would be the benefits of such coordination
regimes? In addition, the Commission notes that under certain
environmental conditions tropospheric ducting could occur and harmful
interference could be received at large distances from its source. In
such instances, what notification and coordination mechanisms can be
used by federal and non-federal users to identify and mitigate such
interference? What steps, if any, can network operators and federal
users take at system planning stages to account for the effects of
[[Page 66891]]
tropospheric ducting? Are there efforts federal users can undertake to
optimize and encourage sharing? How should harmful interference in such
instances be resolved? And should there be different procedures or
requirements for Cooperative Planning and Periodic Use Areas and the
rest of the contiguous U.S. that are not in such areas? Given that
federal use of the radio spectrum is generally governed by NTIA while
non-federal use is governed by the Commission, the Commission
anticipates that any guidance or details concerning federal/non-federal
coordination would be issued jointly by NTIA and the Commission. The
Commission also seeks comment on directing the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology
to administer details of the coordination regime for the 3.45 GHz band,
and on whether to codify such direction into the Commission's rules.
The Commission seeks comment on technical parameters that would
inform federal and non-federal coordination in the band. The Commission
invites commenters to discuss the likely costs and benefits of such
parameters to ensure that new, co-primary commercial licensees are
protected from harmful interference from incumbent federal operations.
For example, what is the appropriate maximum co-channel received power
from pulsed radar signals that could be tolerated as an input to
commercial mobile cellular equipment (both base station and user
equipment) without creating a significant impact on the user
experience? Beyond the user experience, the Commission seeks comment on
input power at which new commercial receivers, both base stations and
mobile stations, would experience desensitization. What sensing
mechanisms inherent in modern mobile cellular communication systems and
networks could be used for identifying external interference caused by
federal operators? Once identified, how should information about such
interference and degradation to commercial operations be quantified and
reported to the federal operators? What other mechanisms could be used
to enable effective coordination in this band?
While the Institute for Telecommunications Science has published
preliminary testing results about the likely impact of federal radars
on commercial 4G LTE systems, additional data may be needed to further
validate the conclusions and values for 5G systems. The Commission
therefore seeks technical analyses and comparisons between LTE and 5G
new radio (NR) receiver performance in the presence of interference
from radar-type pulses. The Commission also seeks comment on the impact
the differences between LTE and 5G systems could have on the technical
parameters and rules that the Commission may consider and adopt for
this band. In addition, the Commission invites commenters to submit
technical studies and analyses that account for the new 5G physical
layer designs, including symbol time and structure, subcarrier spacing,
channel coding, and interleaving as it relates to the ability of 5G NR
to operate in the presence of pulsed radar. The Commission also invites
commenters to submit technical studies on other variabilities in radar
waveforms, including frequency domain bandwidth and chirping, pulse
duration, and duty cycle.
The Commission seeks comment additionally on how to assess and
limit potential harmful interference to new 3.45-3.55 GHz flexible use
licensees from federal operations in adjacent bands. Commenters who are
concerned about adjacent band operations should identify the types of
systems that they operate and provide information on measures that can
be taken to lessen any effects. Are there filters that commercial and/
or federal users could use to minimize the potential for harmful
interference? What are the minimum filtering requirements necessary to
ensure that commercial operations will not suffer harmful interference
in the presence of ongoing federal operations? How would such filters
affect the size of the areas where commercial operations may be
impacted by ongoing federal operations? Should the rules require
commercial systems to install filters with minimum performance
specifications to enable use of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band by federal and
non-federal users? What form of sensing or notification-based
mechanisms would facilitate successful and automated coordination
between federal and non-federal operations in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band?
What are the costs and benefits of a sensing regime as compared to a
notification-based regime?
What other techniques could federal incumbents and new commercial
operators use to minimize interference to commercial operators? Are
there additional steps that the DoD and commercial operators could take
to adjust their operations to help block emissions to the non-federal
fixed or mobile users and to federal users in areas where federal and
non-federal operations will be in close proximity to one another? Could
the DoD incorporate its efforts into Cooperative Planning Area
negotiations? Could the sensing and notification-based mechanisms used
in the 3.5 GHz band also be used in this band to enable successful
coordination between federal and non-federal operations in the 3.45-
3.55 GHz band? What would be the costs and benefits of these
alternative approaches? The Commission also seeks comment on the
potential impact that relocating DoD operations out of the 3.45-3.55
GHz band might have on commercial access to other spectrum bands.
If the Commission makes this band available for non-federal fixed
and mobile (except aeronautical mobile) operations, it seeks comment on
how to coordinate incumbent federal radar operations in the future.
Specifically, the DoD will require access to the band during times of
National Emergency to fulfill military operational needs. Accordingly,
the Commission proposes that during times of National Emergency federal
users are authorized to operate within the band as required to meet
operational mission requirements. Further, the Commission proposes that
upon notification, commercial licensees shall terminate or otherwise
adjust their operations to prevent harmful interference to the federal
operations. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal. How would
commercial operators be informed of a National Emergency and how would
continued coordination be facilitated? What should constitute a
``National Emergency'' in this context? How quickly would a commercial
operator be required to terminate or adjust its operations following
notification? How would the termination of a National Emergency be
communicated to a commercial operator? What other coordination
procedures would be beneficial under these circumstances? NTIA states
that it is considering ``the development [of] an automated, real-time,
incumbent-informing spectrum sharing system (`incumbent-informing
system') that NTIA would operate in conjunction with DoD to notify
commercial entities when the latter would need to cease operations.''
The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate means to coordinate
operations of federal users and commercial licensees. The Commission
seeks comment on the costs and benefits of such coordination regimes.
B. 3.45-3.55 GHz Band Plan
Block Sizes.--The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate block
size to promote efficient and robust use of the band for next
generation wireless technologies, including 5G. The Commission proposes
to adopt 20
[[Page 66892]]
megahertz blocks for this band to align with the 3.7 GHz band, which it
recently reallocated for fixed and mobile use, and for which it
likewise adopted 20 megahertz spectrum blocks. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. Alternatively, should the Commission license
this band by 10 megahertz blocks akin to Priority Access Licenses
(PALs) in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service operating in the 3.5 GHz
band? If so, why? The Commission asks commenters to detail the
advantages and disadvantages of their favored approach, including any
costs and benefits. The Commission also seeks comment on potential
alternatives.
Spectrum Block Configuration.--The Commission proposes to allocate
the 3.45-3.55 GHz band as an unpaired band to promote a consistent
spectral environment with the nearby mid-band allocations in the 3.5
GHz and 3.7 GHz bands, which are also unpaired in the United States.
This approach is consistent with industry standards. The Commission
seeks comment on its approach as well as alternative approaches,
including the costs and benefits of a commenter's favored approach.
What administrative measures would be necessary to keep track of how
spectrum blocks are being used with time division duplexing (TDD)
within the band or frequency division duplexing (FDD) paired with other
bands? If the Commission anticipate that licensees will be using TDD,
should it require licensees to synchronize or coordinate their
transmissions with each other or with Citizens Broadband Radio Service
users to the extent that the licensees both use TDD and one party
requests synchronization? The Commission notes, however, that the
Commission did not take this approach in the 3.7 GHz Service Order. See
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 18-
122, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd
2343 (2020) (3.7 GHz Service Order). What are the consequences of
adopting this flexible approach as compared to a more prescriptive
approach? What other factors, including costs or benefits of this
approach, should the Commission consider?
Use of Geographic Licensing.--Consistent with the Commission's
approach in several other bands used to provide fixed and mobile
services, the Commission proposes to license the 3.45-3.55 GHz band on
an exclusive, geographic area basis. The Commission seeks comment on
this approach, including the costs and benefits of adopting a
geographic area licensing scheme. If a party opposes using geographic
licensing, it should explain its position, describe the licensing
scheme it supports, and identify the costs and benefits associated with
its alternative licensing proposal.
Guard Bands.--The proposed 3.45-3.55 GHz band will be situated
between two active bands. At the upper edge of the band, the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service operates in the 3.55-3.7 GHz band, and federal
incumbents use the 3.55-3.65 GHz band. At the lower edge of the band,
the primary allocation for federal radiolocation operations will
continue below 3.45 GHz. While the creation of guard bands is one
option for protecting adjacent systems, such a use of valuable spectrum
is inefficient and could be avoided using other technical solutions.
The proposed technical rules mirror many of those adopted in the
3.7 GHz Service Order, in which the Commission likewise did not create
a guard band for the lower edge of the 3.7 GHz band, which also abuts
the 3.5 GHz band. The Commission expects that its proposed technical
rules also would sufficiently protect adjacent operations at the lower
edge of the band. Accordingly, the Commission does not propose creating
guard bands at either end of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposed approach and its underlying assumptions.
If a commenter supports the creation of one or more guard bands, then
it should include a technical analysis justifying the need for such
guard band(s), including the costs and benefits.
C. Relocation of Secondary Non-Federal Radiolocation Operations
In the accompanying Report and Order, the Commission removes the
non-federal secondary allocations in the 3.3-3.55 GHz band for
radiolocation operations and relocates them to the 2.9-3.0 GHz band. In
the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on how it should relocate non-
federal radiolocation operators to the 2.9-3.0 GHz band and the timing
for doing so.
In the Report and Order, the Commission determined that secondary
non-federal radiolocation licensees operating in this band as of the
effective date of the Report and Order may continue to operate while
the Commission finalizes plans to reallocate spectrum in the 3.45-3.55
GHz band. Authorization for these operations will sunset on a date
consistent with the first possible grant of flexible use authorizations
to new users in that portion of the band. For example, if the
Commission adopts a licensing scheme that will result in an auction to
assign licenses, non-federal radiolocation use would sunset within 90
days of the close of the auction. The Commission does not propose,
however, to bifurcate the sunset of the secondary radiolocation
allocation as it proposes for the amateur allocation, first sunsetting
the allocation above 3.45 GHz, and later at 3.3-3.4 GHz. There are far
fewer radiolocation operators in the lower 3 GHz band than amateur
users, and their operations are higher power. The Commission seeks
comment on this approach. Further, within this framework, the
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate timing of transitioning
such licenses to the 2.9 to 3.0 GHz band. What interim benchmarks or
deadlines might be appropriate to best relocate such licensees without
interruptions to their operations?
In order to clear the entire 3.3-3.55 GHz band for future flexible
use licenses, the Commission proposes to use its section 316 authority
to modify existing secondary, non-federal radiolocation licenses such
that they are no longer authorized to operate in the 3.3-3.55 GHz band
following adoption of final rules based on the proposals in this FNPRM.
The Commission finds that such modifications are consistent with its
statutory authority and would serve the public interest. Given the
Commission's decision to sunset the allocation for these secondary,
non-federal radiolocation operations, it proposes to modify their
licenses accordingly to authorize use in the 2.9-3.0 GHz band, which
would allow them to continue providing the same services as they do
today. The Commission proposes that, once it finalizes procedures for
the relocation of non-federal radiolocation licensees and determines
the appropriate timing for the transition of such licensees to their
new frequencies, it would issue an Order of Proposed Modification under
section 316 to modify their licenses to operate on these new
frequencies. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should require new
flexible use licensees to reimburse incumbent non-federal, commercial
radiolocation operators for relocation costs they might incur. The
Commission notes that non-federal radiolocation operations in the 3.3-
3.55 GHz band are pursuant to a secondary allocation and that the
Commission has previously found that such secondary users were not
entitled to reimbursement. However, the Commission seeks comment on
whether it should expand the Emerging
[[Page 66893]]
Technologies framework in this specific instance to include some
reimbursement for secondary users relocating out of the 3.3-3.55 GHz
band. The Commission recognizes that reimbursement would increase the
costs of participating in its new flexible use licensing regime, and
that it could therefore reduce investment in the band and proceeds
generated by an auction of licenses in the band. The Commission seeks
comment on this possibility and note that section 309(j) of the
Communications Act only requires the Commission to recover a ``portion
of the value of the public spectrum resource made available for
commercial use.'' The Commission also seeks comment on the level of
investment in these commercial operations, and the remaining useful
life of the equipment used for such operations, as well as on the
importance of the services they provide. The Commission therefore seeks
comment on the costs and benefits of such reimbursement. If the
Commission elects some form of reimbursement for these secondary users,
should it require all incoming licensees to share in reimbursing such
relocation costs? How should this shared reimbursement structure work?
The Commission invites reference to prior shared reimbursement regimes.
Commenters should specify the extent to which the Commission should
or should not expand the Emerging Technologies framework to include
relocated secondary licensees. If the Commission should provide for
reimbursement of relocation costs, to what extent is that decision
specific to the secondary, non-federal radiolocation operations in the
3.3-3.55 GHz band or generally applicable to secondary users across
other bands and services? The Commission notes that operators in this
band perform important safety functions, in particular for weather
forecasting and physical security, and, despite their secondary status,
have operated without significant interference risks from primary
federal operations. To what extent should these factors, or others,
play a role in guiding the Commission's decision on reimbursement in
this proceeding and otherwise?
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on costs associated with
relocating secondary, non-federal radiolocation operations. The
Commission seeks comment on the nature of relocation costs and how best
to quantify them. For example, what equipment or software would need to
be modified or replaced? The Commission seeks comment on the frequency
agility of existing radars; could such equipment be retuned to the
relocated band or are other modifications required? If changes are
needed, commenters should address the nature of such changes, e.g., new
filters, new antennas, etc. Are labor costs likely to be incurred in
implementing the relocations? The Commission seeks comment on how long
relocations would be expected to take and on any changes in operations
that need to be made to operate in new bands. Commenters should discuss
in detail any such specific costs. Commenters should also discuss how
costs should be calculated and what, if any, costs should be excluded,
as well as the most appropriate Commission implementation of any
reimbursement regime.
Which of the relocation mechanisms that the Commission has used in
the past would be appropriate here? Are there unique logistical
concerns with relocation planning for these operations that the
Commission should address by rule, as opposed to by public notices to
be issued by the relevant bureaus? The Commission proposes to handle
any mutually exclusive applications for new frequencies based on its
existing part 90 shared spectrum use rules, but it seeks comment on
alternatives.
D. Continued Operation of Amateur Stations in Part of the 3.3-3.45 GHz
Band
In the accompanying Report and Order, the Commission sunsets the
allocation for amateur operations in the 3-3.3.5 GHz band to allow for
full commercial use of the spectrum to be made available through
flexible use licenses. The Commission authorizes continued operations
for amateur license holders only until the date consistent with the
first possible grant of flexible use authorizations to new users in the
band, consistent with the timeline for relocation of secondary
radiolocation services.
Many amateur licensees argue that requiring them to cease
operations earlier than necessary would be ``a waste of valuable
spectrum resources.'' Many also argue that, since the focus of future
flexible use licensing is above 3.45 GHz, the Commission at a minimum
should allow amateur operators to continue below 3.45 GHz for the
foreseeable future. In light of these concerns, and of the large number
of amateur licensees currently operating in the band, the Commission
seeks comment on sunsetting amateur use in the band in two separate
phases.
The Commission proposes to sunset amateur operations in the 3.4-3.5
GHz band, pursuant to the accompanying Report and Order, but to allow
amateur operations in the remainder of the band (i.e., 3.3-3.4 GHz) to
continue pending further decisions about the future of this portion of
the spectrum. Specifically, the Commission proposes that amateur use in
the upper portion of the 3.3-3.55 GHz band would sunset according to
the procedures set out in the accompanying Report and Order (on a date
consistent with the first possible grant of flexible use authorizations
to new users in that portion of the band), while amateur use of the
lower portion of the band would continue until a future date to be set
later in this proceeding. If the Commission adopts this approach, it
stresses that amateur operations in that lower portion of the band
would remain on a secondary basis, and the allocation would continue to
be subject to sunset at any time.
Would this approach of bifurcating the amateur allocation and
sunsetting the two portions on different dates allow amateur operations
to continue during the pendency of decisions about use of the band
below 3.4 GHz, while still providing future flexible use licensees
sufficient protection from harmful interference? What are the costs and
benefits of this approach and of any alternatives? If the Commission
were to adopt this approach, at what frequency should it split the
band? Given the possibility that cross-service adjacent channel
interference could result if the Commission allows amateur operations
to continue immediately adjacent to 3.45 GHz, the Commission proposes
to set the upper boundary of this lower portion of the allocation at
3.4 GHz in order to create a 50 megahertz guard band, and seeks comment
on that proposal. Are there alternatives to this approach that would
allow increased amateur use while also providing full protection to
flexible use licensees?
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether any modifications
pursuant to its Section 316 authority are necessary to accomplish its
proposed changes to the amateur allocation. The Commission notes the
unique nature of amateur licensing relative to other Commission
licensees, and that it is not selecting new frequencies for amateur
operations because there are many alternate bands available for
amateurs to choose from.
E. Technical Issues
The Commission seeks comment on appropriate technical rules to
maximize the potential uses of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, particularly for
the next generation of wireless services, while minimizing the impact
on adjacent band incumbents, consistent with the public
[[Page 66894]]
interest. In order to promote maximum flexibility for 5G deployments,
the Commission proposes to align the technical rules for this band with
those adopted in the 3.7 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on this
overarching proposal and its potential impact on operations in adjacent
bands. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative approaches. For
example, fixed wireless providers may deploy fixed client devices in
this band. What technical standards should apply to such devices,
particularly when mounted outdoors? In order to prevent interference to
fixed and mobile operations in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service,
should the technical rules for this band more closely resemble those
for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz band? Are there
advantages to adopting technical rules that are harmonized with the
rules applicable to Priority Access Licenses in the adjacent 3.5 GHz
Citizens Broadband Radio Service band? The Commission seeks comment on
the technical approach that will maximize the spectral efficiency of 3
GHz spectrum. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on appropriate
power limits, out-of-band emissions limits, antenna height limits,
service area boundary limits, international coordination requirements,
and any other technical rules that would maximize flexible use of the
band while protecting new, non-federal licensees and federal incumbents
in adjacent bands.
Power Limits for Base Stations.--The Commission seeks comment on
transmit power limits for base stations in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. The
Commission proposes to adopt the same base station power limits that
the Commission adopted in the 3.7 GHz band, 1640 watts and 3280 watts
of equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) per megahertz in non-
rural and rural areas, respectively. These power levels were used in
the AMBIT study, and any change can change the result of the study and
produce a corresponding increase or decrease in Cooperative Planning
Areas and Periodic Use Areas. The Commission believes these limits
would support robust deployment of next-generation mobile broadband
services. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Commenters
should provide a technical evaluation of the impact of these proposed
power levels on effective coexistence with all operations within the
3.45-3.55 GHz band and across adjacent bands, as well as its costs and
benefits. The Commission also seeks comment on the potential effect on
users in the adjacent 3.5 GHz band. Could asymmetrical EIRP limits
between the 3.45-3.55 GHz and Citizens Broadband Radio Service
operations result in interference to Priority Access Licensees or
General Authorized Access users in the lower 50 megahertz of the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service band? The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the proposed EIRP would impact Environmental Sensing
Capability sensors in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service band and, if
so, what effect this could have for access to the lower 100 megahertz
of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service band. Absent any coordination
requirement, what power limits would be needed to avoid interference to
existing or future Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations?
The Commission also seeks comment on alterative base station power
limits. Should the power be composed of transmit conducted power and
antenna gain with some flexibility to ``mix and match'' both, or should
the rule only define the final power in EIRP? While higher power limits
may provide additional flexibility for some deployments, what is the
impact of high-power base stations on adjacent bands? Commenters that
propose alternative base station transmit power limits should include a
thorough technical justification for their proposal, including the
effect on receiver blocking or other aggregate interference issues
impacting receivers operating above and below the band. Commenters
should also provide the costs and benefits of such proposals.
Power Limits for Mobile Stations.--The Commission seeks comment on
appropriate power limits for mobile stations in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band.
The Commission notes that most commercial services, including LTE,
CDMA, and UMTS, commonly deploy mobile stations which operate at a
maximum output power of 23 dBm (200 milliwatts), regardless of higher
FCC power limits. 3GPP, however, has defined a higher power class for
LTE and 5G at 26 dBm (400 milliwatts). This development may warrant
continued flexibility in the Commission's rules to allow for a wider
range of device types.
The Commission proposes to adopt 1 Watt EIRP as the maximum power
limit consistent with the 3.7 GHz Service rules. The Commission
anticipates that this mobile power limit would provide adequate power
for robust mobile service deployment. Additionally, this limit would
permit operation of mobile user equipment (UE) at two power levels--23
dBm and 26 dBm--as specified in the 3GPP standards for 5G systems,
which are both lower than the proposed 1 Watt EIRP limit. The
Commission seeks comment on its proposed limit and queries whether
alternative mobile station power limits should be considered based on
expected use cases. Commenters supporting specific mobile station
transmit power limits should include a technical justification for such
power limits and an evaluation of any coexistence issues. For each
proposed power limit, The Commission also seeks comment on whether the
proposed limit would affect operation of mobile stations in the
adjacent Citizens Broadband Radio Service or affect federal users in
the 3.5 GHz band. Commenters should provide an analysis of the costs
and benefits of their proposals.
Out-of-Band Emission Limits.--The Commission seeks to adopt OOBE
limits that would both protect incumbent services in adjacent bands
while still allowing full commercial use in the new band. At the upper
edge, this band is adjacent to the 3.5 GHz band's Citizens Broadband
Radio Service and the DoD's shipborne radar operations in the 3.55-3.65
GHz portion of the band. At the lower edge, the DoD will continue radar
operations in the 3.1-3.45 GHz range for the foreseeable future, and it
may increase its use below 3.45 GHz as the DoD migrates some radar
operation out of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. In addition, the DoD's use
below 3.45 GHz is expected to include ground-based and airborne
operations, which may necessitate additional protection considerations.
The Commission proposes to adopt an OOBE limit of -13 dBm/MHz at
the authorized channel edge (as measured at the antenna terminals),
consistent with the OOBE limit adopted for the 3.7 GHz band. Further,
as a baseline for the 3.45 GHz band, the Commission proposes additional
requirements beyond the upper and lower band edges such that base
stations meet the same two-step limits consistent with the OOBE limits
specified for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service as implemented for
band n48. The Commission believes that these OOBE limits will be needed
to facilitate widespread deployment of next generation wireless
services in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, while ensuring effective
coexistence with the mission critical federal and other non-federal
services operating in the adjacent bands. Specifically, the Commission
proposes the following emissions limits for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band:
-13 dBm/MHz at the authorized channel edge;
[[Page 66895]]
Equal to or less than -25 dBm/MHz beyond the band edge
down to 3430 megahertz and up to 3570 megahertz;
Equal to or less than -40 dBm/MHz below 3430 megahertz and
above 3570 megahertz.
The Commission summarizes its proposed approach in Figure 1 below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC20.001
The Commission seeks comment on its proposal. The Commission's
proposal for a -13 dBm/MHz OOBE limit at the band edge is consistent
with other commercial mobile bands and the additional requirements are
consistent with OOBE limits for the nearby Citizens Broadband Radio
Service, for which the Commission adopted a graduated emissions mask
to, among other things, prevent adjacent channel interference from
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to federal radar operations in
3.45-3.55 GHz band. Although it does not propose a specific OOBE limit,
NTIA recommends that the Commission consider ``tighter'' OOBE limits
for commercial operations to better facilitate federal and non-federal
operations on adjacent frequencies. Without additional emission limits
to protect adjacent band operations, would new mobile broadband
deployments in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band near federal radar usage areas
and deployed Environmental Sensing Capability sensors experience
operational impacts which could lower the spectrum's value and use in
some high population areas? The Commission also seeks comment on what
OOBE limits might be appropriate to protect users in the adjacent 3.5
GHz band. Would OOBE from 3.45-3.55 GHz emitters contribute to the
aggregate interference for shipborne and inland DoD radars in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service band? If so, are SAS operators able to
accurately model or manage this interference contribution? Would a TDD
synchronization or coordination requirement enable less stringent OOBE
limits? The Commission declined to adopt such a requirement in the 3.7
GHz proceeding.
Alternatively, should the Commission adopt an OOBE limit which only
specifies the limit at the edge of the authorized channel (i.e., -13
dBm/MHz) consistent with other commercial mobile bands? How would the
graduated emission mask the Commission proposes here affect the ability
of equipment to operate across other mid-band spectrum bands, such as
the 3.7 GHz or 2.5 GHz bands?
The Commission's proposals recognize that 3GPP 5G standards, based
on regional regulatory requirements, define similar basic and band-
specific base station emission limits for certain mid-band spectrum
bands. For example, the 3GPP standard for bands n77 and n78, which
overlap with the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, requires emissions to be reduced
below -52 dBm/MHz as measured from the edge of the spectrum band, while
emissions for other bands must be reduced below -49 dBm/MHz. For band
n48, which applies to 5G base stations in the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service band in the U.S., the 3GPP standard is in line with the
Commission's part 96 rules. The Commission's proposed approach, while
more relaxed than what is required by 3GPP for similar bands in other
regions, should provide more flexibility and consistency with its
recent rules and 3GPP limits for adjacent band n48. The Commission
believes that the limits proposed above are sufficient for expected
coexistence scenarios without imposing unreasonable implementation
costs. The Commission seeks comment on this notion.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and requests
technical evaluation of this or any alternative approach including
alternative limit values or use of slopes rather than steps. For
example, should the emission limit only specify a flat -13 dBm/MHz
requirement similar to other commercial mobile bands or start with -13
dBm or -25 dBm at the edge of the band and gradually lower to -40 dBm
at a 20 megahertz offset from edge of the band? Are there other
alternatives that achieve the same goal of protecting adjacent services
without unduly impacting equipment in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band? The
Commission also seeks comment on whether different limits should be
applied based on the location of deployments. Commenters should provide
an analysis of the costs and benefits of different options and provide
detailed technical analysis in support of their proposals.
To fully define an OOBE limit, the Commission's rules generally
specify how to measure the power of the emissions, such as the
resolution
[[Page 66896]]
bandwidth. For most AWS bands, the resolution bandwidth used to
determine compliance with the base station limit is one megahertz or
greater, except that within one megahertz of the channel edge, a
resolution bandwidth of at least 1% of the emission bandwidth of the
fundamental emission of the transmitter can be employed. The Commission
proposes to adopt the same approach here and seeks comment on its
proposal. In addition, The Commission seeks comment on alternative
approaches to defining resolution bandwidth. For example, the Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) rules under part 30 instead
specify use of a one megahertz resolution bandwidth but allow an OOBE
limit of -5 dBm per megahertz from the channel edge out to 10% of the
channel. Should the rules the Commission adopts in this band instead
follow the UMFUS approach to defining the resolution bandwidth? Is
another approach more appropriate? In addition, like other part 27
services, the Commission proposes to apply section 27.53(i), which
states that the FCC, in its discretion, may require greater attenuation
than specified in the rules if an emission outside of the authorized
bandwidth causes harmful interference. The Commission seeks comment on
this approach.
Mobile Out-of-Band Emissions.--As with base station OOBE limits,
the Commission proposes to adopt mobile emission limits similar to its
standard emission limits that apply to other mobile broadband services.
Specifically, the Commission proposes that mobile units be required to
suppress the conducted emissions to no more than -13 dBm/MHz outside
their authorized frequency band. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal and on other alternative limits to ensure robust coexistence
with federal and non-federal operations in adjacent bands, including
any costs and benefits. Should the same OOBE limits apply to both base
stations and mobile stations or are different OOBE requirements needed
for each? The Commission notes that mobile stations and other end user
equipment usually operate with power control and at lower maximum power
levels than base stations, and that the implementation of more
stringent emission limits could be complex and cost-prohibitive for the
form factor. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the OOBE
limits for base stations and mobile stations. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the same or different OOBE limits should be applied
to emissions within the band as compared to those at either edge of the
band. Commenters should address the costs and benefits of their
proposals.
Coexistence with Federal and Non-federal Adjacent Band Operators.--
The Commission seeks comment on whether additional coordination or
technical protection criteria, beyond OOBE limits, are necessary to
ensure effective coexistence with federal and non-federal adjacent band
operators. Regarding federal adjacent band operators, what rules might
be necessary to assess and avoid potential excessive receiver blocking
that could occur from the aggregated power received from dense
deployment of base stations and mobile stations to the federal radars
operating below and above the 3.45-3.55 GHz band? Similarly, what rules
would be necessary to assess and avoid potential receiver blocking to
new flexible use fixed/mobile operations in the band from adjacent
high-power radar systems below and above the band?
Field Strength Limit and Market Boundaries.--If the Commission
decides to license the 3.45-3.55 GHz band based on geographic service
areas, it would need to ensure that such licensees do not cause
interference to co-channel systems operating along common geographic
borders. The Commission proposes to adopt the same parameters that it
adopted in the 3.7 GHz band. Specifically, the Commission proposes to
adopt a -76 dBm/m2/MHz power flux density (PFD) limit at a height of
1.5 meters above ground at the border of the licensees' service area
boundaries. In addition, the Commission proposes to allow licensees
operating in adjacent geographic areas to agree voluntarily to higher
field strength limits at their common boundaries. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals as well as alternative approaches to limit
field strength or power level in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. For example,
the current rules for AWS-1, AWS-3, and AWS-4 address the possibility
of harmful co-channel interference between geographically adjacent
licenses by setting a field strength limit from base stations of 47
dB[mu]V/m at the edge of the license area. In the 3.5 GHz band, the
Commission limited aggregate power at PAL boundaries to be less than or
equal to -80 dBm/10 MHz (with the measurement antenna placed at a
height of 1.5 meters above ground level) or at a level mutually agreed
upon by operators. Would one of these other approaches be preferable
here? Should technical rules allow adjacent affected area licensees to
agree voluntarily to higher signal levels like the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service, PCS, and AWS services? Should such a power level or
field strength limit be based on single node transmission or aggregate
powers received? The Commission seeks comment on appropriate metrics to
be used and the best approaches to determine the limits, including the
costs and benefits of such approaches.
Antenna Height Limits.--The Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate antenna height limits for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. The
Commission notes that while specific antenna height restrictions for
AWS-1 and AWS-3 base stations are not set forth in part 27 of its
rules, all such services are subject to section 27.56, which bans
antenna heights that would be a hazard to air navigation. In the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service, there is no height limit for base
stations if they operate indoors or are professionally installed.
Furthermore, the co-channel coexistence between adjacent networks and
the adjacent channel coexistence between overlapping networks limit
field strength at the geographical boundary of the license, which may
also effectively limit deployable antenna heights. The Commission
proposes to adopt the flexible antenna height rules that apply to AWS-1
and AWS-3 and seeks comment on its proposal and any alternatives.
Should the antenna height limit for base stations operating in this
band be tied to the base station maximum power limit? Should the
Commission consider banning antenna heights that would be a hazard to
air navigation or air-borne radars in adjacent bands? Commenters should
address the costs and benefits of their proposals as well as include
technical support.
Canadian and Mexican Coordination.--Section 27.57(c) of the
Commission's rules provides that several AWS services, including WCS,
AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4, and the H Block, are subject to international
agreements with Mexico and Canada. The Commission proposes to apply the
same limitation to the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. Until such time as adjusted
agreements between the United States and Mexico, or the United States
and Canada, can be successfully negotiated, operations would be
prohibited from causing harmful interference across the border,
consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in force. The
Commission notes that further modification (of the proposed or final
rules) might be necessary in order to comply with any future agreements
with Canada and Mexico regarding the use of these bands. The Commission
seeks comment on this issue, including the
[[Page 66897]]
costs and benefits of alternative approaches to this issue.
General Part 27 Rules.--There are several additional technical
rules applicable to all part 27 services, including sections 27.51
(equipment authorization), 27.52 (RF safety), 27.54 (frequency
stability), 27.56 (antennas structures; air navigation safety), and
27.63 (disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns). The
Commission proposes to apply these general part 27 rules to all 3.45-
3.55 GHz band licenses. Further, the Commission proposes to apply these
rules to licensees that acquire their licenses through partitioning or
disaggregation (to the extent the service rules permit such
aggregation). The Commission seeks comment on its proposals, including
specific costs and benefits.
F. Licensing and Operating Rules; Regulatory Issues
The Commission proposes and seeks comment on service-specific rules
for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, including eligibility, mobile spectrum
holdings policies, license term, performance requirements, renewal term
construction obligations, and other licensing and operating rules. In
addressing these issues, commenters should discuss the costs and
benefits associated with these proposals and any alternatives that
commenters propose. The Commission seeks comment generally on the
appropriate approach or combination of approaches to encourage
investment, promote efficient spectrum use, and facilitate robust
deployment in the band. In general, the Commission proposes to align
the licensing and operating rules for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band with the
rules adopted in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, but also seeks comment on
alternative or different approaches, including aspects of the Part 96
rules, such as smaller license areas and shorter license terms.
Eligibility.-- The Commission proposes to adopt an open eligibility
standard for licenses in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, consistent with
established Commission practice. An open eligibility standard for the
licensing of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band should encourage the development of
new technologies, products, and services, while helping to ensure
efficient use of this spectrum. The Commission seeks comment on this
assumption. The Commission notes that an open eligibility approach
would not affect citizenship, character, or other generally applicable
qualifications that may apply under its rules. Commenters should
discuss the costs and benefits of the open eligibility proposal on
competition, innovation, and investment. The Commission proposes to
apply the ineligibility provision which provides that a person who, for
reasons of national security, has been barred by any agency of the
Federal Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an
auction, or receiving a grant is ineligible to hold a license that the
Spectrum Act requires to be assigned by a system of competitive bidding
under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act.
Mobile Spectrum Holding Policies.--Spectrum is an essential input
for the provision of mobile wireless services, and the Commission has
developed policies to ensure that spectrum is assigned in a manner that
promotes competition, innovation, and efficient use. The Commission
seeks comment generally on whether and how to address any mobile
spectrum holdings issues involving 3.45-3.55 GHz band spectrum to meet
its statutory requirements and to ensure competitive access to the
band. Similar to the Commission's approach in the 2017 Spectrum
Frontiers Order and FNPRM and the 1675-1680 MHz NPRM, the Commission
proposes not to adopt a pre-auction, bright line limit on the ability
of any entity to acquire spectrum in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band through
competitive bidding. The Commission is not inclined to adopt such
limits absent a clear showing that they are necessary to address a
specific competitive concern; such pre-auction limits may restrict
unnecessarily the ability of entities to participate in and acquire
spectrum in an auction. The Commission seeks comment on any specific
concerns of this type.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether this band should be
included in the Commission's spectrum screen, which helps to identify
markets that may warrant further competitive analysis, for evaluating
proposed secondary market transactions. The Commission seeks comment on
reviewing holdings on a case-by-case basis when long-form applications
for initial licenses are filed to ensure that the public interest
benefits of having a spectrum screen applicable to secondary market
transactions are not rendered ineffective. And, the Commission seeks
comment on whether and how the similarity of this spectrum to spectrum
currently included in the screen should be factored into its analysis,
including its suitability for use in the provision of mobile telephony
or broadband services. Commenters should discuss and quantify any costs
and benefits associated with any proposals on the applicability of
mobile spectrum holdings policies to 3.45-3.55 GHz band spectrum.
Geographic License Area.--Considering the opportunity presented
here to align the 3.45-3.55 GHz band with other mid-band spectrum, the
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate geographic license area for
the band to best facilitate robust band use. The Commission proposes to
issue flexible use licenses on a Partial Economic Area (PEA) basis, as
it recently adopted for the 3.7 GHz Service. The Commission asks
commenters to discuss and quantify the economic, technical, and other
public interest considerations of licensing on a PEA basis, or if
offering alternatives (such as counties), to discuss and quantify the
same considerations for that alternative. The Commission invites
commenters to discuss which set of considerations is most applicable
for the circumstances of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. Or do the
considerations in this band indicate a different geographic license
area is more appropriate? As the Commission has for the adjacent
Citizens Broadband Radio Service, should it allow ``license-by-rule''
use for some spectrum in the band? For areas where not all spectrum
licenses are sold at auction, should the Commission permit
opportunistic use of that spectrum? How would the Commission ensure
adequate protection of incumbent and licensee operations under
alternative licensing frameworks? Would the need for a database or
other coordination techniques create unnecessary burdens on licensees
or hinder the ability to protect incumbents? The Commission asks
commenters to address the costs and benefits of their recommended
licensing approach.
The Commission also recognizes that the AMBIT study focused on
licensing for the contiguous United States and it therefore proposes
that the states of Hawaii and Alaska and U.S. territories should be
excluded from 3.45-3.55 GHz band licensing at this time. The Commission
seeks comment on its proposal, including the costs and benefits. Going
forward, NTIA and DoD plan to conduct additional analysis of federal
operations in Alaska, Hawaii and the U.S. Territories and Possessions,
in close cooperation with industry stakeholders to identify additional
Cooperative Planning Areas and Periodic Use Areas outside of the
contiguous United States. Pending the results of such future analysis,
should the Commission consider extending any 3.45-3.55 GHz band regime
adopted in this proceeding to additional areas at a
[[Page 66898]]
later date? Should the Commission delegate authority to the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology to
make any future adjustments to Cooperative Planning Areas or Periodic
Use Areas as they deem appropriate in consultation with NTIA and
consistent with NTIA and DoD analysis? In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on whether there are ways to mitigate the impact of
possible future licensees in the Gulf of Mexico to federal operations.
Could the Commission's past experiences in licensing under similar
circumstances, such as in the AWS-3 band, prove useful here?
License Term.--Given the similarity in the flexible use goal of the
Commission in opening the 3.7 GHz Service and opening this spectrum to
commercial use, the Commission believes a 15-year term, as was adopted
for licenses in the 3.7 GHz Service, would afford licensees sufficient
time to make long-term investments in deployment. For that service, the
Commission determined that additional time was necessary for relocation
of services vacating the band. Here, a similar transition period may be
necessary, given the anticipated need to coordinate federal usage of
the spectrum with affected licensees under circumstances that may be
particular to each licensee's individual situation. The Commission
seeks comment on the appropriate license term for flexible use licenses
in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band and on the costs and benefits of this
proposal. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there
are alternative license terms that might be better suited for this
band. If an alternative license term is chosen, what impact would it
have on investment or deployment, particularly for smaller or rural
entities? The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of the
license term being discussed.
Renewal.--The Commission proposes to apply its general part 27
renewal requirements for wireless licenses, as in the 3.7 GHz Service
Order and the 3.5 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal. Commenters should address the costs and benefits of the
renewal term being advocated.
Performance Requirements.--The Commission seeks comment on the
types of performance requirements that would be appropriate to
encourage rapid deployment by flexible use licensees in the 3.45-3.55
GHz band. For example, in the 3.7 GHz Service Order, the Commission
adopted specific quantifiable benchmarks for different types of
operations. The Commission proposes to adopt the same requirements
here. Licensees offering mobile or point-to-multipoint services are
required to provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at
least 45% of the population in each of their license areas within eight
years of the license issue date (first performance benchmark), and to
at least 80% of the population in each of their license areas within 12
years from the license issue date (second performance benchmark).
Licensees providing fixed service must demonstrate within eight years
of the license issue date (first performance benchmark) that they have
four links operating and providing service, if the population within
the license area is equal to or less than 268,000. If the population
within the license area is greater than 268,000, a licensee relying on
point-to-point service must demonstrate that it has at least one link
in operation and providing service, either to customers or for internal
use, per every 67,000 persons within a license area. The Commission
requires licensees relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate
within 12 years of the license issue date (final performance benchmark)
that they have eight links operating and providing service, either to
customers or for internal use, if the population within the license
area is equal to or less than 268,000. If the population within the
license area is greater than 268,000, the Commission requires a
licensee relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate it is
providing service and has at least two links in operation per every
67,000 persons within a license area. Would these metrics be
appropriate in the 3450-3550 MHz band? If not, why? And how should they
be adjusted?
For the 3.7 GHz Service, the Commission also adopted alternate
Internet of Things (IoT) performance requirements in order to allow for
flexibility to provide services potentially less suited to a population
coverage metric. Specifically, licensees providing IoT-type services
thus have flexibility to demonstrate that they offer geographic area
coverage of 35% of the license area at the first (eight-year)
performance benchmark, and geographic area coverage of 65% of the
license area at the second (12-year) performance benchmark. Is it
appropriate to adopt this--or a different--IoT metric here?
The Commission seeks comment on these types of requirements and any
other requirements to achieve its goal of ensuring spectrum use.
Commenters should discuss the appropriate metric to accommodate such
service offerings or other innovative services in the 3.45-3.55 GHz
band, as well as the costs and benefits of an alternative approach.
Failure to Meet Performance Requirements.--Along with performance
benchmarks, the Commission proposes to adopt meaningful and enforceable
penalties for failing to meet the benchmarks. The Commission proposes
that, in the event a licensee fails to meet the first performance
benchmark, 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 10 years into the license
term) and reducing its license term to 13 years. If a licensee fails to
meet the second performance benchmark for a particular license area,
its authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet the
performance requirement shall terminate automatically without
Commission action. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on
which penalties will most effectively ensure timely build-out.
The Commission proposes that, in the event a 3.45-3.55 GHz band
licensee's authority to operate terminates, its spectrum rights should
become available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding
provisions of section 309(j). The Commission also seeks comment on
whether, consistent with the Commission's rules for other part 27
licenses, it should require that any 3.45-3.55 GHz band flexible use
licensee that forfeits its license for failure to meet its performance
requirements be precluded from regaining that license. Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on other performance requirements and
enforcement mechanisms that would effectively ensure timely buildout.
Compliance Procedures.--The Commission proposes a rule requiring
licensees to submit electronic coverage maps that accurately depict
both the boundaries of each licensed area and the coverage boundaries
of the actual areas to which the licensee provides service or, in the
case of a fixed deployment, the locations of the fixed transmitters
associated with each link. The Commission's proposal is consistent with
the compliance procedures adopted in the 3.7 GHz Service Order, in
addition to compliance procedures applicable to all part 27 licensees,
including the filing of electronic coverage maps and supporting
documentation. If a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage
to an entire license area, the Commission proposes that it must provide
a map that accurately depicts the boundaries of the area or areas
within each license area
[[Page 66899]]
that are not being served. The Commission further proposes that each
licensee must file supporting documentation certifying 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.
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. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Would such
procedures confirm that the spectrum is being used consistently with
the performance requirements? The Commission seeks comment on this
assumption. The Commission also seeks comment on whether small entities
face any special or unique issues with respect to the transition such
that they would require additional time to comply.
Applicability of Other Part 27 Rules.--In establishing service
rules for similar bands, the Commission has sought to afford licensees
the flexibility to align licenses with other spectrum bands governed by
part 27 of the Commission's rules. The Commission therefore proposes
that licensees in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band should be governed by
licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all part 27
services, including regulatory status, foreign ownership reporting,
compliance with construction requirements, permanent discontinuance of
operations, partitioning and disaggregation, and spectrum leasing. The
Commission asks commenters to identify any aspects of its general part
27 service rules that should be modified to accommodate the particular
characteristics of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. Are there reasons that
flexible use licensees in this band should not be subject to these
general part 27 requirements? The Commission asks proponents of the
various mechanisms described above whether there are issues specific to
this section and their preferred approach. The Commission also asks
commenters that support modifying certain part 27 rules as applied to
licensees in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band to articulate the reasons why
different treatment here is justified.
G. Competitive Bidding Procedures
The Commission proposes to assign the licenses through a system of
competitive bidding. Consistent with the competitive bidding procedures
the Commission has used in previous auctions, the Commission proposes
to conduct any auction for licenses for spectrum in the band in
conformity with the part 1, subpart Q general competitive bidding
rules, subject to any modification of the part 1 rules that the
Commission may adopt in the future. The Commission seeks comment on
whether any of these rules would be inappropriate or should be modified
for an auction of licenses in this band. The Commission seeks comment
on the costs and benefits of these proposals.
Under the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA), federal
entities operating on certain frequencies that have been reallocated
from federal to co-primary federal and non-federal use and assigned by
the Commission through auction are eligible for reimbursement for the
cost of relocating or sharing their operations. In order to provide for
such reimbursement, the Communications Act requires that the ``total
cash proceeds'' from the auction of these frequencies must equal at
least 110% of the estimated relocation or sharing costs of incumbent
federal operations. Based on the current use of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band
by the DoD and DoD's planned sharing arrangements and relocation of
some operations out of the band to make way for commercial use as part
of the AMBIT agreement, this spectrum qualifies as eligible frequencies
under the CSEA. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to set the reserve
price for any auction of 3.45-3.55 GHz band licenses at 110% of
expected federal relocation costs, based on the estimate of relocation
costs provided to the Commission by NTIA under the CSEA.
The Commission also proposes to make bidding credits for designated
entities available for this band and seeks comment on this proposal. If
the Commission decides to offer small business bidding credits, it
seeks comment on how to define a small business. In recent years, for
other flexible use licenses, the Commission has adopted bidding credits
for the two larger designated entity business sizes provided in the
Commission's part 1 standardized schedule of bidding credits. The
Commission proposes to use the same definitions here. Accordingly, the
Commission proposes to define a small business as an entity with
average gross revenues for the preceding five years not exceeding $55
million, and a very small business as an entity with average gross
revenues for the preceding five years not exceeding $20 million. A
qualifying ``small business'' would be eligible for a bidding credit of
15% and a qualifying ``very small business'' would be eligible for a
bidding credit of 25%. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the
characteristics of these frequencies and its proposed licensing model
suggest that it should adopt different small business size standards
and associated bidding credits than it has in the past. Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it should offer rural service
providers a designated entity bidding credit for licenses in this band.
The Commission proposes to offer rural service providers a bidding
credit of 15% under its rules, consistent with its approach in other
similar flexible use bands. Commenters addressing these proposals or
advocating for any alternatives should consider what details of
licenses in the band may affect whether designated entities will apply
for them.
VI. Ordering Clauses
It is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 157, 301, 303, 307,
308, 309, 310, and 316, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
as well as the MOBILE NOW Act, Public Law 115-141, 132 Stat. 1098, Div.
P, Title VI, Sec. 603 (Mar. 23, 2018), 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157,
301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, and 1502, that this Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Lists of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 27
Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers,
Communications common carriers, Radio, Table of Frequency Allocations,
Wireless communication services, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
parts 1, 2, and 27 as follows:
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, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1.907 by revising the definition of ``Covered geographic
licenses'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1.907 Definitions.
* * * * *
[[Page 66900]]
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
Radiotelephone Service (Commercial Aviation) (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 of this chapter).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 1.9005 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (ll);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (mm) and adding a semi-
colon;
0
c. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (nn) and adding ``;
and'' in its place; and
0
d. Adding paragraph (oo).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 1.9005 Included services.
* * * * *
(oo) The 3.45 GHz Service in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band (part 27 of
this chapter).
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
4 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
5. Amend Sec. 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, as follows:
0
a. Revise pages 40 and 41.
0
b. In the list of United States (U.S.) Footnotes, add footnotes US103
and US431B.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 66901]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC20.002
[[Page 66902]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC20.003
[[Page 66903]]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
* * * * *
United States (U.S.) Footnotes
* * * * *
US103 In the band 3300-3550 MHz, the following provisions shall
apply: Non-Federal stations in the radiolocation service that were
licensed (or licensed pursuant to applications accepted for filing)
before February 22, 2019, may continue to operate on a secondary basis
until new flexible use licenses are issued for operation in the band
3450-3550 MHz. The date by which non-Federal stations in the
radiolocation service will be required to cease operations in the band
3300-3550 MHz will be set when the Commission establishes procedures
for assigning flexible use licenses. After [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], no new assignments may be made to non-Federal stations in the
radiolocation service.--In the band 3300-3500 MHz, stations in the
amateur service may continue to operate on a secondary basis until new
flexible use licenses are issued for operation in the band 3450-3550
MHz. The date by which stations in the amateur service will be required
to cease operations in the band 3400-3500 MHz will be set when the
Commission establishes procedures for assigning flexible use licenses.
Stations in the amateur service may continue to operate in the band
3300-3400 MHz on a secondary basis while the band's future uses are
finalized, and stations in the amateur service may be required to cease
operations in the band 3300-3450 MHz at any time if the amateur service
causes harmful interference to flexible use operations..
* * * * *
US431B In the 3450-3550 MHz band, the following provisions shall
apply. In general, within the contiguous United States, the band is a
shared co-primary allocation between the Federal Radiolocation service
and non-Federal Fixed and Mobile, except aeronautical mobile, services.
Federal operations in the 3450-3550 MHz band must protect non-Federal
operations from harmful interference, except under the following
circumstances.--Military Operational Need in National Emergency. In
time of war or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or disaster
or other national emergency (collectively ``national emergency''),
Federal users are authorized to operate within the band as required to
meet operational mission requirements. Upon notification, non-Federal
licensees shall terminate or otherwise adjust their operations to
prevent harmful interference to the Federal operations consistent with
procedures established by the FCC in coordination with NTIA. During
such operations and until the end of the national emergency, non-
Federal licensees must adjust their operations to enable Federal use of
the band and non-Federal users may not claim protection from harmful
interference.--Cooperative Planning Areas. Cooperative Planning Areas
are geographic locations in which non-Federal operations shall
coordinate with Federal systems in the band to deploy non-Federal
operations, in a manner that shall not cause harmful interference to
Federal systems operating in the band and to protect non-Federal
operations from potential harm caused by high powered Federal
operations. In such areas, operators of non-Federal stations may be
required to modify their operations (e.g., reduce power, adjust antenna
pointing angles, shielding, etc.) to protect themselves and to protect
Federal operations from interference. In these areas, non-Federal
operations may not claim interference protection from Federal systems
outside of coordination procedures. To the extent possible, Federal use
in Cooperative Planning Areas will be chosen to minimize operational
impact on non-Federal users. Appendix A to part 2 identifies the
locations of Cooperative Planning Areas. Cooperative Planning Areas may
also be Periodic Use Areas as described below. Coordination between
Federal users and non-Federal licensees in Cooperative Planning Areas
shall be consistent with procedures established by the FCC in
coordination with NTIA.--Periodic Use Areas. Periodic Use Areas are
geographic locations where non-Federal operations in the band may not
cause harmful interference to Federal systems operating in the band for
episodic periods. During these times and in these areas, Federal users
will require interference protection from non-Federal operations. Non-
Federal operations may be required to temporarily modify their
operations (e.g., reduce power, adjust antenna pointing angles, etc.)
to protect Federal operations from interference, which may include
restrictions on non-Federal stations' ability to radiate at certain
locations during specific periods of time. During such episodic time
periods, non-Federal users in Periodic Use Areas must alter their
operations to enable Federal systems' temporary use of the band, and
during such times, non-Federal users may not claim interference
protection from Federal systems outside of coordination procedures. To
the extent possible, Federal use in Periodic Use Areas will be chosen
to minimize operational impact to non-Federal users. Coordination
between Federal users and non-Federal licensees in Periodic Use Areas
shall be consistent with procedures established by the FCC in
coordination with NTIA. While all Periodic Use Areas are co-located
with Cooperative Planning Areas, the exact geographic area used during
periodic use may differ from the co-located Cooperative Planning Area.
The geographic locations of Periodic Use Areas are identified in
Appendix A to part 2. Restrictions and authorizations for the
Cooperative Planning Areas remain in effect during periodic use unless
specifically relieved in the coordination process.
* * * * *
0
6. Add Appendix A to part 2 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 2--Table of Table: Department of Defense Cooperative Planning Areas and Periodic Use Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location name State CPA PUA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Little Rock......................... AR...................... Yes....................
Yuma Complex (includes Yuma Proving AZ...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Grounds and MCAS Yuma).
Camp Pendleton...................... CA...................... Yes....................
Edwards Air Force Base.............. CA...................... Yes.................... Yes.
National Training Center............ CA...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Naval Air Weapons Station, China CA...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Lake.
Point Mugu.......................... CA...................... Yes.................... Yes.
San Diego *......................... CA...................... Yes....................
Includes Point Loma SESEF range *...
Twentynine Palms.................... CA...................... Yes....................
[[Page 66904]]
Eglin Air Force Base................ FL...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Includes Santa Rosa Island and Cape
San Blas site.
Mayport *........................... FL...................... Yes....................
Includes Mayport SESEF range *......
Pensacola........................... FL...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Joint Readiness Training Center..... LA...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Chesapeake Beach.................... MD...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Naval Air Station, Patuxent River... MD...................... Yes.................... Yes.
St. Inigoes......................... MD...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Bath................................ ME...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Pascagoula.......................... MS...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Camp Lejeune........................ NC...................... Yes....................
Cherry Point........................ NC...................... Yes....................
Fort Bragg.......................... NC...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Portsmouth.......................... NH...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Moorestown.......................... NJ...................... Yes.................... Yes.
White Sands Missile Range........... NM...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Nevada Test and Training Range...... NV...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Fort Sill........................... OK...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Tobyhanna Army Depot................ PA...................... Yes....................
Dahlgren............................ VA...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Newport News........................ VA...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Norfolk *........................... VA...................... Yes....................
Includes Fort Story SESEF range *...
Wallops Island...................... VA...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Bremerton........................... WA...................... Yes.................... Yes.
Everett *........................... WA...................... Yes....................
Includes Ediz Hook SESEF range *....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility (SESEF) attached to each homeport.
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
7. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336,
337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unless otherwise noted.
0
8. Amend Sec. 27.1 by adding paragraph (b)(17) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1 Basis and purpose.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(17) 3450-3550 MHz.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 27.4 by adding, in alphabetical order, the definition
for ``3.45 GHz Service'' to read as follows:
Sec. 27.4 Terms and definitions.
3.45 GHz Service. A radiocommunication service licensed under this
part for the frequency bands specified in Sec. 27.5(n) (3450-3550 MHz
band).
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 27.5 by adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.5 Frequencies.
* * * * *
(o) 3450-3550 MHz band. The 3.45 GHz Service is licensed as five
individual 20 megahertz blocks available for assignment in the
contiguous United States on a Partial Economic Area basis, see Sec.
27.6(n).
0
11. Amend Sec. 27.6 by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.6 Service areas.
* * * * *
(n) 3450-3550 MHz Band. Service areas in the 3.45 GHz Service are
based on Partial Economic Areas (PEAs) as defined by appendix A to this
subpart (see Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details About
Partial Economic Areas, DA 14-759, Public Notice, released June 2,
2014, for more information).
0
12. Amend Sec. 27.11 by adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.11 Initial authorization.
* * * * *
(m) 3450-3550 MHz band. Authorizations for licenses in the 3.45 GHz
Service will be based on Partial Economic Areas (PEAs), as specified in
Sec. 27.6(n), and the frequency blocks specified in Sec. 27.5(n).
0
13. Amend Sec. 27.13 by adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.13 License period.
* * * * *
(o) 3450-3550 MHz Band. Authorization for the band will have a term
not to exceed fifteen years from the date of issuance.
0
14. Amend Sec. 27.14 by revising the first sentence of paragraphs (a)
and (k), and adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.14 Construction requirements.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees
holding authorizations for the 600 MHz band, Block A in the 698-704 MHz
and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz
bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1 or C2 in the 746-
757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305-2310 MHz and 2350-
2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz bands,
Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz band, Block D in the 2345-2350 MHz band,
in the 3450-3550 MHz band, and in the 3700-3980 MHz band, and with the
exception of licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz
and 1995-2000 MHz bands, the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, or
1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz bands, must, as a
performance requirement, make a showing of ``substantial service'' in
their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in
Sec. 27.13. * * *
* * * * *
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum
blocks
[[Page 66905]]
enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (q), (r), (s), (t), (v) and (w)
of this section, including any licensee that obtained its license
pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this section,
shall demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a
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. * * *
* * * * *
(w) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an
authorization in the 3450-3550 MHz band:
(1) Licensees relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service
shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer service within eight
(8) years from the date of the initial license to at least forty-five
(45) percent of the population in each of its license areas (``First
Buildout Requirement''). Licensee shall provide reliable signal
coverage and offer service within twelve (12) years from the date of
the initial license to at least eighty (80) percent of the population
in each of its license areas (``Second Buildout Requirement'').
Licensees relying on point-to-point service shall demonstrate within
eight years of the license issue date that they have four links
operating and providing service to customers or for internal use if the
population within the license area is equal to or less than 268,000
and, if the population is greater than 268,000, that they have at least
one link in operation and providing service to customers, or for
internal use, per every 67,000 persons within a license area (``First
Buildout Requirement''). Licensees relying on point-to-point service
shall demonstrate within 12 years of the license issue date that they
have eight links operating and providing service to customers or for
internal use if the population within license area is equal to or less
than 268,000 and, if the population within the license area is greater
than 268,000, shall demonstrate they are providing service and have at
least two links in operation per every 67,000 persons within a license
area (``Second Buildout Requirement'').
(2) In the alternative, a licensee offering Internet of Things-type
services shall provide geographic area coverage within eight (8) years
from the date of the initial license to thirty-five (35) percent of the
license (``First Buildout Requirement''). A licensee offering Internet
of Things-type services shall provide geographic area coverage within
twelve (12) years from the date of the initial license to sixty-five
(65) percent of the license (``Second Buildout Requirement'').
(3) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the First
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, the licensee's
Second Buildout Requirement deadline and license term will be reduced
by two years. If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Second
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, its authorization
for each license area in which it fails to meet the Second Buildout
Requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action,
and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it if the Commission
makes the license available at a later date.
(4) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements,
licensees shall use the most recently available decennial U.S. Census
Data at the time of measurement and shall base their measurements of
population or geographic area served on areas no larger than the Census
Tract level. The population or area within a specific Census Tract (or
other acceptable identifier) will be deemed served by the licensee only
if it provides reliable signal coverage to and offers service within
the specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier). To the
extent the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) extends beyond
the boundaries of a license area, a licensee with authorizations for
such areas may include only the population or geographic area within
the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) towards meeting the
performance requirement of a single, individual license. If a licensee
does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area,
the license must provide a map that accurately depicts the boundaries
of the area or areas within each license area not being served. Each
licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying 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.
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.
0
15. Amend Sec. 27.50 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle.
* * * * *
(k) The following power requirements apply to stations transmitting
in the 3450-3550 MHz band:
(1) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
3450-3550 MHz band and located in any county with population density of
100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most recently
available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, is
limited to an equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of 3280
Watts/MHz. This limit applies to the aggregate power of all antenna
elements in any given sector of a base station.
(2) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
3450-3550 MHz band and situated in any geographic location other than
that described in paragraph (j)(1) of this section is limited to an
EIRP of 1640 Watts/MHz. This limit applies to the aggregate power of
all antenna elements in any given sector of a base station.
(3) Mobile and portable stations are limited to 1 Watt EIRP. Mobile
and portable stations operating in these bands must employ a means for
limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.
(4) Equipment employed must be authorized in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 27.51. Power measurements for transmissions by
stations authorized under this section may be made either in accordance
with a Commission-approved average power technique or in compliance
with paragraph (j)(5) of this section. In measuring transmissions in
this band using an average power technique, the peak-to-average ratio
(PAR) of the transmission may not exceed 13 dB.
(5) Peak transmit power must be measured over any interval of
continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of an
rms-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be properly
adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector response
times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to the
emission bandwidth, sensitivity, and any other relevant factors, so as
to obtain a true peak measurement for the emission in question over the
full bandwidth of the channel.
0
16. Amend Sec. 27.53 by adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.53 Emission limits.
* * * * *
(o) 3.45 GHz Service. The following emission limits apply to
stations transmitting in the 3450-3550 MHz band:
(1) For base station operations in the 3450-3550 MHz band, the
conducted power of any emission outside the licensee's authorized
bandwidth shall not exceed -13 dBm/MHz. Compliance with this paragraph
(o)(1) is based on the use of measurement instrumentation
[[Page 66906]]
employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. However, in
the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the
licensee's frequency block, a resolution bandwidth of at least one
percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the
transmitter may be employed. 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. Notwithstanding the channel edge requirement of -13 dBm per
megahertz, for base station operations in the 3450-3550 MHz band beyond
the two edges of the band, the conducted power of any emission shall
not exceed -25 dBm/MHz within a 20 megahertz offset from the top and
bottom edges of the band, and shall not exceed -40 dBm/MHz beyond that
20 megahertz offset.
(2) For mobile operations in the 3450-3550 MHz band, the conducted
power of any emission outside the licensee's authorized bandwidth shall
not exceed -13 dBm/MHz. Compliance with this paragraph (o)(2) is based
on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution
bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. However, in the 1 megahertz bands
immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee's frequency block, the
minimum resolution bandwidth for the measurement shall be either one
percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the
transmitter or 350 kHz. In the bands between 1 and 5 MHz removed from
the licensee's frequency block, the minimum resolution bandwidth for
the measurement shall be 500 kHz. 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.
0
17. Amend Sec. 27.55 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.55 Power strength limits.
* * * * *
(e) Power flux density for stations operating in the 3450-3550 MHz
band. For base and fixed stations operation in the 3450-3550 MHz band
in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 27.50(j), the power flux
density (PFD) at any location on the geographical border of a
licensee's service area shall not exceed -76 dBm/m\2\/MHz. This power
flux density will be measured at 1.5 meters above ground. Licensees in
adjacent geographic areas may voluntarily agree to operate under a
higher PFD at their common boundary.
0
18. Amend Sec. 27.57 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.57 International coordination.
* * * * *
(c) Operation in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz,
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180
MHz, 2180-2200 MHz, 3450-3550 MHz, and 3700-3980 MHz bands is subject
to international agreements with Mexico and Canada.
0
19. Add new Subpart Q to read as follows:
Subpart Q--3450-3550 MHz Band
Sec.
27.1600 3450-3550 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.
27.1601 Designated entities in the 3450-3550 MHz band.
27.1602 Permanent discontinuance of service in the 3450-3550 MHz
band.
Sec. 27.1600 3450-3550 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for 3450-3550 MHz band
licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive
bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q of this
chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
Sec. 27.1601 Designated entities in the 3450-3550 MHz band.
(a) Definitions. (1) Small business. A small business is an entity
that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $55 million for the preceding five (5) years.
(2) Very small business. A very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $20 million for the preceding five (5) years.
(b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small
business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of small
businesses may use the bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in
Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter, subject to the cap specified
in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter. A winning bidder that
qualifies as a very small business, as defined in this section, or a
consortium of very small businesses may use the bidding credit of 25
percent, as specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter,
subject to the cap specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter.
(c) Eligibility for rural service provider bidding credit. A rural
service provider, as defined in Sec. 1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this chapter,
that has not claimed a small business bidding credit may use the
bidding credit of 15 percent specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(4) of this
chapter.
Sec. 27.1602 Permanent discontinuance of 3450-3550 MHz licenses.
A 3450-3550 MHz band licensee that permanently discontinues service
as defined in Sec. 1.953 must notify the Commission of the
discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 requesting license
cancellation. An authorization will automatically terminate, without
specific Commission action, if service is permanently discontinued as
defined in Sec. 1.953, even if a licensee fails to file the required
form requesting license cancellation.
[FR Doc. 2020-22529 Filed 10-19-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
