Amendment of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, 49023-49069 [2016-14505]
Download as PDF
Vol. 81
Tuesday,
No. 143
July 26, 2016
Part IV
Federal Communications Commission
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 96
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules With Regard to Commercial
Operations in the 3550–3650 MHz Band; Final Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49024
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Second Report & Order in a report to be
sent to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 96
[WT Docket No. 12–354; FCC 16–55]
Amendment of the Commission’s
Rules With Regard to Commercial
Operations in the 3550–3650 MHz Band
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; petition for
reconsideration.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission addresses
eight petitions for reconsideration on
certain rules adopted in the Report and
Order (Report and Order) in this
proceeding governing the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz
band. The Commission also finalizes the
regulatory scheme established in the
Report and Order to make this spectrum
available for wireless broadband
through dynamic sharing among three
tiers of users.
DATES: Effective August 25, 2016 except
for §§ 1.9046, 96.3, 96.17(b),
96.25(c)(1)(i), and 96.32(a) and (b)
which contain information collection
requirements subject to approval by the
Office of Management and Budget. The
Federal Communications Commission
will publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing the effective date
for those sections.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Powell, Paul.Powell@fcc.gov, of the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Mobility Division, (202) 418–1618. For
additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements contained in
this document, contact Cathy Williams
at (202) 418–2918 or send an email to
PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Order on
Reconsideration and Second Report and
Order in GN Docket No. 12–354, FCC
16–55 released on May 2, 2106. The
complete text of the public notice is
available for viewing via the
Commission’s ECFS Web site by
entering the docket number, WT Docket
No. 12–354. The complete text of the
public notice is also available for public
inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday
through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC
Reference Information Center, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202–
488–5300, fax 202–488–5563.
The Commission will send a copy of
this Order on Reconsideration and
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
I. Introduction and Executive Summary
1. In this Report and Order and Order
on Reconsideration (Second Order) we
finalize the rules governing the
innovative Citizens Broadband Radio
Service in the 3550–3700 MHz band (3.5
GHz Band). Facing ever-increasing
demands of wireless innovation and
constrained availability of clear sources
of spectrum, the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service is an opportunity to add
much-needed capacity through
innovative sharing. With this Second
Order, we finalize the regulatory scheme
we created in 2015, putting in place the
last rules necessary for this service to
become commercially available. (80 FR
36163, June 23, 2015)
2. The Citizens Broadband Radio
Service takes advantage of advances in
technology and spectrum policy to
dissolve age-old regulatory divisions
between commercial and federal users,
exclusive and non-exclusive
authorizations, and private and carrier
networks. The regulatory framework
takes from recommendations from the
President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) and
substantial engagement and input from
stakeholders representing a cross
section of the communications,
technology, and public interest realms.
3. The comprehensive regulatory
scheme adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O
included specific licensing, technical,
and service rules to enable dynamic
sharing between three tiers of users in
the 3.5 GHz Band. The Spectrum Access
System (SAS) is the advanced frequency
coordinator (or coordinators) necessary
to assign rights and maximize efficiency
in the band. The SAS(s) will incorporate
information from the Environmental
Sensing Capability (ESC), which will be
used to increase available spectrum in
coastal areas while continuing to protect
incumbent Department of Defense (DoD)
radar systems.
4. In this Second Order, we reaffirm
the regulatory approach adopted in the
3.5 GHz R&O. In doing so, we deny
several petitions for reconsideration that
are inconsistent with our goals and
grant others that advocated rule
modifications that would facilitate more
equitable and efficient use of the 3.5
GHz Band. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we
developed a comprehensive approach
intended to balance consideration of the
complex issues and competing
considerations involved in creating a
sharing regime in this band, and each
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rule is a vital part of that approach. We
reaffirm our commitment to add much
needed capacity spectrum to the
marketplace through innovative sharing
rules and techniques, and believe the
rules established in the 3.5 GHz R&O
are the best means to do so.
5. Nonetheless, we do agree with
some petitioners who argue for an
increase in the power level for non-rural
Category B CBSDs and greater flexibility
in how to measure and direct the power.
This will provide additional flexibility
for all CBSD deployments to potentially
increase their utility, and create
additional flexibility for non-rural
deployments. While rejecting arguments
both to increase and to decrease our outof-band emission (OOBE) limits for
CBSDs, we revise our measurement of
such limits to conform to the wellestablished root mean square (RMS)
measurement technique reflected in our
rules for other services. We also adopt
a limited exception to the PAL
assignment rules that would allow a
single PAL to be issued in License Areas
located in Rural Areas in the absence of
mutually exclusive applications. At
SIA’s request, we also revise our rules
to make clear that SASs must be capable
of receiving and responding to
interference complaints from Fixed
Satellite Service (FSS) earth station
licensees.
6. While we created a robust and
substantial regulatory framework in the
3.5 GHz R&O, there were several
technical issues that required further
refinement and input on the record. To
bolster the record on these issues, we
released a Second FNPRM seeking
comment on how to: (1) Define ‘‘use’’ of
Priority Access License (PAL) areas to
determine the availability of spectrum
for General Authorized Access (GAA)
use; (2) implement and promote a robust
secondary market in the band; and (3)
optimize protections for licensed inband and out-of-band FSS earth
stations.
7. These are important issues, and are
fundamental to the fabric of the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. They explore
how to maximize the efficient use of
spectrum by allowing opportunistic
GAA use of spectrum when and where
it is not utilized by Priority Access
Licensees. They look at how we can
maximize the amount of spectrum
available in the band by optimizing the
protection of in-band and out-of-band
FSS earth stations, while leveraging the
SAS and other tools to maximize
operations towards the 3700 MHz band
edge. They examine how to create
reliable and flexible secondary market
rules that can be implemented across
hundreds of thousands of licenses.
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
8. In resolving these final issues, we
strive to establish simple rules that are
implementable in the near term, while
protecting DoD radar systems consistent
with the process and procedures
established in the 3.5 GHz R&O. We
establish a definition of use that allows
Priority Access Licensees to certify the
extent of their service area to an SAS,
while also establishing a maximum
point at which they will receive
protection. This is a both a flexible and
objective way to allow Priority Access
Licensees to design and deploy
networks, and SAS Administrators to
provide objective protection and
effective GAA access. We authorize
‘‘light-touch leasing’’ to allow Priority
Access Licensees to leverage the
secondary market to provide access to
any qualified lessee with minimal
administrative requirements or
transaction costs. Finally, we establish
protection criteria for in-band FSS, and
out-of-band FSS sites used for telemetry,
command, and control (TT&C) that
provides a high level of reliability,
while also allowing the SASs to
optimize based on the characteristics of
the FSS earth station, the terrain, the
CBSD deployment characteristics near
the site, and other factors.
9. With these decisions, we complete
the regulatory framework for the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service, and
set the stage for the commercial
availability of a contiguous 150
megahertz of spectrum for wireless
broadband use.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Procedural Background
A. 3.5 GHz NPRM, Licensing Public
Notice, and FNPRM
10. As part of its ongoing efforts to
address the growing demand for fixed
and mobile broadband capacity, the
Federal Communications Commission
(FCC or Commission) released a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (78 FR 1188,
January 8, 2013) in December 2012
proposing to make an additional 100
megahertz (or up to 150 megahertz
under a supplemental proposal) of
spectrum available for shared wireless
broadband use. Specifically, the NPRM
proposed to create a new Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. The technical
rules focused on the use of low-powered
small cells to drive increases in
broadband capacity and spectrum reuse
and an SAS that would coordinate
multiple tiers of users.
11. In November 2013, in response to
comments received on the record up to
that point, the Commission released the
Licensing PN (78 FR 73794, December 9,
2013), which described a Revised
Framework that elaborated upon some
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
of the licensing concepts and
alternatives set forth in the NPRM. The
Revised Framework retained the threetier model proposed in the NPRM but
expanded eligibility for access to the
Priority Access tier with competitive
bidding for assigning licenses within
that tier. Like the NPRM’s main
proposal, the Revised Framework cited
the unique capabilities of small cell and
SAS technologies to enable sharing
among users in the Priority Access and
GAA tiers.
12. In April 2014, the Commission
released the 3.5 GHz FNPRM (79 FR
31247, June 2, 2014), proposing specific
rules for a new Citizens Broadband
Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz Band to be
codified in a new proposed part 96. The
FNPRM built upon the concepts and
proposals set forth in the NPRM and the
Licensing PN and reflected the extensive
record generated in the proceeding.
Notably, the 3.5 GHz FNPRM proposed
to: (1) Implement the three-tier
authorization model proposed in the
NPRM; (2) establish Exclusion Zones
based on recommendations set forth in
the Fast Track Report to ensure
compatibility between incumbent
federal operations and Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users; (3)
create an open eligibility authorization
system for Priority Access and GAA
operations; (4) establish granular,
exclusive spectrum rights for the
Priority Access tier, consistent with
parameters discussed in the Licensing
PN; (5) set a defined ‘‘floor’’ for GAA
spectrum availability, to ensure that
GAA access is available nationwide
(subject to Incumbent Access tier use);
(6) set guidelines to allow contained
access users to request up to 20
megahertz of reserved frequencies from
the GAA pool for use within their
facilities; (7) establish baseline technical
rules for fixed or nomadic base stations
operating in the 3.5 GHz Band; and (8)
set guidelines for the operation and
certification of SASs in the band. The
FNPRM also sought comment on: (1)
Protection criteria for Incumbent Access
users; (2) potential protection of FSS
earth stations in the 3700–4200 MHz
band (C-Band); (3) competitive bidding
procedures for resolving mutually
exclusive applications for Priority
Access Licenses (PALs); and (4) the
possible extension of the proposed rules
to include the 3650–3700 MHz band.
B. Report and Order and Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
13. On April 17, 2015, the
Commission released the 3.5 GHz R&O,
which established the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service under a new
part 96 of the Commission’s rules. The
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49025
3.5 GHz R&O established a three-tier
framework for making the entirety of the
3.5 GHz Band available for shared
commercial use utilizing an SAS to
coordinate operations between and
among users in different tiers. This
three-tier sharing framework is largely
consistent with the proposals put forth
in the FNPRM.
14. Incumbent Access users represent
the highest tier in this framework and
receive interference protection from all
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users.
Protected incumbents include federal
shipborne and ground-based radar
operations and FSS earth stations in the
3600–3700 MHz band and, for a finite
period, grandfathered terrestrial
wireless operations in the 3650–3700
MHz portion of the band. Non-federal
incumbents must register the parameters
of their operations with the Commission
and/or an SAS to receive protection
from Citizens Broadband Radio Service
users (47 CFR 96.15, 96.17, 96.21). In
addition, an ESC may be used to detect
transmissions from DoD radar systems
and transmit that information to an SAS
to ensure that federal Incumbent Users
are protected from interference (47 CFR
96.15, 96.67).
15. The Citizens Broadband Radio
Service itself consists of two tiers—
Priority Access and GAA—both
assigned in any given location and
frequency by an SAS. Priority Access
operations receive protection from GAA
operations. A PAL is defined as a nonrenewable authorization to use a 10
megahertz channel in a single census
tract for three years. PALs will be
assigned via competitive bidding in up
to 70 megahertz of the 3550–3650 MHz
portion of the band. One Priority Access
Licensee may hold up to forty
megahertz of PALs in any given census
tract at any given time (47 CFR 96.25,
96.29).
16. GAA use will be licensed by rule
throughout the 150 megahertz band.
Both Priority Access and GAA use will
be assigned and coordinated by an SAS,
which will also perform additional
coordination functions as set forth in
the rules. GAA users will be permitted
to operate on any frequencies not
assigned to PALs. GAA users will
receive no interference protection from
other Citizens Broadband Radio Service
users, including other GAA users, and
must not interfere with higher tier
operations.
17. The Second FNPRM, which was
released along with the 3.5 GHz R&O,
sought comment on how to define ‘‘use’’
by Priority Access Licensees and
whether the Commission should rely on
an engineering definition, an economic
definition, or a hybrid of the two to
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49026
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
determine whether frequencies are in
use. The Second FNPRM also sought
comment on the applicability of existing
secondary market rules to PALs and the
appropriate administration of secondary
market transactions in the band. Finally,
the Second FNPRM a sought comment
on the methodology and parameters for
protecting in-band and C-Band FSS
earth stations.
18. After the adoption of the 3.5 GHz
R&O, and as directed therein, on
October 23, 2015, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB)
released a Public Notice (80 FR 69662,
November 10, 2015) seeking comment
on the appropriate methodology for
determining the contours for protecting
existing 3650–3700 MHz wireless
broadband licensees from Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users during a
fixed transition period. Finally, as
directed by the Commission in the 3.5
GHz R&O, WTB and the Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET)
released a Public Notice seeking
proposals for future SAS
Administrator(s) and ESC operator(s) in
the 3.5 GHz Band. The Public Notice
summarized the requirements for both
SAS Administrators and ESC operators,
as established in the 3.5 GHz R&O, and
described the process for submitting
proposals. It also briefly described the
process that WTB/OET will use to
evaluate prospective SAS
Administrators and ESC operators.
C. Petitions for Reconsideration
19. Petitions for Reconsideration on
the 3.5 GHz R&O were due July 23,
2015. The following eight parties filed
petitions for reconsideration: CTIA, Jon
Peha, Motorola Solutions, NAB, Nokia
Solutions, SIA, Verizon, and
WinnForum (80 FR 59705, October 2,
2015). The arguments raised in these
petitions are described in greater detail
in the relevant sections of the Second
Order.
20. CTIA—The Wireless Association
Petition. CTIA seeks revisions to the
licensing process for PALs, arguing that
the Commission should adopt a fiveyear license term with a renewal
expectancy. CTIA asks the Commission
to reconsider its decision not to award
a PAL in census tracts unless there are
mutually exclusive applications. CTIA
also seeks change to the technical rules,
including changes to the OOBE limits
and the measurement procedure for
such limits. Finally, CTIA requests that
the Commission increase the maximum
effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP)
and conducted power limits for
Category A and Category B CBSDs.
21. Jon Peha Petition. Jon Peha seeks
reconsideration of the Commission’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
decision that ‘‘when there is only one
applicant for one or more PALs in a
given census tract, we will neither
proceed to an auction nor assign any
PAL for that license area.’’ Instead he
argues that the Commission should
grant PALs in every market where there
is demand, even if there is only one
bidder.
22. Motorola Solutions Petition.
Motorola Solutions supports
WinnForum’s Petition and also seeks
reconsideration of the Commission’s
decision to only issue PALs where two
or more parties file an application.
23. NAB Petition. NAB asks the
Commission to eliminate professional
installation as a method to report the
geographic location of a CBSD to an
SAS. NAB contends that location data
should be reported automatically by a
mandatory geo-location capability built
into the device.
24. Nokia Solutions Petition. Nokia
Solutions asks the Commission to
increase the response time from when
an ESC communicates it has detected a
signal from a federal system in a given
area that the SAS must either confirm
suspension of the CBSD’s operation or
relocation from 60 seconds to 600
seconds. Nokia Solutions also argues
that the Commission should specify
emission limits for End User Devices
that are compliant with 3GPP
specifications. Nokia Solutions seeks
changes to the power limits, asking that
the total transmit power for CBSDs be
stated simply as maximum EIRP and
increased by 6 dB for Category A and 9
dB for Category B CBSDs. Finally, Nokia
Solutions asks that the Commission
revise the vertical location accuracy
requirements to align with US
Government Position Accuracy standard
for outdoor installation and remove
such requirements for indoor
installations.
25. SIA Petition. SIA seeks changes to
a variety of technical rules and aspects
of the FSS protection rules. Among
other things, SIA states that the
Commission should adopt a stringent
OOBE limit at 3680 MHz to protect CBand operations immediately above the
3700 MHz band edge. SIA also argues
that the Commission should: (1)
Decrease the maximum power limits for
CBSDs; (2) reduce the 60-second
timeframe for a CBSD to confirm
deactivation or a change in frequency;
(3) eliminate or clarify the annual
registration requirements for FSS earth
stations; (4) establish procedures for
reporting FSS interference to SASs and
implementing immediate shutdown
procedures in response to such reports;
and (5) reconsider the freeze on new coprimary FSS earth stations in the band.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
26. Verizon Petition. Verizon seeks
reconsideration of the power limits,
stating that the Commission should
increase the EIRP to levels closer to realworld small cell deployments and to
rely solely on EIRP rather than imposing
limits on both EIRP and conducted
power.
27. WinnForum Petition. The
WinnForum asks the Commission to
reconsider a number of the technical
rules governing the 3.5 GHz Band.
WinnForum argues that the Commission
should: (1) Increase the reconfiguration
response time from when an ESC
communicates it has detected a signal
from a federal system in a given area
that the SAS must either confirm
suspension of the CBSD’s operation or
relocation from 60 seconds to 600
seconds; (2) increase Category A and
Category B CBSD EIRP limits and
provide additional flexibility between
EIRP and conducted power limits; and
(3) modify the geo-location rules to
allow SASs to estimate CBSD elevation
above ground level for purpose of
determining vertical location accuracy.
D. Oppositions and Replies to Petitions
for Reconsideration
28. Oppositions to the petitions for
reconsideration were due October 19,
2015, and replies to oppositions were
due October 29, 2015. Eight parties filed
responses. The arguments raised in
these oppositions are described in
greater detail in the relevant sections of
the Second Order.
29. CTIA Opposition. CTIA opposes
SIA’s petition and supports the petitions
filed by Jon Peha and Motorola
Solutions. CTIA asks the Commission to
reject SIA’s request to impose stricter
OOBE limits and states the 3.5 GHz
FNPRM provided adequate notice that
that the Commission would extend
these limits for the 3650–3700 MHz
band. CTIA claims the power limits for
non-rural Category B CBSDs should be
increased to provide operators with
additional flexibility. Finally, CTIA
supports Jon Peha’s and Motorola
Solutions’ request that the Commission
issue PALs in all census tracts, even if
there is only one applicant.
30. Federated Wireless Opposition.
Federated Wireless asks that the
Commission take the following actions
in response to the petitions for
reconsideration: (1) Increase maximum
EIRP and conducted power limits for
CBSDs; (2) modify the elevation
accuracy requirement to allow the SAS
to play a role in determining CBSD
location; and (3) allow PALs to be
issued even when there is a single
applicant in a given census tract.
Federated Wireless also asks the
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Commission to reject the petitions that
seek elimination of the option to allow
a professional installer to report geolocation and petitions that request
adoption of a maximum antenna height
limitation for Category B CBSDs.
31. Google Opposition. Google argues
that the Commission should reject SIA’s
request to strengthen OOBE limits and
eliminate registration requirements for
FSS earth station operators. Google also
argues that professional installation can
protect incumbents and the Commission
should retain this option to report geolocation accuracy and that the SAS
should not be required to perform
additional validation of location data.
Google also supports many of the
petitioners for technical amendments to
the rules to maximize spectrum
availability.
32. SIA Opposition. SIA asks the
Commission to reject requests to relax
OOBE limits and use an RMS detection
methodology for measuring a device’s
compliance with the Commission’s
OOBE rules. SIA also opposes: (1)
Higher EIRP limits for CBSDs; (2)
unlimited antenna height for Category B
CBSDs; and (3) any increase in the
CBSD or SAS reconfiguration time.
Finally, SIA supports elimination of the
professional installation option for
reporting location accuracy.
33. Qualcomm Opposition.
Qualcomm supports CTIA’s request to
allow the use of an RMS detector to
measure OOBE. Qualcomm also
supports CTIA’s request to relax the
requirement limiting OOBE below 3530
MHz and above 3720 MHz to ¥40 dBm/
MHz.
34. T-Mobile Opposition. T-Mobile
supports increasing the license term for
PALs from three years to ten years with
a renewal expectancy. T-Mobile also
argues that the Commission should: (1)
Make the total number of PALs in a
census tract for which applicants have
applied available for renewal; (2)
increase OOBE and EIRP limits for
CBSDs and eliminate conducted power
limits; and (3) increase the
reconfiguration response time when an
incumbent user is detected. Finally, TMobile asks the Commission to continue
to evaluate whether geo-location
capabilities can be built into devices in
the future.
35. Verizon Opposition. Verizon
states that the Commission should deny
SIA’s request for stricter OOBE limits
and that SIA’s concerns about FSS
protections are premature. Verizon
reiterates its position that allowing
CBSDs to operate at higher power limits
is crucial to the success of this band.
36. WISPA Opposition. WISPA argues
that the Commission should retain the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
majority of its technical rules, including
the maximum power limit, absence of
height restrictions for Category B
CBSDs, elevation reporting rule and the
professional installation requirements.
However, WISPA supports requests to
relax OOBE limits and to use an RMS
detector to measure these levels. WISPA
opposes the petitions that request
increasing the three-year license term
for PALs and opposes permitting a
renewal expectancy. However, WISPA
supports the requests to award PALs in
census tracts even if there is only one
application. Finally, WISPA supports
retaining the FSS earth station
registration requirements.
E. Responses to Second FNPRM
37. The Commission received
comment on the three outstanding
issues in the Second FNPRM described
above: (1) Defining use by PALs; (2)
creating secondary markets in the 3.5
GHz Band; and (3) FSS protection
criteria. These comments, and those
received in subsequent rounds, are
summarized and referenced in the
Second Order below.
III. Order on Reconsideration
38. Section 1.429 of the Commission’s
rules establishes the standards for
submission, review, and consideration
of petitions for reconsideration (47 CFR
1.429). The eight petitions for
reconsideration filed in this proceeding
were assessed pursuant to the
requirements set forth in section 1.429
(47 CFR 1.429). The arguments made by
petitioners are addressed on an issueby-issue basis below. Except as
otherwise set forth below, these
petitions do not raise any new issues
not considered in the 3.5 GHz R&O, or
where they do, we do not find these
arguments persuasive. Through this
Order on Reconsideration we reaffirm
our commitment to the rules and
comprehensive regulatory framework
established in the 3.5 GHz R&O.
A. PAL License Terms and Renewability
39. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O,
the Commission adopted a three-year
non-renewable license term for PALs.
This represents an increase from the
one-year, non-renewable term that was
originally proposed in the FNPRM and
on which the Commission sought
comment in the Licensing PN. After
review of the record, the Commission
found that three-year, non-renewable
license terms strike an appropriate
balance between the public interest
need for targeted, flexible licensing and
the need to provide sufficient certainty
for licensees to invest in the 3.5 GHz
Band.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49027
40. CTIA asks that the Commission
extend PAL license terms to five years
and grant an ongoing renewal
expectancy, provided that the licensee
has deployed services and registered
with an SAS. CTIA argues that the
existing three-year license term does not
provide operators sufficient time or
assurance to realize a return on
investment. CTIA contends that many
challenges associated with network
deployment, such as developing and
certifying equipment, obtaining
appropriate zoning and permitting, and
deploying infrastructure, are amplified
in the 3.5 GHz Band given the novelty
and complexity of higher frequency
small cell deployments. Further, CTIA
cites IEEE’s reluctance to develop a
standard to support IEEE 802.11
Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN)
for the 3.5 GHz Band as a signal that the
3.5 GHz R&O is already affecting
investment and innovation. Three
parties, AT&T, PCIA, and T-Mobile,
support CTIA’s position.
41. WISPA filed an opposition to the
CTIA Petition stating that the
Commission should not revisit the
carefully balanced compromise that
resulted in the Commission’s adoption
of a three-year license term. WISPA
contends that the approach adopted in
the 3.5 GHz R&O reflects a balance
between the views of parties that prefer
short-term licenses—including WISPA
members—and those that prefer longer
license terms. Further, WISPA doubts
that large wireless carriers will choose
not to deploy in this band. Rather,
WISPA notes that, in recent years, the
mobile wireless industry has embraced
unlicensed deployment models and
argues that the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service will provide similar
investment incentives for the industry.
42. CTIA filed a reply to WISPA’s
opposition reiterating its arguments.
CTIA argues that, while WISPA’s
members may not need the same level
of certainty that mobile operators will
require, the Commission should not
ignore the novelty and complexity that
mobile operators will face when
deploying in the 3.5 GHz Band.
43. Discussion. We deny CTIA’s
request and reaffirm our decision to
issue PALs with three-year nonrenewable license terms. We agree with
WISPA that the 3.5 GHz R&O already
reflects a balance among parties that
advocated for short license terms and
those that prefer longer terms. We
originally proposed a one-year nonrenewable license term for PALs but,
based on the record, we instead adopted
a longer, three-year license term and
allowed applicants to apply for two
consecutive terms, during the first
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49028
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
applications window, for a total of six
years. We continue to believe that
‘‘three-year non-renewable license
terms—with the ability to aggregate up
to six years up-front—strike a balance
between some commenters’ desire for
flexibility with other commenters’ need
for certainty.’’ We set forth several
arguments in favor of these findings in
the 3.5 GHz R&O and CTIA has not
provided any new information that
would cause us to alter our analysis.
Indeed, the arguments raised by CTIA
and supporting parties are similar to
those raised by commenters in response
to the FNPRM. These arguments were
already thoroughly considered by the
Commission in the 3.5 GHz R&O. As
such, we continue to believe that threeyear, non-renewable license terms strike
the proper balance of interests for the
3.5 GHz Band.
44. We also continue to believe that
the current rules will effectively
incentivize network investment. As we
found in the 3.5 GHz R&O, the rules
governing the 3.5 GHz Band work in
concert to promote shared access to the
band, foster innovation, and ensure that
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users
are able to efficiently target their use of
the 3.5 GHz Band to their specific
needs. Non-renewable, short-term
licenses are an essential component of
this overall framework. They allow
operators to obtain PALs when and
where Priority Access to the band is
needed while permitting periodic,
market-based reassignment of these
rights in response to changes in local
conditions and operator needs. The
technical rules and band-wide
operability requirement ensure that
operators can easily utilize both Priority
Access and GAA spectrum in their
networks and seamlessly switch
between tiers without purchasing
additional equipment. In addition, our
decision not to impose specific
construction requirements for PALs
further increases the flexibility and
fungibility of these licenses and reduces
the barriers to fluid movement between
service tiers. These unique features of
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service
effectively negate the risk of stranded
investment for operators and incentivize
efficient network deployments.
45. CTIA asserts that deploying a
network takes ‘‘several years,’’ and that
six years is not a sufficient time period
to build a network and obtain the
financial return an operator would need
to justify making such investments. But
CTIA offers no support for its assertion
that ‘‘several years’’ must be more than
six years to do so or that a PAL is
necessary to facilitate network
construction. Nor does it address our
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
conclusion, as WISPA notes, that, even
for larger carriers, the economics and
upgrade cycles for small cell use may
resemble those for Wi-Fi deployments
rather than traditional macro cell
deployments. Furthermore, PAL
Licenses Areas are significantly smaller,
and therefore require less network
deployment, than market areas for other
wireless services. Given the differences
in the nature and scope of service in this
shared band, we continue to believe that
three-year, non-renewable PAL terms
along with the opportunity to acquire
two consecutive three-year licenses
during the initial PAL auction
reasonably balance the stated interests
of different users of this shared band.
This approach will promote
competition, spur innovation, and
encourage rapid network deployment in
the 3.5 GHz Band.
B. Assignment of PALs
46. Background. The Communications
Act, as amended, requires the
Commission to use competitive bidding
to assign licenses when ‘‘mutually
exclusive applications are accepted for
any initial license,’’ subject to specified
exemptions not applicable in this band
(47 U.S.C. 309(j)(1)–(2), (j)(6)(E)). In the
3.5 GHz R&O, we found that mutual
exclusivity exists when multiple
applicants elect to bid on more PALs
than exist in a given census tract. We
also found that, consistent with
previous spectrum auctions, mutual
exclusivity will be determined based
upon the Commission’s acceptance of
competing applications. Because of the
‘‘generic’’ nature of PAL frequency
assignments, when total PAL
applications exceed the PAL bandwidth
available in a License Area, PAL
applications are mutually exclusive
because granting one application would
create conflict with another application.
47. Once mutual exclusivity has been
established by competing accepted
applications seeking to acquire more
PALs than are available in a particular
geographic area, the PALs in that area
will be assigned by competitive bidding,
without regard to the number of
applicants that ultimately decide to bid
or the actual number of PALs for which
they place bids. Under this approach,
when there are two or more applicants
for PALs in a given census tract for a
specific auction, we will make available
one less PAL than the total number of
PALs in that tract for which all
applicants have applied, up to a
maximum of seven.
48. CTIA, Jon Peha, and Motorola
Solutions seek reconsideration of the
Commission’s method for determining
mutual exclusivity for PALs. Federated
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Wireless, UTC, and WISPA support
these petitions. Petitioners assert that
the Commission should make PALs
available even if only one applicant
applies for a PAL in any given census
tract and that the number of available
PALs should not depend on the number
requested by applicants. Petitioners
claim that prospective licensees may
have need for exclusive access to
spectrum in the 3.5 GHz Band and those
needs are not dependent on other
parties. In addition, Motorola Solutions,
Federated Wireless, and UTC contend
that the Commission’s rule would have
negative effects on critical infrastructure
industries that may have an interest in
exclusive spectrum access. Federated
Wireless, UTC, and WISPA argue that
the Commission’s approach to
determining mutual exclusivity is likely
to have a disproportionate negative
effect on applicants in rural areas,
where demand is likely to be sparser
than in more densely populated urban
and suburban areas.
49. John Peha argues that the
Commission has the legal authority to
auction PALs even when all
applications in a given License Area are
received from the same source. WISPA
and Motorola solutions suggest that the
Commission should set a reasonable
licensing or administrative fee if a single
applicant applies for a PAL in a given
census tract. Federated Wireless and
CTIA argue that PALs should be
assigned on a non-auctioned basis when
there is only one applicant in a given
License Area.
50. Discussion. After review of the
record, we largely affirm our decision in
the 3.5 GHz R&O and deny the petitions
for reconsideration of our determination
not to assign PALs in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service in geographic
areas for which there is only one
applicant, with one limited exception.
We modify our original decision to
address the limited case of applicants in
Rural Areas that may exhibit lower
demand than other areas. Specifically,
in the absence of mutually exclusive
applications, if there is a single
applicant for one or more PALs in a
License Area within a Rural Area, as
defined in section 96.3 (47 CFR 96.3),
we will allow for the assignment of one
PAL in that License Area. We believe
that this narrow exception is
appropriate to create an opportunity for
operators that provide broadband
services to Rural Areas to secure assured
exclusive access to spectrum, regardless
of competitive demand. As described
below, other than this very limited
exception, we affirm our decision to
issue PALs only through competitive
bidding.
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
51. Given the unique features of this
band, we concluded in the 3.5 GHz R&O
that our approach is consistent with the
Commission’s statutory authority and
precedent, and best serves the public
interest. Specifically, we found that if
there is only a single applicant seeking
PALs in a geographic area, and therefore
no mutual exclusivity (and hence we
have no auction authority), the best way
to discharge our statutory mandate to
‘‘encourage the larger and more effective
use of radio in the public interest’’ (47
U.S.C. 303(g)) is to provide access to
such spectrum via shared GAA use.
52. We continue to believe that the
approach adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O
fulfills our statutory mandate because it
establishes an auction process that
promotes ‘‘efficient and intensive use’’
of this spectrum, it allows for the
‘‘development and rapid deployment of
new technologies, products, and
services for the benefit of the public,
including those residing in rural areas,’’
and it ‘‘recover[s] for the public . . . a
portion of the value of the public
spectrum resource made available for
commercial use’’ (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3),
309(j)(4)). This is a market-based
approach that targets Priority Access
rights where and when there is actual
market demand. None of the petitioners
presented new evidence to cause us to
reconsider the conclusion that this
approach drives greater productivity
and efficiency in spectrum use and
promotes innovation and the
development of the next generation of
shared spectrum technologies by
providing ample opportunities for both
GAA and PAL operations.
53. Petitioners indicate that there may
be certain types of users or applications
that will require PALs for their
operations, regardless of whether there
are competing users filing applications
in a given census tract. The fundamental
benefit of a PAL is the right to exclusive
use of 10 megahertz of spectrum in a
given census tract. In the absence of
competition for the spectrum,
exclusivity is unnecessary. Further,
since there is no difference in the
technical rules governing GAA and
Priority Access devices and users, the
permissible use cases for each tier of
service are the same. In the absence of
multiple competing applications that
exceed the supply of PALs in a
geographic area, there should be ample
GAA spectrum available for interested
parties, thereby obviating the need for
exclusive rights. To the extent that
petitioners advocate for the assignment
of PALs in geographic areas for which
there is only one applicant because a
particular PAL applicant might
anticipate operations that it believes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
will require the interference protection
that is associated with those
authorizations, we decline to revise the
hybrid framework we adopted in the 3.5
GHz R&O. In balancing competing
public interest objectives, as we often
must, that framework was designed to
select the best approach to spectrum
management based on local supply and
demand. Accordingly, where
competitive rivalry for spectrum access
is low, we determined to allow the GAA
tier to provide a low-cost entry point to
the band. Where rivalry for spectrum
access is high, an auction will resolve
mutually exclusive applications for
PALs in specific geographic areas. We
further adopted finite-term licensing to
facilitate evolution of the band and an
ever-changing mix of GAA and Priority
Access bandwidth over time. As we
explained in the 3.5 GHz R&O, this
regulatory adaptability should make the
3.5 GHz Band hospitable to a wide
variety of users, deployment models,
and business cases, including some
solutions to market needs not
adequately served by our conventional
licensed or unlicensed rules. By
adopting rules that provide for
widespread GAA use of any spectrum
for which we have not received
mutually exclusive PAL applications,
we ensure that the spectrum will be put
to a use for which we have identified a
clear public interest need.
54. We reject WISPA’s assertion that
our approach ‘‘substitutes the
Commission’s business judgment about
shared spectrum use over an applicant’s
business decision that may favor
exclusive spectrum use.’’ Whether or
not a business desires exclusivity is
independent of whether there is a
market-based need for exclusivity
caused by rising demand for the
spectrum. The Commission’s approach
does indeed promote shared spectrum
use—a fundamental feature of the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service since
its inception—while providing for
prioritized access in areas with
heightened demand. In fact, the
Commission’s approach relies purely on
market demand to both trigger an
auction and allocate PALs according to
that demand, consistent with longstanding Commission practices that
efficiently assign spectrum licenses via
auction. Any method that would allow
PALs to be assigned absent competing
applications would not, as WISPA
suggests, ensure ‘‘a marketplace
decision,’’ but rather one likely to
encourage speculation, reduce spectrum
availability, and discourage innovation
in the band.
55. After review of the record, we do
however conclude that it would serve
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49029
the public interest to allow providers in
Rural Areas to have limited PAL access,
even in the absence of mutually
exclusive applications in that area.
Petitioners assert that, in the absence of
mutually exclusive PAL applications
accepted for a geographic area, the
approach adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O
will have a disproportionate negative
effect on rural providers, utilities, and
critical infrastructure facilities.
Petitioners claim that such users may
have a need for the ‘‘high quality of
service and interference protection that
can only be afforded through acquisition
of a PAL.’’ We note that many of these
entities—including utilities and rural
WISPs—currently utilize the 3650–3700
MHz band (and other bands including
2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 900 MHz) on a
non-exclusive basis without the option
of acquiring priority rights. These
entities should be able to provide
similar services in the 3.5 GHz Band
operating on a GAA basis with the
added option of purchasing a PAL if and
when demand from more than one party
exists in a given geographic area. In
addition, as described in this section
and section III(A), there is no type of
service that is permitted with a PAL that
would not be technically allowed or
viable under a GAA authorization—the
only variable is the ability to exclude
others from the use of the spectrum to
ensure interference protection, a need
which has not been fully supported in
the scenario of a single PAL applicant
in a geographic area.
56. However, given that demand for
PALs may well be lower in less
populated areas—particularly early in
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service
deployment cycle—some Rural Areas
may not have multiple applicants for
PALs. While we believe that rural
service providers can and will provide
a variety of robust broadband services in
these areas on a GAA basis, we believe
that the public interest would be served
by ensuring that a PAL is available to a
provider in these Rural Areas in the
unlikely event that there is a single PAL
applicant in a given area. Under this
limited exception we will allow for one
PAL in a License Area located in a Rural
Area in which mutually exclusivity
does not exist. If the Commission
receives only one application that is
acceptable for filing for a License Area
located in a Rural Area, the Commission
will issue a Public Notice cancelling the
auction for this license and establishing
a date for the filing of a long-form
application, the acceptance of which
would trigger the relevant procedures
permitting petitions to deny. We believe
that granting this limited exception to
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49030
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
our decision not to assign PALs in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service in
License Areas for which there is only
one applicant is an appropriate balance
that will serve the public interest by
allowing for the opportunity for a rural
service provider to acquire exclusive
spectrum use in a Rural Area where
such access may facilitate its ability to
provide innovative services to
customers in more remote locations.
However, recognizing the unique nature
of this exception, the Commission
reserves the right to review and
reconsider this approach at a later date.
We do not believe there is any reason
to change any other aspect of the PAL
licensing scheme for Rural Areas or any
other use case.
57. We also note that the opportunity
to purchase PALs is not a one-time
event for this band. Because PALs are
licensed for three-year, non-renewable
terms, we will periodically open
application windows for new PALs that
take effect upon expiration of previously
assigned PALs. Additionally, if
sufficient interest is expressed by
prospective PAL users, we will open
interim filing windows to accept
applications for unassigned PALs, i.e.,
PALs that could be made available for
auction, before the expiration of an
ongoing three-year PAL term. Therefore,
as the band develops, our approach
provides mechanisms to make PALs
available in response to changing
market conditions.
58. While we could issue PALs on a
non-auctioned basis—as suggested by
Federated Wireless and CTIA—we
conclude that doing so in this band
would not result in as efficient an
assignment of the spectrum as licensing
the spectrum for shared GAA use,
except for the limited exception
described above. As part of its proposal
that we assign PALs in a license area
with only one applicant, Motorola
Solutions asserted that the ‘‘interested
party would be expected to pay a
reasonable licensing/administrative fee
for such PAL use, and may be expected
to pay a reasonable fee to a SAS
database provider for interference
protection.’’ Neither Motorola Solutions
nor WISPA put forward any theory as to
how we would assess this fee under our
statutory authority, or how it could
replicate a mechanism reflecting the
spectrum’s fair market value. We believe
the record on this issue is insufficient to
support Motorola’s proposal. We
continue to believe the adopted rules
are the best way to ‘‘encourage the larger
and more effective use of radio in the
public interest’’ and nothing in the
record supports reconsideration of this
determination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
C. SAS and CBSD Response Time
59. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O,
the Commission adopted section
96.15(a)(4) (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4)), which
requires that, for CBSDs operating in the
3550–3650 MHz band, ‘‘[w]ithin 60
seconds after the ESC communicates
that it has detected a signal from a
federal system in a given area, the SAS
must either confirm suspension of the
CBSD’s operation or its relocation to
another unoccupied frequency, if
available.’’ The Commission adopted
identical requirements for CBSDs
operating in the 3650–3700 MHz band.
The Commission also requires that ‘‘A
CBSD must receive and comply with
any incoming commands from its
associated SAS about any changes to
power limits and frequency
assignments. A CBSD must cease
transmission, move to another
frequency range, or change its power
level within 60 seconds as instructed by
an SAS.’’
60. Motorola Solutions, Nokia
Solutions, and WinnForum petition the
Commission to increase the first of these
two intervals (SAS reconfiguration
response time in section 96.15) from 60
seconds to 600 seconds. WinnForum
contends that this increase is necessary
to ensure a smooth handover of CBSDs
to new frequencies or bands. They
emphasize the complexity of optimizing
these transitions among a number of
different SASs and network operators.
WinnForum also argues that some
critical infrastructure and emergency
use cases may need a longer time to
effect a seamless transition from the
affected frequencies. However, they
acknowledge that most CBSDs could
probably be cleared after only 300
seconds. Nokia Solutions also suggests
that the reconfiguration time be
increased to 600 seconds and indicates
that, even in a best case scenario, a
complex network cannot be suspended
or relocated within 60 seconds. Google
and WISPA also support WinnForum’s
Petition.
61. Google notes that there is a
tension between the SAS
reconfiguration rule and the second of
these two intervals (the reconfiguration
requirement in section 96.39 that
requires CBSDs to cease operations or
move to a non-interfering frequency
within 60 seconds of receiving
instructions from the SAS) (47 CFR
96.39). According to Google, in practice,
the combination of these two rules
would be to effectively require CBSDs to
take action in less than 60 seconds.
Google contends that, to resolve this
tension, the Commission should
increase the interval for SASs to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
respond to ESC directions but retain the
60-second timeframe for CBSDs to
respond to SAS commands.
62. SIA argues that the 60-second
response time in section 96.39 (47 CFR
96.39) for CBSDs to move or discontinue
operations is too long and asks that the
Commission reduce that timeframe. SIA
argues that even a one-minute delay
could cause significant damage to
incumbent satellite systems. SIA asserts
that, since the CBSD response time is in
addition to any additional time needed
for the SAS to process information from
the CBSD and communicate with the
device, interference could continue for
longer than 60 seconds in practice. SIA
asserts that the petitions for increases in
SAS response time only reinforce their
concerns about how quickly harmful
interference into incumbent FSS earth
stations can be addressed. Google
asserts that SIA misunderstands the
different types of commands addressed
by the Commission’s rules and the
arguments made by petitioners. Google
contends that nothing in petitioners’
requests to increase the SAS
reconfiguration timeframe in section
96.15 (47 CFR 96.15) casts doubt on the
ability of CBSDs to respond to
instructions from an SAS within the 60second window established by section
96.39 (47 CFR 96.39).
63. Discussion. After review of the
record, we believe that the SAS
reconfiguration time should be
increased. Petitioners contend that 60
seconds is an insufficient window for
SASs and licensees to effectively
reconfigure their networks in response
to reported interference. Indeed, Nokia
Solutions argues that it may be
impossible to effect such changes even
under ideal circumstances. These
problems are likely to be more acute
with networks consisting of a large
number of CBSDs. While we take no
position on the veracity of these claims,
from the evidence presented, it appears
that increasing the SAS reconfiguration
timeframe will help to promote robust
development and deployment of
broadband networks in the 3.5 GHz
Band.
64. However, given the importance of
the incumbent services present in the
band, we do not believe that the 600second SAS reconfiguration timeframe
suggested by commenters is appropriate.
Federal Incumbent Users must be
assured that their mission critical
operations will be protected from
harmful interference and that any
interference reported will be addressed
in a timely manner. Therefore, we
amend section 96.15(a)(4) and (b)(4) of
the rules (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4) and (b)(4))
and extend the SAS reconfiguration
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
timeframe to 300 seconds. Both Nokia
Solutions and WinnForum indicated
that, while not ideal, a 300-second
reconfiguration window would be
adequate for a majority of CBSDs to
effectively cease transmitting or
transition to a non-interfering
frequency. They do not provide a basis
for why as much as 600-seconds is
needed, even for a large network. We
also amend sections 96.15(a)(4) and
(b)(4) (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4) and (b)(4)) to
clarify that the 300-second
reconfiguration window applies to
notifications regarding federal use from
the ESC or any other source, including
federal Incumbent Users themselves.
This modification is necessary to ensure
that federal Incumbent Users are
protected from harmful interference in
all circumstances. However, the 300second timeframe will not necessarily
apply if the President of the United
States (or another designated Federal
Government entity) issues instructions
to discontinue use of CBSDs pursuant to
section 706 of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 157), as amended
(War Powers of President) (47 U.S.C.
606). In such cases, SAS Administrators
must instruct CBSDs to cease operations
as soon as technically possible (but no
more than 300-seconds). We also note
that at this time there is no indication
of how the increase in the SAS
reconfiguration time will impact federal
radar systems. If it is demonstrated there
is an operational impact to the federal
radar systems, the Commission will
review the SAS reconfiguration
timeframe and will take appropriate
steps to address the operational impact
to federal radar systems.
65. While some commenters claim
that even this extended reconfiguration
window may cause service interruptions
in some cases, we believe that 300
seconds will ordinarily provide
operators with sufficient time to
smoothly discontinue transmissions or
move to non-interfering frequencies.
Moreover, given the critical importance
of the federal operations in the band, we
must ensure that CBSDs are shut down
as quickly as possible after the presence
of federal operations is reported by an
ESC or actual interference is reported by
a federal user. This change also resolves
the tension between sections 96.15 and
96.39 (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4), 96.39(c)(2))
pointed out by Google. Therefore, we
find that a 300-second response
timeframe strikes the appropriate
balance between protecting incumbent
operations and facilitating commercial
deployments in the band. In addition,
given the technical capabilities of SASs
and CBSDs, we believe that it is both
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
reasonable and technically feasible to
require Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users to comply with this
modified response timeframe.
66. We refuse SIA’s request to shorten
the 60-second CBSD reconfiguration
timeframe in section 96.39 of the rules.
As Google correctly notes, SIA’s
arguments on this point were
considered by the Commission when
the rule was adopted. SIA does not raise
any substantive new arguments that
would compel us to override our prior
decision. To the extent that incumbent
FSS earth station licensees may have
specific, time-limited requests for
protection during certain periods, we
encourage FSS licensees to work with
SAS Administrators to address these
concerns. As detailed in section III(H)(2)
and section 96.17(f) (47 CFR 96.17(f)),
SAS Administrators must develop
procedures to receive and respond to
such requests. Accordingly, in light of
this requirement, we continue to believe
that the 60-second CBSD
reconfiguration timeframe in section
96.39 (47 CFR 96.39) is sufficient to
ensure that federal and non-federal
users are protected.
D. CBSD Power Limits
67. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O,
the Commission found that ‘‘it is vitally
important to establish flexible, yet
simple, rules that would allow for a
wide variety of innovative services to be
deployed in the 3.5 GHz Band.’’ To
advance this goal, the Commission
defined two categories of CBSDs—
Category A and Category B—with
parameters appropriate for different use
cases. Category A and Category B CBSDs
are differentiated primarily by their
maximum permissible power and the
rules governing their deployment. In
addition, Category B CBSDs may only be
authorized in the 3550–3650 MHz
portion of the band after an ESC is
approved and operational. GAA users
and Priority Access Licensees may
operate CBSDs in both categories and
must operate in accordance with
instructions from an SAS which, for
interference prevention purposes, may
authorize an operational power level
below the maximum allowable power
level (47 CFR 96.41, 96.43, 96.45).
68. Category A CBSDs are limited to
a maximum conducted transmit power
of 24 dBm and a maximum EIRP of 30
dBm in 10 megahertz and may be
deployed either indoors or outdoors
(with antennas for outdoor deployments
not exceeding 6 meters height above
average terrain) (47 CFR 96.41(b),
96.43(a)). These parameters are
consistent with the baseline small cell
use case proposed in the FNPRM and
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49031
the phased federal-commercial sharing
plan proposed by NTIA and adopted in
the 3.5 GHz R&O.
69. Category B CBSDs, which may
only be used outdoors, are permitted to
operate at higher power than Category
A, providing greater flexibility and
ensuring ongoing compatibility with
existing 3650–3700 MHz band
operations (47 CFR 96.41(b), 96.45). In
non-rural areas, the conducted power
limit is the same as Category A (24
dBm/10 MHz), but the EIRP limit is 40
dBm/10 MHz. In rural areas, the
conducted power limit is increased to
30 dBm/10 MHz and EIRP to 47 dBm/
10 MHz (47 CFR 96.41(b)). The EIRP
limit was set to encourage the use of
higher gain antennas and directional
transmission in urban areas to facilitate
co-existence of PALs and GAAs in
spatially tight spectrum sharing
environment. The higher rural power
limits reflect challenges for deploying
wireless coverage in rural areas as well
as decreased contention for spectrum
resources due to lower population
density in those areas.
70. CTIA, Motorola Solutions, Nokia
Solutions, Verizon, and WinnForum
petitioned the Commission to increase
CBSD power limits. AT&T and
Federated Wireless supported these
arguments. Petitioners assert that the
maximum power levels for Category A
devices should be raised to 36 dBm
EIRP. Petitioners contend that the
Category A power levels adopted by the
Commission are insufficient to provide
significant indoor coverage. Nokia
Solutions and WinnForum also contend
that a 36 dBm maximum EIRP would be
consistent with levels the Commission
has approved for unlicensed devices.
71. Petitioners also argue that the
maximum permissible EIRP for Category
B CBSDs should be raised to 49 dBm for
non-rural deployments and to 56 dBm
for rural deployments. WinnForum
contends that the proposed increases
would bring the Commission’s rules in
line with the power levels of existing
urban pico-cells. Verizon contends that
the maximum EIRP that the Commission
adopted for Category B CBSDs is well
below the power levels of the small cells
that are used in current licensed
deployments. Verizon also argues that
the existing rules would significantly
limit the coverage that each cell could
achieve, driving up network costs.
Federated Wireless agrees and adds that
‘‘Even at the increased EIRP limit,
CBSDs will still operate at power levels
no greater than those employed in
typical small cell deployments.’’
72. Many petitioners also assert that
the Commission should increase the
flexibility for operators to deploy lower
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49032
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
gain antennas by relaxing the
limitations on conducted power for
Category A and B CBSDs. For example,
Nokia Solutions and Verizon argue that
the limitations on conducted power
should be removed entirely to provide
additional flexibility network operators
in the 3.5 GHz Band. WinnForum
proposes that the allowed conducted
power be scaled up 1 dB for each 1 dB
lost in antenna gain, up to the maximum
of 40 dBm conducted power for
Category B CBSDs. WinnForum argues
that this approach would not preclude
the use of omni-directional antennas
while still maintaining adequate
coverage areas for outdoor deployments.
73. SIA opposes any increase in
maximum EIRP for Category A or
Category B CBSDs and, in fact, argues
that they should be reduced to levels
stated in the FNPRM. SIA contends that
higher EIRP limits will increase the
risks of interference with incumbent
FSS earth stations and significantly
increase the size of required separation
distances around these stations. They
also see risks associated with not
limiting the antenna height for Category
B CBSDs due to interference to
incumbent in-band and out-of-band FSS
receivers.
74. WISPA argues that the
Commission should not change the
maximum allowable EIRP for Category B
CBSDs. In WISPA’s view, the
Commission’s rules strike the proper
balance between various interests and
encourage operators of outdoor
networks to deploy more efficient, highgain, sectorized antennas. Federated
Wireless disagrees with WISPA and
contends that increased EIRP and
flexibility is essential to promote
innovation and enable more efficient
spectrum use.
75. Discussion. After review of the
record, we agree with commenters that
contend that additional flexibility for
non-rural outdoor CBSDs would
promote deployment in the band and,
accordingly, we increase the maximum
allowable EIRP for non-rural Category B
CBSDs from 40 dBm/10 MHz to 47
dBm/10 MHz, making the power levels
allowed for both non-rural and rural
deployments the same. Category B
CBSDs will continue to be authorized
for use in the 3550–3650 MHz band
only after an ESC is approved and
commercially deployed consistent with
sections 96.15 and 96.67 (47 CFR 96.15,
96.67). We also eliminate the conducted
power limits for all CBSDs. However,
we also conclude that it would not be
in the public interest to increase the
maximum allowable EIRP for Category
A CBSDs and rural Category B CBSDs
beyond the levels established in the 3.5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
GHz R&O. Combined, these changes
will provide increased flexibility to all
network operators without increasing
the potential for interference in the 3.5
GHz Band.
76. As we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O,
we are cognizant that the determination
of power limits for all categories of
CBSD must balance the consideration of
several different public interest
objectives. On the one hand, higher
limits may provide more technical and
operational flexibility for users of the
band to increase coverage with fewer
CBSDs, potentially reducing
deployment costs. On the other hand,
lower power limits may lead to greater
spatial reuse of the band, reduced
coexistence challenges, and increased
aggregate network capacity. Our
determinations herein strive to balance
these considerations to create a flexible
regime suitable for a wide variety of use
cases.
77. With regard to Category B CBSDs,
we agree with commenters that higher
maximum EIRP may help promote more
flexible use and reduce deployment
costs in non-rural areas while not
significantly increasing coexistence
issues. Specifically, we increase the
maximum EIRP for Category B CBSDs in
non-rural areas to 47 dBm/10 MHz to
match the maximum EIRP permitted in
rural areas. Petitioners generally argue
that higher power is needed to facilitate
network deployment and decrease costs.
Although we remain concerned about
more substantial power increases in
more congested areas, we agree that
allowing non-rural CBSDs to match the
EIRP of rural CBSDs is consistent with
the Commission’s goals for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service and is a
modest increase that will not adversely
affect the interference environment in
the 3.5 GHz Band.
78. However, we do not agree that the
maximum EIRP for Category B CBSDs
should be increased to 49 dBm/10 MHz
in non-rural areas and 56 dBm/10 MHz
in rural areas as requested by several
petitioners. While we see the merit in
increasing the maximum power
available to network operators using
Category B CBSDs in non-rural areas, we
believe that an increase to 47 dBm/
10MHz to match the level permitted for
rural CBSDs will adequately address the
concerns raised by Petitioners without
negative effects on the interference
environment in the band. This change
represents a significant increase in
power for non-rural applications with a
corresponding potential for more
coverage area for each CBSD. This
change will also simplify the rules by
removing the distinction between rural
and non-rural power levels, allowing for
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
uniform development and deployment
of Category B CBSDs. We also note that
Category B CBSDs will continue to be
authorized for use in the 3550–3650
MHz band only after an ESC is approved
and commercially deployed consistent
with sections 96.15 and 96.67 (47 CFR
96.15, 96.67).
79. We continue to believe that the
power limit that we adopted for
Category A CBSDs in the 3.5 GHz R&O
is appropriate for the baseline—
primarily indoor or at street level—
small cell use case in the band.
Moreover, the Exclusion Zones
protecting federal radar systems that
were studied by NTIA and adopted in
the 3.5 GHz R&O are based on a
maximum EIRP of 30 dBm/10 MHz. Any
change to the maximum EIRP for
Category A CBSDs would require the
Exclusion Zones to be reconsidered and
expanded, preventing deployment in
large portions of the country prior to the
development and approval of an ESC.
80. While we acknowledge that some
petitioners would prefer that we
increase the Category A power levels to
allow higher power levels indoors, we
believe that the rules appropriately
balance the need for operational
flexibility with the need to promote
efficient spatial and spectral reuse of the
band. Transmitting at higher power
levels indoors and low outdoor
elevations—especially in high traffic
areas with multiple PALs and GAAs
operating in the same or nearby
locations—would likely present
significant coexistence challenges.
Higher power levels in dense indoor
deployments would also increase the
likelihood of interference from operators
assigned to adjacent channels due to
receiver blocking effects. Thus, given
the interference risks associated with
higher power levels, the delays in
deployment of this new service that
would result from revisiting the size of
the Exclusion Zones prior to
implementing an ESC capability, and
the disruption to the balance between
PAL and GAA use struck in the 3.5 GHz
R&O, we conclude that the maximum
EIRP for Category A CBSDs should
remain capped at 30 dBm/10 MHz.
81. We are also cognizant of the
concerns raised by SIA regarding the
need for greater protections for FSS
earth stations in the presence of higher
power CBSDs but note that the FSS
interference protection criteria
described in section IV(C)(1) addresses
these concerns. We emphasize that the
increase in allowable EIRP for non-rural
Category B CBSDs is an increase in the
maximum allowable EIRP and should
not be construed as a guaranteed power
level for CBSD deployments, whether
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
they are operated on a GAA or Priority
Access basis. We note that CBSDs must
still comply with the Commission’s
rules to prevent interference to
Incumbent Users, including the
requirements to operate only at power
levels and in locations authorized by the
SAS (47 CFR 96.39(c)). Indeed, given
that the potential for co-channel and
adjacent channel interference may
increase at higher power levels, the
SAS’s responsibility to authorize lower
maximum operational power limits,
when and where needed to meet the
interference protection requirements as
defined in Commission’s rules, will be
even more important in light of the
increased maximum power levels
authorized herein.
82. Finally, we find that removing
maximum conducted power limits for
all CBSDs will provide operators with
additional flexibility for network
deployments and encourage investment
in the band. Several petitioners,
including WinnForum, Verizon, and
Federated Wireless, contend that the
Commission’s rules requiring Category
B CBSDs to use sectorized, highly
directional antennas in urban areas
would lead to inefficient deployments.
Notably, Federated Wireless contends
that, since most CBSDs will be deployed
below the clutter in urban areas,
sectorized antennas would be unable to
provide the coverage needed for urban
deployment. In addition, since the
Exclusion Zones and other protection
contours in the band are based on EIRP,
removing the conducted power limits
should not increase the required
protection areas around incumbent
sites. Therefore, we agree with
petitioners that, on balance, increased
flexibility will serve the public interest
and promote investment in the 3.5 GHz
Band. We note that this has no impact
on our OOBE requirements, which
continue to be expressed in terms of
conducted power. That is, although the
rule changes described in this section
will allow higher total conducted
power, they do not allow higher OOBE
power.
83. In making this change to remove
maximum conducted power limits for
all CBSDs we also recognize that we
must limit the peak to average power
ratio (PAPR) of signals in the band so
that excessive peak power levels do not
cause transient interference into other
systems. Many commenters have
expressed interest in deploying LTE
equipment in the 3.5 GHz Band. We
note that such signals use OFDM based
modulation, which can have a large
PAPR. NTIA recently published
emission spectrum measurements for a
3.5 GHz LTE hot spot device shows that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
the peak to average ratio of such devices
may range as high as 12–13 dB. Thus,
based on these measurements and
consistent with the Commission’s rules
in other licensed mobile broadband
services, we are limiting CBSD PAPR to
no more than 13 dB (47 CFR 24.232(d)
and 27.50(a)(1)(B) and (d)(5)).
84. Finally, SIA argues that unlimited
antenna heights for Category B CBSDs
will necessitate larger protection areas
for FSS earth stations. SIA does not
propose a specific remedy or alternate
rule governing antenna heights. We note
that Category B CBSDs are required to
report antenna height as part of their
CBSD registration under section
96.45(d) (47 CFR 96.45(d)) and SASs are
required to take such antenna height
(along with maximum power, location,
antenna configuration, and other
registered information) into
consideration when calculating
potential interference effects and
protection distances (47 CFR 96.17(d),
96.45(d), 96.53, 96.55). Indeed, the
protection criteria set forth in the rules
may require an effective limit on
Category B antenna elevation in some
cases. We continue to believe that the
SAS can utilize information reported by
CBSDs to effectively coordinate
operations in the 3.5 GHz Band and see
no reason to impose restrictions on the
height of Category B CBSD antennas at
this time.
E. OOBE and Adjacent Channel
Emissions Limits
1. OOBE and Adjacent Channel
Emissions
85. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O,
we adopted emissions and interference
limits that will further the
Commission’s goals and promote
effective coexistence of different users
in the band. Specifically, we adopted
the following conducted OOBE limits
for devices in the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service:
• ¥13 dBm/MHz from 0 to 10
megahertz from the SAS assigned
channel edge
• ¥25 dBm/MHz beyond 10
megahertz from the SAS assigned
channel edge down to 3530 MHz and up
to 3720 MHz
• ¥40 dBm/MHz below 3530 MHz
and above 3720 MHz
86. CTIA, Nokia Solutions, and SIA
petition the Commission to change its
OOBE limits. CTIA contends that the
¥40 dBm/MHz OOBE limit simply is
too restrictive and is not necessary to
protect operations in the adjacent band
below 3530 MHz and above 3720 MHz.
CTIA also asserts that, if the
Commission determines that the ¥40
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49033
dBm/MHz limit is necessary to protect
adjacent operations, the Commission
should increase the transition gap to 40
megahertz to allow operators using 20
megahertz LTE channels to operate at
higher power. Qualcomm supports
CTIA’s comments and asserts that the
FCC should not implement tighter
OOBE limits at the 3700 MHz band edge
for certain classes of devices to protect
C-band FSS earth stations. According to
Qualcomm, stringent OOBE limits will
challenge equipment designs and likely
force mobile devices to use significantly
less power and/or operate well inside
the 3.5 GHz Band edges to comply.
Google, T-Mobile, and WISPA also
support relaxation of the OOBE limits.
87. Nokia Solutions recommends that
the Commission define OOBE limits
that comply with 3GPP specifications
and would allow the use of Bands 42
and 43 in the United States. According
to Nokia only the requirement of ¥25
dBm/MHz beyond 10 MHz from the
assigned channel edge down to 3530
MHz and up to 3720 MHz complies
with the 3GPP specification.
88. CTIA also argues that the
Commission should adopt a limit of
¥13 dBm/MHz from 0–20 megahertz
outside the assigned channel edge and
a limit of ¥25 dBm/MHz for
frequencies more than 20 megahertz
outside each assigned channel edge.
Qualcomm agrees and contends that the
emissions limits that apply outside of
the channel of operation were designed
around supporting 10 MHz-wide LTE
channels, and thus would force 20 MHz
LTE and 40 MHz LTE operations to use
substantially lower transmit power than
the level 10 MHz LTE operations are
permitted to use. According to
Qualcomm, such reductions will create
coverage challenges and limit the band’s
ability to support wider bandwidth LTE
operations. Similarly, T-Mobile argues
that 20 megahertz LTE channels would
have to be at least 20 megahertz from
the channel-edge to meet the ¥25 dBm/
MHz limit without significantly
reducing power levels. The reduced
power necessary to meet the ¥25 dBm/
MHz limit would in turn reduce
coverage of those 20 megahertz channels
and would depress operators’ desire to
deploy those channels.
89. On the other hand, SIA argues that
more restrictive OOBE limits are needed
to effectively protect C-Band FSS earth
stations from CBSD transmissions. SIA
also asserts that the OOBE limits
adopted by the Commission were
implemented without the required legal
notice. According to SIA, under the
Commission’s current OOBE rules,
separation distances between CBSDs
and FSS earth stations could be more
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49034
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
than 15 km. GCI also argues that the
Commission should implement more
stringent OOBE limits at the upper edge
of the 3.5 GHz Band. According to GCI,
at a minimum, a ¥40 dBm/MHz limit
should be implemented at the band edge
to protect C-Band FSS earth station
receivers.
90. Some parties support the
Commission’s current OOBE limits.
Notably, Verizon argues that the current
OOBE limits are sound and oppose
further OOBE restrictions. Federated
Wireless also contends that the
Commission need not reconsider the
OOBE issue now.
91. Discussion. After review of the
diverse record on this issue, we deny
the petitions for reconsideration that
requested changes to the OOBE limits
that the Commission adopted in the 3.5
GHz R&O. We continue to believe that
the existing OOBE rules properly
balance the need to protect operations
in adjacent bands—and in adjacent
channels within the 3.5 GHz Band—
with the need to create an environment
that will promote robust deployment of
broadband systems in the band.
92. We also believe that, while the
OOBE limits are more restrictive than
those in other bands, they are wholly
consistent with the capabilities of the
equipment and services likely to be
deployed in the 3.5 GHz Band. For
emissions below 3530 MHz and above
3720 MHz, NTIA measurements show
that the OOBE of commercial products
that operate within the 3.5 GHz Band
can be lower than ¥40 dBm/MHz at
offsets higher than 20 megahertz. Thus,
according to NTIA research, the
approach adopted by the Commission
appears to be practically realizable with
existing state-of-the-art products at little
or no added cost and will provide
additional protection for incumbent
systems while allowing for more
extensive deployment of CBSDs in the
3.5 GHz Band.
93. We disagree with CTIA and
Qualcomm’s argument that the
Commission’s OOBE limits should be
changed since they would force
operators using 20 megahertz channels
to reduce power to comply with the
rules. As we noted in the 3.5 GHz R&O,
ten megahertz channels provide a
flexible, scalable, and practically
deployable bandwidth for high data rate
technologies, permitting multiple
Priority Access Licensees to operate in
the same geographic area. While
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users
are permitted to aggregate PAL channels
or operate across wider bandwidths—
consistent with section 96.31 (47 CFR
96.31)—the technical rules required for
effective coexistence between and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
among different users of the band do not
change, regardless of the how much
bandwidth is in use. We also note that
power reduction may not be necessary
if Citizens Broadband Radio Service
users utilize robust filters or other
alternative methods to address our
OOBE limits. While the flexibility to
aggregate spectrum is a key element of
the Commission’s licensing regime,
reducing OOBE limits solely to
accommodate wider bandwidths would
not further the principles of shared
access that are at the heart of this
proceeding.
94. Moreover, petitioners do not
provide convincing evidence or
technical analysis to support their
claims regarding power reduction nor
do they address the potential effects
such changes could have on adjacent
channel operations. We also expect to
see more spectrally efficient commercial
products enter the marketplace in the
near future that will meet or exceed our
requirements. The current rules support
the development of such new and
innovative technologies while ensuring
a proper balance between the current
and future users of the band.
95. We also reject SIA’s arguments
that the strictest OOBE limits adopted
by the Commission (¥40 dBm/MHz)
should have been set beginning at 3680
MHz, which is 20 megahertz below the
lower edge of the adjacent C-Band,
rather than at 3720 MHz. SIA argues
that failing to do so will lead to
impermissible interference into C-Band
FSS earth stations. As we stated in the
3.5 GHz R&O, the ¥13 dBm/MHz OOBE
limit at the band edge is consistent with
Commission precedent both in this band
and in other licensed spectrum bands.
In addition, the transition gap that
requires OOBE to drop to ¥25 dBm/
MHz after a 10 megahertz offset and
¥40 dBm/MHz above 3720 megahertz is
significantly more stringent than limits
in other bands or the limits that the
Commission previously adopted for the
3650–3700 MHz Wireless Broadband
Radio Service. The Commission adopted
these more stringent limits in
recognition of the need to provide
additional protection for important
operations in the C-Band. Indeed, as
detailed above, several petitioners
continue to object to these limits as too
stringent for certain wireless broadband
uses in the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service. After review of the record, we
remain convinced that the OOBE limits
adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O strike the
appropriate balance between the need to
facilitate innovation and investment in
the 3.5 GHz Band and the need to
protect licensed C-Band FSS earth
stations from interference.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
96. However, while we maintain the
existing OOBE limits, we do
acknowledge SIA’s concerns regarding
potential interference into C-Band
receivers used for critical telemetry,
tracking, and control (TT&C) operations
at the band edge. Therefore, as detailed
in section IV(C)(2), we adopt rules to
provide additional protection for these
facilities. We also adopt new rules to
facilitate coordination between Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users and
licensed C-Band FSS earth stations to
address any interference issues that may
arise.
97. Finally, we reject SIA’s assertion
that the Commission did not provide
proper notice prior to adopting the
current OOBE rules in the 3.5 GHz R&O.
As SIA itself notes, in the FNPRM, the
Commission: (1) Proposed an OOBE
limit of ¥13 dBm/MHz at the band edge
and ¥40 dBm/MHz and 30 megahertz
above and below the proposed band
edges; (2) sought comment on both
OOBE limits and the size of the
transition gap; and (3) sought comment
on extending the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service to 3700 MHz. Even prior
to that time, the Licensing PN sought
comment on ‘‘[w]hat provisions would
need to be made for incumbent
operators’’ if the band were so extended.
And in the 3.5 GHz R&O itself, the
Commission determined to seek further
comment on ‘‘steps we can take over
and above those we’ve already taken to
preempt and mitigate the potential for
interference’’ to incumbent C-Band
licensees, referring specifically to ‘‘our
baseline emission performance rule.’’
98. As SIA correctly states, ‘‘a final
rule need not be an exact replica of the
rule proposed in the Notice, the final
rule must be a ‘logical outgrowth’ of the
rule proposed.’’ In this case, the
Commission had sought comment on
the need for interference protections
relating to extension of the band edge
from 3650 MHz to 3700 MHz. The
OOBE limits later proposed in the
FNPRM were clearly intended to apply
to the upper and lower bounds of the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service and
the Commission made it clear that those
bounds could extend to 3700 MHz.
Indeed, the Commission originally
sought comment on extending the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service to
3700 MHz in the original NPRM
released in December of 2012. Thus, the
extension of the 3.5 GHz Band—and
with it the OOBE rules applicable at and
beyond the band edge—was wholly
foreseeable and a clear logical
outgrowth of the Commission’s
proposals. In addition, the 3.5 GHz R&O
itself provided parties with yet a further
opportunity to comment on the
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
approaches that the Commission could
utilize to protect C-Band FSS earth
stations.
2. Emission Power Measurements and
Testing Methodology
99. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O,
we adopted a rule that requires that
emission power measurements be
performed with a peak detector in
maximum hold. CTIA objects to this
testing methodology and asks the
Commission to adopt a different
measurement technique. Qualcomm, TMobile, WinnForum, and WISPA
support CTIA’s request. CTIA contends
that the use of an RMS detector to
measure emissions would be wholly
consistent with the Commission’s rules
governing most other commercial
licensed and unlicensed services. In
addition, CTIA states that the peak to
average ratio for emissions from LTE
signals can easily exceed 10 dB and
compelling Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users to operate with that much
less power would effectively cripple the
band’s ability to support mobile
broadband operations. WISPA agrees
and adds that, not only would
measuring at peak power require mobile
operations to operate at significantly
less power, but this would similarly
impinge upon the ability of fixed
providers to operate at the maximum
authorized power.
100. In addition, WinnForum argues
that 10+ dB signal strengths over
average captured by the current rule
would exist for less than 0.01% of the
time for any one signal. WinnForum
also contends that requiring devices to
be tested using a peak detector at
maximum hold effectively requires that
devices be certified at the maximum
possible signal strength at any given
time and is a very poor representation
of actual interference impact. According
to WinnForum, the part 96 emission
limits are already stringent, and become
simply unattainable when adding over
10dB penalty through the peak detector/
max hold requirement. WinnForum also
claims that the effects would likely be
similar for other wideband systems (WiFi, WiMAX, etc.).
101. SIA disagrees with WinnForum
and argues that the Commission should
retain the peak measurement test for
OOBE. SIA states that ignoring peak
emission levels in favor of reliance on
average measurements would
undermine the prophylactic objectives
of the OOBE limits. SIA contends that,
by CTIA’s own admission, the change
would allow power increases of 10 dB
or more. According to SIA, because peak
emissions can have significant
interference effects, the Commission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
must continue to require use of a peak
detector to determine OOBE limit
compliance.
102. Google supports WinnForum’s
filing and argues that SIA’s claims
should be rejected. Google asserts that
all signals, including LTE, Wi-Fi,
WiMAX, and even Gaussian thermal
noise will have statistical variations in
the instantaneous amplitude of the
waveform and argues that, for this
reason neither cellular, AWS, PCS, or
700 MHz emission are measured using
peak hold. Google also asserts that,
since the PAPR and signal statistics of
LTE and Gaussian thermal noise are
similar, the measurement of their
interference potential should be treated
in the same way. Accordingly, Google
argues that if SIA insists on measuring
CBSD emissions using peak values, the
system noise of FSS receivers should be
characterized in the same manner.
103. Discussion. After careful review
of the record, we conclude that emission
power measurements may be performed
using either RMS-detection or peakdetection. We agree with petitioners that
requiring the use of a peak detector
operating at maximum hold to test
emission limits does not serve the
public interest. As WinnForum argues,
requiring the use of peak measurements
may effectively prevent the
development and deployment of
equipment in the band. Moreover, the
decision to allow the use of RMS
measurements is consistent with
existing Commission rules for several
other licensed services in the past,
including the AWS bands 47 CFR
27.50(b)(11), (c)(11), (d)(6), (h)(4)(i),
24.132(d)–(f). In other services, the
Commission has adopted the emission
power measurement by giving the
option of detecting peak value or
average value 47 CFR 27.53(a)(7),
(h)(3)(iii). This decision will provide the
measurement lab with a great deal of
flexibility to select the appropriate
detection type during the certification
process.
104. RF power measurement is a
function of the receiver bandwidth and
detection method whether the signal is
detected using a peak or average
technique. LTE signals are using OFDM
based modulation in downlink which
are known to have large PAPRs which
may be beyond the 10 dB margin.
Google also points out that the PAPRs
and signal statistics of LTE and
Gaussian thermal noise are generally
similar, and thermal noise is typically
evaluated using mean measurements.
Recent NTIA lab measurements of
emission spectrum for a commercial
LTE hot spot device operating in the 3.5
GHz Band has shown PAPRs of up to
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49035
about 12–13 dB. The PAPR for an LTE
signal is a random value that fluctuates
over a wide range and depends on
modulation type and number of subcarriers used.
105. We reject SIA’s argument that
retaining the peak detector at maximum
hold measurement requirement is
necessary to prevent harmful
interference into C-Band FSS earth
stations. SIA contends that this
measurement approach is necessary
because ‘‘peak emissions may have
significant interference effects.’’
However, the issue is not what is
commonly referred to as ‘‘peak power’’
but rather extremely short duration
transient signals that typically have
little energy and, therefore, generally do
not reflect interference potential. In
effect, requiring devices to be tested
using a peak detector at max hold
requires devices to be certified at their
‘‘worst case’’ configuration which
would present an unrealistic view of the
actual interference potential of any
given device. This approach is
inconsistent with our oft stated rejection
of worst case approaches to
measurements and interference
protection analysis. Moreover, as Google
notes, SIA’s assertion that CBSD
emission levels should be measured
using a peak detector, while their own
system noise levels are exempt from
such a requirement, is logically
inconsistent and mathematically
unsound.
106. In addition, WinnForum argues
that, since incumbent protections in the
3.5 GHz Band will be calculated using
aggregate interference from multiple
CBSDs, certifying CBSDs using a peak
detector at max hold will compound the
effects of these worst case certifications,
yielding an unrealistic picture of the RF
environment. On the other hand,
calculating aggregate interference effects
based on average measurements will
present a more realistic picture of the
actual RF environment for the purpose
of determining protection of incumbent
systems, including FSS earth stations.
We agree with CTIA, Google, and
WinnForum that maintaining the peak
detector at maximum hold requirement
would be unnecessary, particularly in
light of the cap on peak-to-average
emissions we adopt below. Maintaining
this approach would also be
inconsistent with the Commission’s
goals for the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service and would not promote spectral
efficiency and co-existence among
various users in the 3.5 GHz Band and
adjacent bands.
107. It is also typically easier to
measure emissions using the peak
detected signal as part of standard
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49036
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
measurements. Accordingly, under our
revised rules, if the device passes the
peak detection requirements, no further
RMS-detection is needed to meet the
OOBE conditions; otherwise, the RMSdetection method can be applied.
However, in order to circumvent any
effect of peak power spikes, as indicated
in the CBSD power requirement section,
we will also require that the PAPR of
the transmitter output power not exceed
13 dB consistent with the Commission’s
previous rules in other licensed mobile
broadband services 47 CFR 24.32(d),
27.50(a)(1)(B) and (d)(5). NTIA lab
measurements on LTE hot spot devices
also support our finding that a 13 dB
margin is reasonable for industry to
achieve.
108. We believe the combination of
changing the requirement to include the
use of RMS detection for emission
measurement, along with setting the
PAPR limitation, will diminish the
potential for interference between and
among Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users and Incumbent Users
while promoting efficient use of the
band. We disagree with SIA’s assertions
and note that RMS measurement is
commonly used by the Commission
and, in fact, is commonly used in other
bands. Indeed, allowing such flexible
measurement techniques here will help
promote the next generation of shared
spectrum technologies, and will drive
greater productivity and efficiency in
spectrum usage.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
F. Device Geo-Location
1. Location Accuracy and Alternative
Measurement Approaches
109. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O
we required that all CBSDs must
accurately report the location
coordinates (referenced to the North
American Datum of 1983, NAD83) of
each of their antennas to within ±50
meters (horizontal) and ±3 meters
(vertical) (47 CFR 96.39(a)). We found
that, for the SAS to accurately predict
and evaluate interference and channel
availability, it must receive and store
accurate location information for all
CBSDs.
110. Motorola Solutions, Nokia
Solutions, and WinnForum filed
petitions for reconsideration requesting
that Commission relax the existing
accuracy requirements and suggest,
alternatively, that the Commission allow
the SAS to play a role in estimating
CBSD location. Google and Federated
Wireless also support alternative
approaches to ascertaining the location
of CBSDs. Specifically, Federated
Wireless explains that there are a variety
of methods the SAS could use to verify
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
location, such as coordinating with
downstream infrastructure or reference
to its power levels and other
measurements. Google suggests that
even if devices cannot meet the specific
requirements established by the 3.5 GHz
R&O, the Commission should permit an
SAS to calculate spectrum availability
based on the geolocation reported by the
device, making appropriate adjustments
for differences in specificity. Google
argues this would incentivize
manufacturers to improve location
accuracy.
111. WinnForum proposes that the
SAS should estimate CBSD elevation
and ground level using detailed terrain
databases based on the device’s reported
operating location. Further, WinnForum
states that while the ability to meet the
horizontal accuracy requirement is
readily achievable, the elevation
accuracy requirement significantly
exceeds the capability of standard GPS
equipment, which will be utilized by
both CBSDs and professional installers.
WinnForum suggests that, in lieu of the
vertical location accuracy requirements,
for Category A CBSD’s, professional
installation reports should include the
highest floor from which the device will
operate and, for Category B CBSDs, the
reports should include the antenna
height above ground level.
112. Nokia Solutions also
recommends that the Commission
establish separate vertical location
accuracy requirements for outdoor and
indoor installations. Nokia Solutions
states that, since the primary method
used by many equipment vendors for
outdoor location is GPS-based, the
vertical location accuracy requirement
should be aligned to the US Government
Position Accuracy standard for worst
site conditions as stated in the Global
Positioning System Standard
Positioning Service Performance
Standard. Nokia Solutions argues that,
since GPS does not work well or at all
indoors, the Commission should
eliminate the elevation reporting
requirement for indoor installations,
allowing the SAS to estimate the CBSD
elevation, and require only the GPS
location of the building for the
horizontal location.
113. SIA and NAB both stress the
importance of reliable location accuracy
necessary to protect incumbent
operations. SIA recognizes that
complying with the current
requirements may be challenging,
particularly with respect to indoor
devices where GPS data may not be
readily available and both SIA and NAB
would support looser requirements so
long as ‘‘worst case’’ assumptions are
built into the calculations to account for
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the reduced accuracy. However, in
regard to vertical location, simply
relaxing the accuracy requirements and
allowing the SAS to ‘‘estimate’’ or
‘‘compute’’ a device’s elevation is not an
acceptable solution, given the
importance of a device’s vertical
position in calculating the potential for
harmful interference. Therefore, NAB
and SIA argue, the Commission must
implement a larger separation distance
to account for this uncertainty, if a
device cannot meet the requirements or
the SAS cannot independently verify a
device’s elevation.
114. WISPA opposes the petitions that
propose to relax or eliminate the
existing vertical location accuracy
requirements and argues that there is no
current mechanism for CBSDs or an
SAS to determine the antenna height
above ground within the required
accuracy. WISPA states the elevation of
the CBSD becomes irrelevant for CBSDs
installed using external antenna systems
and that only the elevation of the actual
antenna is relevant for interference
mitigation purposes. According to
WISPA, the only way for the SAS to
ascertain the CBSD antenna system
elevation is by using location
information provided by a professional
installer.
115. Discussion. We maintain the
location accuracy requirements
established in the 3.5 GHz R&O and
decline the Nokia Solutions and
WinnForum Petitions insofar as they
request that we modify these rules. We
recognize that there are technological
challenges to achieving indoor location
accuracy. However, as we stated in the
3.5 GHz R&O, CBSD location is essential
for coordinating interactions between
and among users in the band and for
protecting Incumbent Access users from
harmful interference. Without accurate
location data, SASs cannot fulfill their
core functions in effectively instructing
CBSDs to discontinue their operations
or change frequencies to protect
Incumbent Users.
116. Further, we believe that the
location accuracy requirements in the
rules are achievable. First, CBSDs are
fixed devices, simplifying the reporting
of accurate geo-location information,
either automatically or with the input of
a professional installer. Second,
automated reporting of geo-location to
our location accuracy requirements may
already be achievable in some
conditions (e.g., outdoors with clear line
of sight to GPS). In addition, at least one
party has stated on the record that it has
developed technology that can meet the
indoor location accuracy rules set forth
in the existing rules. Finally, as
discussed in section III(F)(2),
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
professional installation will play an
important role in ensuring the SAS can
accurately locate devices while
automatic location technologies that
meet our requirements are tested and
developed.
117. Some commenters also suggest
that location accuracy requirements
could be met alternatively via SAS
calculations. We anticipate that SASs
will play a key role in verifying the
geographic locations of CBSDs and, as
technology continues to develop, we
encourage SAS Administrators to offer
functions to supplement and reinforce
CBSD geo-location functions. However,
the CBSD is the best source of its own
location information, and such features
will not discharge the CBSD from
complying with our rules.
118. Finally, regarding Nokia
Solutions’ suggestion that we allow
operators to meet vertical location
accuracy requirements at a certain
confidence level, we decline to make
changes to the existing rules. For the
aforementioned reasons, the current
rules ensure that the SAS can properly
locate CBSDs in order to perform its
core functions, and we believe them to
be achievable over time.
2. Automated Geo-Location and
Professional Installation for CBSDs
119. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O,
we concluded that Category A CBSDs
may utilize either a technical geolocation capability or be professionally
installed while Category B CBSDs must
be professionally installed (47 CFR
96.39(a), 96.45(a)). We noted that, since
CBSDs will be fixed installations, the
professional installation option should
allow for network deployment in the
near term while automatic geo-location
technologies for this band are tested and
developed that meet our accuracy
requirements. We also strongly
encouraged the SAS and user
community, through multi-stakeholder
fora or industry associations, to develop
programs for accrediting professional
installers who receive training in the
relevant part 96 rules and associated
technical best practices.
120. NAB and SIA argue that the
Commission should eliminate the
option for professional installers to
report the locations of CBSDs and,
instead, require all CBSDs to include a
geo-location capability. NAB contends
that the Commission’s rule is analogous
to a similar professional installation
requirement adopted in the White
Spaces proceeding. NAB argues that, in
that proceeding, it identified several
errors in device registrations made by
professional installers and that such
errors prove that the professional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
installation option is not acceptable in
either the White Spaces or the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. NAB
contends that professional installation is
not necessary for indoor deployments,
citing both technological advances and
a compromise approach that it
submitted in the White Spaces
proceeding. NAB also claims that the
professional installation is inherently
flawed and cannot be rehabilitated by a
certification process. SIA agrees with
NAB and contends that, regardless of
the safeguards adopted, it will be
impossible to remove the risk of human
error from installations. In addition, on
February 26, 2016, the Commission
adopted a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order (81 FR 15210,
March 22, 2016) that proposed to
require automated geo-location
capabilities in White Spaces devices,
consistent with an agreement between
NAB and several White Spaces device
manufacturers.
121. Federated Wireless, Google, TMobile, and WISPA disagree with NAB
and SIA and argue that the Commission
should permit professional installation
of CBSDs in the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service. Google contends that: (1)
Discussions of individual records in the
White Spaces proceeding are not
relevant to this proceeding and that, in
any case, the White Spaces entries may
have been good faith test cases; (2) the
record demonstrates that professional
installers can protect Incumbent Access
users; and (3) the industry is working
collaboratively to develop an effective
framework for certifying professional
installers in the band. Federated
Wireless agrees and argues that, given
the requirements of the band, SAS
Administrators and Citizens Broadband
Radio Service users will be incentivized
to ensure that all geo-location
information provided to the SAS is
accurate. Federated Wireless also notes
that professional installation has been
used successfully in a number of other
licensed services—including two-way
satellite broadband.
122. Discussion. We deny NAB and
SIA’s petitions for reconsideration of the
professional installation rule. We also
decline to mandate automated geolocation capabilities for CBSDs. As
described in the 3.5 GHz R&O, accurate
CBSD location information is essential
for coordinating interactions between
and among users in the band and for
protecting federal and non-federal
Incumbent Users from harmful
interference. However, we also noted
that, while we expect location accuracy
technology to continue to develop, in
many circumstances, automated
reporting of geo-location information
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49037
that complies with our accuracy
requirements will be challenging in this
band given currently available
technology. Professional installation is
intended to fill that gap and facilitate
deployment of CBSDs with accurately
reported geo-location information while
the next generation of automatic geolocation technology is developed.
123. Based on the record, we are not
convinced that the capabilities of
today’s equipment and technology are
sufficiently developed to ensure that
CBSDs will be able to perform
automated geo-location functions in
order to reliably meet the location
accuracy requirements for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. As a result,
limiting CBSDs to automated geolocation as the only way to meet these
requirements would deter near-term
deployment on any reasonable scale in
the 3.5 GHz Band. As discussed in
detail above, several petitioners
highlighted the difficulties associated
with attaining an accurate vertical
reading within +/¥ 3 meters. Federated
Wireless also argues that, while current
technology may be sufficient to provide
the SAS with a CBSD’s location at the
requisite degree of accuracy in some
outdoor situations, such readings may
not be currently possible for a variety of
indoor deployments in this band. Since
we expect much of the deployment in
the 3.5 GHz Band to be indoors, the
inability of a CBSD to provide its
location indoors would be fatal to many
potential use cases for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. While we are
encouraged by iPosi’s claim that its
technology can provide indoor accuracy
readings that meet or exceed or
requirements, it has not yet been used
commercially in the 3.5 GHz Band, so
it is yet to be determined if this
technology is appropriate—or
economically viable—for all use cases at
this time. Thus, while the accuracy of
geo-location technology is improving,
integrated geo-location technology may
not be a viable option for all potential
network deployments in the 3.5 GHz
Band at this time.
124. We also find unconvincing NAB
and SIA’s reliance on NAB’s claims
regarding inaccurately entered location
information in the White Spaces
databases. NAB and SIA assert that,
since professional installers allegedly
entered inaccurate locations of devices
in White Spaces databases, the entire
notion of a professional installation
regime is inherently flawed. Indeed,
NAB claims that professional
installation has proven to be inherently
unreliable and that it cannot be
rehabilitated through any kind of
certification regime. NAB and SIA reach
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49038
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
these conclusions despite the fact that
no SASs have been approved or CBSDs
deployed in the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service and, as such, there is no
evidence of actual harm or impropriety
in the band to support their claims.
Moreover, these parties have provided
no convincing evidence that a
professional installation option in this
band presents any significant potential
for such harm. The alleged failures of a
dissimilar, uncertified professional
installation regime in another service do
not warrant eliminating the professional
installation option for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service.
125. The Commission noted that the
recent changes proposed in the White
Spaces NPRM, which included a
proposal to eliminate the professional
installer option for fixed White Space
devices, were ‘‘based upon the
circumstances specific to fixed white
space devices and white spaces
databases.’’ In the White Spaces service,
the Commission determined not to
‘‘define the qualifications of a
professional installer in the rules.’’
Here, in contrast, as explained in the 3.5
GHz R&O and detailed below, the
Commission will require professional
installers to be trained and certified
using an established industry-led
process.
126. NAB and SIA unfairly dismiss
the importance of a robust industry
certification process for professional
installers. By relying on such a
certification process here, as the
Commission has in a variety of other
contexts, the rules provide an important
protection against the prospect that
‘‘any purchaser of a device’’ could serve
as a professional installer. We reiterate
that industry-led professional
accreditation processes have been used
by the Commission and have, in fact,
proven successful in other similar
situations. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we
recognized the importance of accurate
geo-location information and we
strongly encouraged prospective SAS
Administrators and Citizens Broadband
Radio Service users to develop programs
for accrediting professional installers
and associated technical best practices.
WinnForum announced that, consistent
with the Commission’s wishes, its
members are developing a set of
professional installation standards to be
implemented by SAS Administrators.
Any certification regime developed by
WinnForum—or any other entity or
organization—must ensure that
registered CBSDs comply with the
Commission’s geo-location rules. WTB
and OET will review the SAS’s ability
to implement and verify the information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
submitted by professional installers as
part of the SAS approval process.
127. Most importantly, the White
Spaces service itself is not directly
analogous to the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service. While both White Spaces
devices and CBSDs rely on the White
Space databases and SASs, respectively,
to protect incumbent services, White
Space devices are unlicensed and have
no expectation of interference
protection. On the other hand, the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service is a
licensed service in which SASs must be
able to effectively coordinate CBSD
interactions (both PAL and GAA) to
prevent interference between and
among the three tiers of users and
ensure a stable spectral environment for
commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz
Band. In other words, in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service the accuracy
of the information is important both to
protect incumbent services and to
protect and enable every other user.
This licensed nature of the service
coupled with industry certification
requirements for professional installers
provides a higher degree of
accountability for Citizens Broadband
Radio Service users and SAS
Administrators, ensuring that CBSD
locations are accurately reported and
verified. In addition, all Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users have the
rights and obligations incumbent on all
Commission licensees, which include
serious consequences for violation of
Commission rules, including potential
revocation and license qualification
issues. The Commission has extensive
mechanisms available to it to ensure
that licensees comply with its rules.
128. In addition, as the Commission
has stated on several occasions,
approved SASs will have capabilities
and responsibilities that exceed those of
White Spaces database administrators.
Drawing on the lessons learned from the
White Spaces proceeding, the
Commission will expect SAS
Administrators to take appropriate steps
to authenticate and verify information
that is submitted by professional
installers and to immediately correct
any inaccurate information in their
databases (47 CFR 96.53(d), 96.57(a),
96.63(f)). Our rules require
authentication of CBSDs with an SAS
and require that SAS Administrators
maintain the accuracy of stored data,
including CBSD records. The latter
requirement places a duty on SAS
Administrators to take reasonable steps
to validate newly entered data and to
purge obsolete data (47 CFR 95.55).
Federated Wireless also notes that there
are a variety of ‘‘quality control
methods’’ that an SAS Administrator
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
may employ—including IP validation,
Wi-Fi assistance, and downstream
infrastructure coordination—to help
verify a CBSD’s location. We expect
SAS Administrators to develop and
implement technological safeguards
appropriate to ensure the integrity and
accuracy of location data submitted by
CBSDs, and we will carefully review
proposals from prospective SAS
Administrators to determine whether
they have demonstrated the capability
to do so.
129. While we believe that
professional installation is necessary
and appropriate for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service at this time,
future technological developments may
obviate the need to rely on professional
installation to ensure the accuracy of
CBSDs’ location information in some
circumstances. Accordingly, we direct
WTB and OET to seek input on
developments in geo-location
technology for CBSDs and the status of
the professional installation regime in
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service
no later than April 28, 2020.
3. End User Device Requirements
130. Background. In its petition, SIA
seeks reconsideration of the
Commission decision not to mandate
that End User Devices include geolocation capabilities. SIA argues that
such a mandate is necessary so that an
SAS is aware of the location of End User
Devices and without such a
requirement, the SAS calculations to
protect FSS earth stations must be based
on worst-case assumptions about
location. SIA states these assumptions
would include the maximum
operational distance between the End
User Device and CBSD and the
maximum number of End User Devices
that could be served by the CBSD. In the
alternative, the Commission could
define a maximum deployment radius.
However, SIA argues, ‘‘the use of such
worst-case assumptions would result in
fewer End User Devices being
authorized—and therefore less efficient
utilization of the spectrum—than if the
SAS had actual location data for each
device.’’
131. Google and WISPA expressly
oppose mandating End User Devices to
include geo-location technology. Google
argues that a geo-location requirement
would unnecessarily limit the types of
devices available to consumers, as WiFi dongles and other miniature
broadband devices are so small that
adding geo-location technology would
fundamentally alter the form of the
device. Both WISPA and Google claim
that such a requirement is not needed to
protect users from interference, as the
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
SAS can take into account the ‘‘cloud’’
of End User Devices associated with a
particular CBSD when calculating
interference protection and the
Commission requires End User Devices
to positively receive and decode
authorization signals from CBSDs.
132. Rajant states that while it is not
opposed to requiring geo-location in
End User Devices, it would add
additional costs to operation in the
band. Further, Rajant states that it plans
to deploy in places such as enclosed
stadiums and underground mass transit
tunnels where it would be difficult to
obtain GPS location data and while GPS
simulators are available, they would be
burdensome and hinder flexibility.
Therefore, Rajant argues that the
Commission should not require geolocation for consumer devices and limit
such a requirement to devices intended
for industrial, public safety, or
commercial use in confined, managed
sites.
133. Discussion. We deny SIA’s
request to mandate geo-location
technology in all End User Devices and
find that such a requirement is not
necessary to ensure compliance with
our location accuracy rules or to
effectively mitigate interference into
incumbent systems. We recognize that
FSS earth station licensees are
concerned about interference from End
User Devices and, indeed we sought
comment on how to address these issues
in the Second FNPRM. However, we
agree with Google and WISPA that it is
not necessary to mandate that End User
Devices include automatic geo-location
capabilities to effectively protect
Incumbent Users from interference. In
addition, such a requirement would
unnecessarily limit the types of
consumer devices that may be deployed
and utilized in the 3.5 GHz Band.
134. Indeed, the rationale we
articulated in section III(F)(2) for not
requiring automatic geo-location
reporting by CBSDs is even more
compelling in the case of End User
Devices. End User Devices operate at a
much lower power than even Category
A CBSDs, lowering their potential
interference effects and reducing their
range of operation. End User Devices are
also inherently limited in their area of
operation by the coverage of a given
CBSD or network of CBSDs. Moreover,
since End User Devices will likely
include mobile devices—as opposed to
fixed CBSDs—reporting their location to
the level of accuracy required by our
rules would likely exceed the limits of
current technology in many locations.
135. Further, the SAS is responsible
for managing CBSDs, not End User
Devices. Requiring End User Devices to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
report their locations to the SAS and
requiring the SAS to track and manage
these devices would greatly exceed the
limits of the SAS’s responsibilities. As
such, it is not appropriate to include
End User Devices in our location
accuracy rules. However, as noted by
WISPA, the rules do require End User
Devices to ‘‘positively receive and
decode an authorization signal
transmitted by a CBSD, including the
frequencies and power limits for their
operation,’’ (47 CFR 96.47(a)) and any
device to be certified by the
Commission must meet these
requirements. Both Google and WISPA
also state that WinnForum is reviewing
how to treat End User Devices in
interference calculations, which will
further supplement the SAS’s ability to
account for End User Device locations.
WTB and OET will review any such
approaches submitted during the SAS
approval process.
G. PAL Protection Criteria
136. Background. To ensure that
Priority Access operations are protected
from harmful interference, we adopted
an aggregate received signal level at PAL
license boundaries to be at or below an
average power level of ¥80 dBm when
integrated over a 10 MHz reference
bandwidth with the measurement
antenna placed at a height of 1.5 meters
above ground level (47 CFR 96.41(f)).
We also permitted Priority Access
Licensees to agree to an alternative limit
other than ¥80 dBm/10 MHz at their
Service Area boundaries and
communicate it to an SAS. In addition,
we noted that these signal level
requirements would not apply to
adjacent census tracts held by the same
Priority Access Licensee.
137. WinnForum asks that the
Commission modify its PAL protection
criteria to more effectively reflect real
world interference concerns and protect
Priority Access Licensees. WinnForum
contends that the PAL protection rule
creates several problems that the
Commission did not consider in
developing the 3.5 GHz R&O. According
to WinnForum, these problems include:
(1) The requirement would place a
significant burden on the SAS by
requiring it to calculate point-to-line
interference along a lengthy border; (2)
border protections may not effectively
protect interior portions of a Priority
Access Licensee’s Service Area; (3) high
elevation census tracts will have a
disproportionate effect on CBSD
deployments; and (4) the requirement
will unnecessarily block co-channel
devices. WinnForum suggests that the
SAS implement an alternate protection
scheme whereby the SAS would protect
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49039
an operator-defined contour around
Priority Access CBSDs to a protection
level of ¥80 dBm/10 MHz anywhere
within the contour. WinnForum claims
that this revised approach addresses all
of the concerns raised in its Petition.
Federated Wireless, Google, and
Motorola Solutions support
WinnForum’s Petition. WISPA also
agrees that the ¥80 dBm criterion is
inadequate for the reasons described by
WinnForum.
138. Discussion. We agree with
WinnForum’s Petition in part and,
accordingly, we revise the rule. Under
the revised rule, allowable interference
will be calculated for the area within the
PAL Protection Area (47 CFR 96.3)
described in detail in section IV(A)
below rather than along the borders of
a Priority Access Licensee’s Service
Area (47 CFR 96.3). To protect CBSDs
authorized to provide service on a
Priority Access basis, the SAS must not
authorize other CBSDs—whether
Priority Access or GAA—on the same
channel in geographic areas and at
maximum power levels that will cause
aggregate interference in excess of ¥80
dBm/10 MHz channel within a PAL
Protection Area. Consistent with our
approach elsewhere in this Order, the
aggregate co-channel interference level
will be defined by a common models
utilizing common inputs and
assumptions. These models, inputs, and
assumptions—including the
propagation model and any clutter or
terrain assumptions—will be
determined during the SAS approval
process. This approach is also
consistent with the methods that will be
used to model and measure the
aggregate interference to protect
incumbent FSS earth stations and
incumbent federal radar systems.
139. Several commenters, including
Federated Wireless, Google, Motorola
Solutions, and WinnForum support a
protection methodology based on
modeled aggregate interference
protections within the area served by a
Priority Access Licensee rather than
along the border of a given Service Area
or census tract. Notably, Google and
WinnForum contend that a protection
methodology that utilizes point-to-area
interference models to calculate
aggregate interference into a Priority
Access Licensee’s service area will be
relatively simple and inexpensive for
SASs to implement. Motorola Solutions,
WinnForum, and Google also highlight
several negative unintended
consequences of the Commission’s rule
requiring CBSDs to meet an aggregate
interference threshold along the border
of a Service Area.
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49040
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
140. We find the evidence presented
by Petitioners compelling and modify
section 96.41(d) (47 CFR 96.41(d)) to
address the concerns raised in their
filings. We note that there were no
objections to the protection level of ¥80
dBm/10 MHz and, indeed, several
petitioners supported this interference
protection level. Therefore, under the
revised rule, the SAS must assign
CBSDs such that the modeled aggregate
power of co-channel CBSDs is no greater
than ¥80 dBm/10 MHz within the PAL
Protection Area. Consistent with our
approach to geographic guard bands,
described in section IV(A), we conclude
that the SAS may not consider adjacent
channel interference when calculating
these protections and assigning CBSDs.
We believe that the stringent out-ofchannel emission limits set forth in
section 96.41 (47 CFR 96.41) are
sufficient to make adjacent channel
interference unlikely, particularly for
synchronized systems and Category A
CBSDs.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
H. FSS Protection
141. In its petition, SIA asked the
Commission to reconsider or clarify
several of its rules regarding the
protection of in-band and out-of-band
FSS earth stations. These issues
included: (1) The status of new FSS
earth stations in the band; (2)
interference notification procedures; (3)
protections for international FSS earth
stations; (4) FSS registration
requirements; and (5) clarification of
protections afforded to in-band and outof-band earth stations. Specific
protection methods for in-band and outof-band FSS earth stations were raised
by the Commission in the Second
FNPRM and, as such, are addressed in
section IV(C) below. SIA’s other
requests are addressed in this section.
1. Status of New In-band FSS Earth
Stations
142. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O,
the Commission adopted a change to the
Table of Allocations limiting co-primary
FSS earth stations in the 3600–3650
MHz band to those authorized prior to,
or granted as a result of an application
filed prior to the effective date of the 3.5
GHz R&O, and constructed within 12
months of the initial authorization (47
CFR 2.106, note US107). This rule is
consistent with proposals made in the
NPRM and FNPRM as well as the
licensing freeze imposed concurrently
with the NPRM and sunsetted in the 3.5
GHz R&O.
143. SIA contends that new in-band
FSS earth stations should be authorized
on a co-primary basis like grandfathered
earth stations. They assert that existing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
limits on FSS operations in the 3600–
3650 MHz band and the relatively
limited number of recent applications
demonstrate that allowing new stations
to operate on a co-primary basis will not
have a negative effect on the spectrum
ecosystem. SIA also argues that
restoring the co-primary authorization
will further the public interest by
allowing FSS licensees to meet the
evolving needs of new customers. SIA
requests that, at a minimum, the
Commission make it clear that existing
licensees can replace their equipment
while maintaining their current coprimary authorization.
144. Discussion. We reject SIA’s
petition for reconsideration of the status
of new 3600–3650 MHz earth stations.
SIA’s arguments echo the arguments
made by the organization in response to
the NPRM, Licensing PN, and FNPRM.
The Commission took these arguments
into consideration when it adopted the
changes to the Table of Allocations and
found that the changes were necessary
to ensure the ongoing stability of the
band and facilitate widespread access to
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
SIA has not presented any new evidence
that would compel us to change our
conclusions.
145. However, we agree with SIA’s
assertion that existing FSS earth station
licensees should be permitted to replace
antennas and other equipment
associated with their licensed earth
stations. Such changes may be necessary
to ensure continuity of service for
existing licensees. Therefore, we find
that it is in the public interest to amend
our rules to explicitly permit equipment
replacement that is otherwise compliant
with the Commission’s rules (47 CFR
2.106, note US107). Licensees must
update their registrations submitted
pursuant to section 96.17 if such
replacements change any of the
parameters included in the registration
to continue receiving accurate
interference protection under section
96.17 (47 CFR 96.17(d)).
2. Notification of Interference
146. Background. SIA contends that,
while the SAS may be able to resolve
interference disputes under the rules,
the Commission does not establish
specific procedures to address
interference complaints from FSS
licensees. SIA argues that the
Commission ‘‘must determine to whom
interference complaints should be
addressed, and should put in place
procedures that require immediate
suspension of CBSD operations pending
investigation. In addition, the
Commission should set strict time
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
deadlines for ultimate resolution of an
interference complaint.’’
147. Discussion. We agree with SIA
that SASs should be capable of
receiving and responding to interference
complaints from FSS earth station
licensees and we amend our rules to
require SASs to accommodate such
complaints. One of the core functions of
the SAS is to ensure that all registered
users operate according to the
Commission’s rules, including the rules
protecting non-federal Incumbent Users
(47 CFR 96.17, 96.21, 96.53(h)). This
includes enforcing the protection
criteria set forth in sections 96.17 and
96.21 (47 CFR 96.17, 96.21) and, under
the modified rule, processing and
responding to reports of harmful
interference or special coordination
requests from non-federal FSS licensees
(47 CFR 96.17(f)). As with all
coordination and interference mitigation
efforts in the 3.5 GHz Band, we
encourage the parties to work
collaboratively to resolve any
interference issues that may arise.
Although we expect the parties and the
SAS to resolve most interference issues
among themselves, the Commission
retains ultimate authority over the
licensees in the band (and the SAS
Administrators), as well as the
responsibility for enforcing the rules to
resolve interference issues in the band.
148. However, we do not believe that
it is in the public interest to establish
fixed timeframes for investigation and
resolution of such issues or to require
immediate suspension of CBSDs
pending investigation. Rather, each SAS
will have to demonstrate the ability to
promptly respond to reports of
interference during the SAS approval
process. We also recognize that different
interference cases may be more complex
than others and SAS response times
may differ depending on the unique
circumstances of any given case. In
addition, requiring immediate
shutdown of CBSDs after any complaint
from an FSS licensee would establish an
unfair presumption that the complaint
is true prior to any investigation. We
encourage SAS Administrators and
incumbent FSS earth station licensees to
work together to establish effective
protocols for receiving and responding
to complaints of interference.
3. Protection for International FSS Earth
Stations
149. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O,
we adopted a rule that explains that
operations in the 3.5 GHz Band are
subject to current and future agreements
with the governments of Canada and
Mexico and requires SAS
Administrators to implement the terms
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
of any such agreements. As we stated in
the 3.5 GHz R&O, this is approach is
consistent with our usual practice for
new services.
150. SIA argues that the Commission
should impose more strict restrictions
on deployments near the Canadian and
Mexican borders absent agreements
between the countries. Specifically, SIA
suggests that the Commission impose
similar restrictions to those included in
section 90.1337 for 3650–3700 MHz
licensees authorized under part 90 of
the Commission’s rules (47 CFR
90.1337).
151. Discussion. We reject SIA’s
petition for reconsideration of the
Commission’s rules governing Citizens
Broadband Radio Service operations
near international borders. SIA raised
similar objections when the
Commission proposed this approach in
the FNPRM and the Commission
considered those arguments in reaching
its decision. As noted above, this
approach is consistent with our usual
practice for new services. SAS
Administrators will be required to
comply with existing agreements and
also to demonstrate that their systems
can and will enforce agreements
between the U.S., Canadian, and
Mexican governments regarding
commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz
Band once such agreements are
completed. We continue to believe that
this approach will ensure that CBSD
deployments near international borders
comply with all applicable international
agreements as those agreements are
finalized with respect to this band.
4. FSS Registration
152. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O,
the Commission adopted measures
designed to protect incumbent in-band
and adjacent C-Band FSS earth stations
from interference. We sought further
comment on additional protection
measures for both in-band and out-ofband sites, addressed in detail below. In
order to adequately implement these
measures, the Commission required FSS
earth station licensees in the 3600–3650
MHz band and the neighboring C-Band
seeking protection under the rules to
submit an annual registration that
includes certain technical information
that will be made available to SAS
Administrators (47 CFR 96.17(d) and
(e)).
153. SIA requests that the
Commission eliminate the requirement
that FSS earth station operators must
register their stations annually, and if
the Commission retains the registration
rules, that we revise and clarify these
rules. SIA suggests that the SAS obtain
the registration information from the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
publicly available International Bureau
Filing System (IBFS) and argues that an
annual registration is an unwarranted
administrative burden. However, if the
Commission does not eliminate the
registration requirement, SIA argues for
the following changes to the rules: (1)
Clarify that earth station operators can
register a range of antenna azimuth and
elevation angles; (2) explicitly state that
new licensees will be protected; and (3)
clarify the deadline for registration (47
CFR 96.17(d)). SIA also requests that the
Commission revise its rule to clarify that
the interference protection rights extend
to unlicensed receive-only C-Band earth
stations and replace the annual
registration requirement with a one-time
registration requirement.
154. WISPA opposes SIA’s request to
eliminate or change the registration
requirements, arguing that reporting
information on a regular basis and after
critical technical changes is necessary to
ensure that the SAS can protect FSS
earth stations from harmful interference.
However, WISPA agrees with SIA that
the Commission should harmonize
registration requirements for C-Band
earth stations so that the SAS can gather
all of the information from one source
and that the Commission should clarify
that the protected area around an earth
station to refers to the existing 150 km
circular zone as specified in section
90.1331(a) (47 CFR 90.1331(a)).
155. Google states that the registration
requirements are reasonable and asks
that the Commission reject SIA’s request
to eliminate this requirement. Google
notes that the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service rules are designed to protect
actual users and that the annual
registration requirement achieves this
objective. Google contends that SIA
concedes that the basic technical
information required by the registration
is necessary to calculate interference
protection, and argues that the earth
station operators themselves are in the
best position to provide such
information. Google also requests that
the Commission clarify that the
registration requirement applies to
grandfathered earth stations in the
3650–3700 MHz band.
156. Discussion. We deny SIA’s
request to eliminate the annual FSS
earth station registration requirement.
However, we do make minor
modifications to the existing rules
governing earth station registrations.
Specifically, we adopt changes to
effectively implement the FSS earth
station protection rules described in
section IV(C) and further clarify that the
registration rules apply to FSS earth
stations in the 3650–3700 band after the
transition period for Grandfathered
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49041
Wireless Broadband Licensees.
Management of sharing in a dynamic
environment between three tiers of
users requires as much accurate
information as possible about the
operation in each tier. In addition, as
detailed in section IV(C), to provide
additional protection for licensed CBand FSS earth stations with TT&C
responsibilities, we will allow these
licensees to register for additional
protection around these sites (47 CFR
96.17). Operators of these sites must
provide the same registration
information as in-band FSS earth station
licensees seeking protection (47 CFR
96.17(d)) and, additionally, must affirm
that each site is being used for TT&C.
157. We decline SIA’s requested
changes and reaffirm our findings in the
3.5 GHz R&O. As stated in the 3.5 GHz
R&O, we adopted registration rules in
order to ensure that the Commission
and SAS Administrators have the
accurate, up to date information
necessary to protect incumbent licensed
FSS earth stations (47 CFR 96.17(d)). In
order for the SAS to adequately protect
FSS incumbents, it must be able to
access detailed information on the
technical and operational characteristics
of each FSS earth station seeking
protection. If these characteristics
change, the operator must update the
relevant registration.
158. Several parties indicated that the
rules were unclear regarding how they
apply to existing FSS earth stations in
the 3650–3700 MHz band. Section 96.21
(47 CFR 96.21) of the Commission’s
rules states that the existing protection
criteria or in-band FSS earth stations in
the 3650–3700 MHz band in part 90 of
the Commission’s rules (i.e., 150 km
coordination zones around each earth
station) (47 CFR 90.1331(a)) would
remain in place ‘‘until the last
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband
Licensee’s license expires within the
protection area defined for a particular
grandfathered FSS earth station’’ (47
CFR 96.21(c)). Thereafter, such earth
stations would be protected under
section 96.17 (47 CFR 96.17) using the
same criteria applicable to ‘‘similarly
situated earth stations in the 3600–3650
MHz band’’ (47 CFR 96.21(c)). We
hereby modify the rules to clearly state
that, after the expiration of the part 90
protection criteria, as set forth in section
96.21 (47 CFR 96.21), grandfathered FSS
earth station licensees operating in the
3650–3700 MHz band will be permitted
to register for protection under the same
terms applicable to FSS earth station
licensees in the 3600–3650 MHz band
(section 96.17(a)(1)).
159. We agree with Google and
WISPA that the SAS must have access
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49042
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
to accurate and up-to-date technical
information in order to adequately
protect licensed FSS earth stations.
Operators must update the registration if
this information changes so that the
SAS is able to consistently verify this
information to provide ongoing
protection to individual sites. As we
stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, and noted
by Google, the annual registration
requirement allows us to balance the
protection of incumbent FSS earth
stations and greater Citizens Broadband
Radio Service spectrum utilization
instead of relying on a one-size-fits-all
approach using worst-case interference
assumptions. This aligns with the overarching goal of protecting actual use in
the 3.5 GHz Band to maximize capacity
and coexistence of all users for the most
efficient use of the band.
160. We disagree with SIA’s assertion
that the registration requirement is
overly burdensome and imposes
unnecessary obligations on satellite
providers. First, we agree with Google
that operators are in the best position to
supply accurate information to the
Commission. Second, as SIA itself
notes, earth station operators already
provide much of this information to
IBFS. As such, providing that
information along with additional
necessary information on the
operational characteristics of FSS earth
stations not included in IBFS, should
not present a significant burden to FSS
licensees but is critical for SAS
Administrators to effectively perform
their duties. We also note that
registration requirements are not unique
to earth station operators. Registration of
operational features is a key means of
managing interference in a shared use
regime. Indeed, all Citizens Broadband
Radio Service user must register the
operational characteristics of their
CBSDs prior to commencing operation
and upon making changes to any
operational parameters of their base
stations (47 CFR 96.23(b), 96.33(b),
96.39(c)).
161. We also confirm that FSS earth
station registration—and the protections
it confers—do not extend to unlicensed
in-band or out-of-band FSS earth
stations. SIA presents no argument that
would compel the Commission to take
the extraordinary step of protecting
unlicensed sites from interference from
licensed services.
162. Finally, in regard to SIA’s request
that we clarify the registration deadline,
we note that the Commission directed
WTB to release a public notice
describing the registration process. In a
June 2015 public notice, WTB
announced that it would release this
public notice in ‘‘early 2016.’’ We direct
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
WTB to include the annual filing
deadline in this public notice.
IV. Second Report and Order
163. With this Second R&O, we
address the three issue areas raised in
the Second FNPRM. The Second
FNPRM sought comment on how to: (1)
Define ‘‘use’’ by Priority Access
Licensees; (2) effectively facilitate
secondary market transactions in the
band; and (3) effectively protect in-band
FSS earth stations and C-Band FSS earth
stations.
A. Defining ‘‘Use’’ of PAL Frequencies
1. Background
164. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we
determined that allowing opportunistic
access to channels not being used by
Priority Access Licensees would serve
the public interest by maximizing the
flexibility and utility of the 3.5 GHz
Band for the widest range of potential
users. When PALs have not been issued
(e.g., due to lack of demand) or the
spectrum is not actually in use by a
Priority Access Licensee, the SAS will
automatically make that spectrum
available for GAA use on a local and
granular basis (47 CFR 96.25(c)). On
multiple occasions prior to the 3.5 GHz
R&O, we sought comment on this ‘‘useit-or-share-it’’ concept. While there was
broad support in the record for some
form of opportunistic GAA use, the
record diverged greatly as to the proper
methodology for defining and
implementing a ‘‘use-it-or-share-it’’
framework. Therefore, in the Second
FNPRM, we sought focused comment on
particular options for defining ‘‘use’’ by
Priority Access Licensees. Specifically,
we sought comment on whether we
should adopt an engineering definition,
an economic definition, or a hybrid
definition and how any such approach
should be implemented.
165. Several commenters advocated
approaches that would rely on an
engineering-based definition of ‘‘use’’ to
allow GAA access when frequencies are
not being used by Priority Access
Licensees while protecting the areas
actually utilized by such licensees. We
asked proponents of an engineering
definition of ‘‘use’’ to submit a detailed
description of their methodology along
with technical criteria and metrics that
could be readily implemented by
multiple SASs. We also asked them to
address potential issues with the
engineering approach, including: (1)
Whether utilizing a vacant PAL channel
as a guard band should constitute ‘‘use;’’
(2) how to prevent gaming the ‘‘use-orshare’’ rules; and (3) whether an
equitable approach to calculating
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
aggregate interference can be
implemented across multiple SASs.
166. An alternative approach is to
define ‘‘use’’ from an economic
perspective for the purposes of
determining GAA access to unused
spectrum. William Lehr, an economist
at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, argued that the
Commission should ‘‘view the PAL as
an option to exclude GAA usage. PAL
licensees would acquire the right to
exclude GAA access.’’ Under this
approach, actual operation as a Priority
Access Licensee would not be the
trigger for excluding GAA use. Rather,
the price paid by a Priority Access
Licensee at auction would be divided
into two parts. The first payment would
be made after the licensee acquires its
PAL at auction. After that, the licensee
would have the right, but not the
obligation, to exercise its option to
exclude GAA access from the PAL by
making a second payment. We sought
comment on this approach and asked
commenters to address potential issues
with the economic approach, including:
(1) Whether the framework would
encourage hoarding of PALs; (2) how
payments should be apportioned
between the initial payment and the
option ‘‘strike’’ price; and (3) how the
economic approach would fit in with
the Commission’s auction authority and
its prior experience conducting
auctions. We also sought comment on
whether a hybrid approach
incorporating elements of the
engineering and economic models
would be preferable.
167. Most commenters argue that the
Commission should not adopt an
economic definition of use and should,
instead, implement some form of
engineering-based approach.
Commenters, including the Dynamic
Spectrum Alliance, Federated Wireless,
Google, the Information Technology
Industry Council, Microsoft, Sony and
WISPA specifically argue against the
adoption of the economic approach.
Google argues that, because an
economic definition places no
obligation on the Priority Access
Licensee to actually deploy equipment
or provide service in an area where it
exercises its option to exclude GAA
users, it would encourage licensees to
bid on spectrum that they have no
intention of using and increase the risk
of warehousing. Federated Wireless and
Microsoft argue that an economic
definition of use will allow Priority
Access Licensees to hoard spectrum and
exclude legitimate GAA users. Sony
contends that the economic approach
would be inefficient and difficult to
implement and would increase
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
uncertainty for GAA users. On the other
hand, Key Bridge expresses enthusiasm
for the economic approach and argues
that the Commission should pursue a
hybrid model that incorporates some of
the ideas put forth by William Lehr.
168. AT&T, CTIA, and Qualcomm
argue for a definition of ‘‘use’’ that is
not, strictly speaking, an economic or
engineering approach. According to
AT&T and Qualcomm, GAA use should
only be allowed on channels assigned to
a Priority Access Licensee until that
Priority Access Licensee begins
providing service or informs an SAS
that it will be using the channel(s) in its
Service Area. AT&T contends that a
‘‘bright line rule’’, whereby GAA users
are foreclosed from accessing spectrum
once a Priority Access Licensee begins
to offer service in a census tract is
necessary to provide certainty to
potential licensees and encourage
investment in the band. CTIA agrees,
arguing that both economic and
engineering models would create
uncertainty in the PAL marketplace,
burden investment, and delay efficient
use of the 3.5 GHz Band.
169. Verizon and WinnForum argue
that the best way to ensure quality of
service and promote investment is for
Priority Access Licensees to directly
input their coverage contours into an
SAS. According to Verizon, it is
impossible for third parties to divine—
and to design interference protections
that respect—each Priority Access
Licensee’s specific uses and network
configuration. Verizon also asserts that
Commission oversight could prevent
operators from seeking protection for
overlarge areas and that legitimate
operator-defined ‘‘use’’ should include
guard bands and reserve channels.
According to Verizon, the Commission
should accord Priority Access Licensees
a rebuttable presumption that their
coverage area showings are appropriate.
WinnForum agrees with the proposal to
allow operators to self-define their
protected coverage areas.
170. Google argues that the
Commission should adopt an
engineering-based definition of use
based on actual deployment conditions
that would be implemented and
enforced by the SAS. Google contends
that Priority Access Licensees should be
permitted to register their own protected
coverage areas within their Service
Areas and that Priority Access Licensees
should be permitted to agree to
alternative protection limits and
communicate such agreements to the
SAS. According to Google, PAL
protection areas should be supported by
engineering analysis of actual
operations and that documentation of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
such analysis should be submitted by
the Priority Access Licensee at the time
that the protection is requested.
171. Google elaborated on its
arguments and provided examples of a
proposed methodology in a February
2016 ex parte letter. In that letter,
Google argues that, to confirm that the
protection requested by Priority Access
Licenses is based on reasonable
technical considerations, the
Commission should require all Priority
Access Licensee coverage area claims to
be measured against maximum service
areas calculated by an SAS. Google also
asserts that, to ensure that reasonable
assumptions are used, SASs should be
required to demonstrate that the
methodology used in calculating
claimed coverage areas is consistent
with the methodology used to calculate
protection areas for Incumbent Access
users and other Priority Access
Licensees in the band.
172. Federated Wireless contends that
utilizing an engineering definition is
consistent with the goals set forth by the
Commission and is technologically
feasible. Under Federated Wireless’s
proposal, SASs, using data provided by
Priority Access Licensees, would define
a protection boundary, or protected
service contour, around active CBSDs
authorized to operate on a Priority
Access basis. The SAS, in turn, would
prohibit GAA user access to channels
used by Priority Access Licensees where
the corresponding interference
threshold to the CBSDs in the protected
boundary is exceeded. While Federated
Wireless agrees with Google and
Verizon that Priority Access Licensees
are in the best position to determine
where their operations are, they do not
state a preference between the
methodologies proposed by those two
entities.
173. Others, including Interdigital
OTI/PK, the Wi-Fi Alliance, and WISPA
argue for an engineering definition that
incorporates both geographic and
temporal elements to ensure that GAA
use is only foreclosed when CBSDs are
in active use. WISPA and OTI/PK argue
that the Commission should require
SAS administrators to calculate service
contours using the reported technical
parameters and geo-location of
registered CBSDs. WISPA contends that
the Commission should consider a PAL
channel to be in use whenever it has
received 300 or more end-user data
packets within a five-minute interval.
Wi-Fi Alliance argues that the definition
of ‘‘use’’ should be based on actual
transmission or reception of radio
signals and, specifically, that ‘‘[u]nless
there is a current report that
radiofrequency (RF) energy is being
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49043
actively transmitted or received on PAL
channels, those channels should be
available for GAA use.’’ OTI/PK agrees
that the that the Commission should
incorporate a temporal element of use
that would prevent licenses from
permanently foreclosing GAA access in
a given geographic area for temporary or
transient Priority Access uses such as
pre-deployment network testing and
notes that it believes that WISPA’s
methodology is technologically feasible.
2. Discussion
174. We find that a consistent, SASbased engineering approach to
determining when channels assigned to
Priority Access Licensees are ‘‘in use’’
will maximize the flexibility and utility
of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service
and promote widespread deployment of
broadband services in the 3.5 GHz Band.
Specifically, we adopt a two pronged
approach to determining ‘‘use’’ by
Priority Access Licensees. First, Priority
Access Licensees may report their PAL
Protection Areas on the basis of their
actual network deployments. Second, to
establish an objective maximum PAL
Protection Area, the SASs will use a
consistent model to define a default
¥96 dBm/10 MHz protection contour
(47 CFR 96.25). We find that the two
pronged approach provides licensees
with the flexibility to self-report their
protection areas while also providing an
objective maximum. Further, we find
that utilizing SASs to determine default
protection contours around registered
CBSDs that are authorized to operate on
a Priority Access basis will provide an
effective baseline protection criteria for
Priority Access Licensees while
allowing GAA users reasonable
opportunities for additional access to
the band. Default protection contours
must be based on common inputs and
engineering assumptions to ensure
consistent results across SASs.
175. In addition, we encourage
Priority Access Licensees, working with
SAS Administrators, to restrict their
PAL Protection Areas to less than the
¥96 dBm/10 MHz default protection
contour to reflect the actual needs and
capabilities of their particular networks
(within the boundaries defined by the
default protection contours) to increase
spectrum availability and further
promote flexible use of the band and to
self-report these contours to an SAS. We
expect that, through ongoing
technological innovation and industry
collaboration, the default protection
contours will be further refined in the
future. As described in section III(G),
SASs will also protect the PAL
Protection Areas from aggregate
interference from Priority Access and
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49044
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
GAA CBSDs using common
assumptions and modeling that we will
review during the SAS approval
process. The PAL Protection Areas will
be enforced by the SAS for registered
CBSDs authorized to operate pursuant
to a PAL.
a. Importance of Opportunistic
Spectrum Access
176. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we found
that permitting opportunistic access to
unused Priority Access channels would
maximize the flexibility and utility of
the 3.5 GHz Band. We also found that,
by allowing GAA users to access
bandwidth that is not actually in use by
Priority Access Licensees, we would
ensure that the band will be in
consistent and productive use. We
hereby reaffirm these findings and
confirm that promoting flexible access
to the 3.5 GHz Band for a diverse group
of users is in the public interest.
177. Consistent with these findings,
we conclude that the proposals made by
AT&T, CTIA, and Qualcomm regarding
the definition of ‘‘use’’ are inconsistent
with the Commission’s goals for the
band. AT&T, CTIA, and Qualcomm
argue that the Commission should
define a geographic area as ‘‘in use’’
whenever a Priority Access Licensee
notifies an SAS of its intent to operate
in a given area. They argue that this
approach is needed to provide potential
Priority Access Licensees with the
regulatory certainty needed to invest in
PALs and provide service in the band.
As Federated Wireless and WISPA
correctly note, these approaches are not
actually engineering definitions of use
and are directly contrary to the purpose
of the Commission’s rules. As we stated
in the 3.5 GHz R&O and reiterated in
sections I and III(A) above, the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service rules are
designed to facilitate shared—rather
than exclusive—access to the 3.5 GHz
Band. Adopting rules that would allow
a Priority Access Licensee to foreclose
access to its entire Service Area (or even
a single census tract) with nothing but
a notification of its intent to provide
service—or transmission of an initial
signal—would over-protect Priority
Access Licensees, facilitate spectrum
warehousing, and encourage inefficient
use of spectrum resources. We believe
that the ‘‘use it or share it’’ approach of
our rules for this unique band also thus
more reasonably accommodates the
goals of section 309(j) of the Act,
including ‘‘to prevent stockpiling or
warehousing of spectrum’’ (47 U.S.C.
309(j)(4)(B)).
178. Moreover, contrary to the
assertions made by AT&T, Qualcomm,
and CTIA, we believe that adopting a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
true shared access model based on
sound engineering principles will
encourage investment in the band. A
diverse group of commenters, including
Google, WinnForum, Federated
Wireless, WISPA, Microsoft, OTI/PK,
and Verizon have submitted filings
indicating support for some variation of
a true ‘‘use or share’’ model based on
engineering principles.
179. We also agree with the diverse
group of commenters that contend that
an economic approach to defining ‘‘use’’
would not promote the most efficient
use of the 3.5 GHz Band. We believe
that shared access to the 3.5 GHz Band
should be grounded in sound
engineering principles to ensure that
spectrum resources are equitably
assigned between and among various
users. However, we note that economic
approaches may warrant further study
and we encourage interested parties to
continue to examine how such
economic models may be applied
towards spectrum sharing in the future.
b. Contour-Based Engineering Model
180. Many commenters support some
form of engineering-based methodology
for determining whether channels
assigned to Priority Access Licensees
are actually ‘‘in use’’ in a given
geographic area. We agree and find that
a methodology based on sound,
commonly applied, engineering
principles will best ensure appropriate
protection for Priority Access Licensees
and equitable access to spectrum for
GAA users while discouraging
warehousing of spectrum resources.
Several commenters also argue that
Priority Access Licensees should have
the flexibility to build and design their
networks and to report the contours
they need protected to the SAS. The
approach we adopt incorporates both
concepts by allowing Priority Access
Licensees to report their network
contours on the basis of their actual
network deployments while also
defining an objective default protection
contour around CBSDs operating on a
Priority Access basis.
181. Self-Reporting by Priority Access
Licensees. While we agree with
Federated Wireless, Verizon, and
WinnForum that Priority Access
Licensees are uniquely positioned to
determine their own network needs and
communicate those needs to the SAS,
we also believe that it is in the public
interest to encourage stability and
predictability in determining
protections for CBSDs operating on a
Priority Access basis and to maximize
spectral efficiency by ensuring that all
unused spectrum is available for GAA.
Therefore, we will allow Priority Access
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Licensees to report their protection
contours on the basis of the network
deployment, so long as they are within
the boundaries established by the
objective default protection contour. A
predictable and consistent approach to
defining the maximum reach of PAL
Protection Areas is important for
network planning purposes and to
ensure that all SASs protect Priority
Access Licensees consistently and allow
GAA users equitable access to unused
channels. Priority Access Licensees are
encouraged to work with SAS
Administrators to tailor their selfreported PAL Protection Areas to their
particular needs within the boundaries
defined by the default protection
contours. This approach will provide
flexibility to Priority Access Licensees
while also creating an objective means
of determining a maximum protection
contour and minimizing the risk that
Priority Access Licensees might claim
protections beyond the extent of their
actual network deployments.
182. Under a system relying on pure
self-reporting, we are concerned that
Priority Access Licensees would be
effectively encouraged to deploy their
networks inefficiently and seek
protection for extremely low signal
levels or in areas without facilities that
are in actual use. We agree with Public
Knowledge, OTI/PK, and WISPA that
allowing Priority Access Licensees to
self-define their network parameters
without reference to a common set of
engineering assumptions is likely to
encourage warehousing and
disincentivize efficient spectrum use.
Under such a system, Priority Access
Licensees would have no reason to
deploy facilities or define their network
parameters in a manner that would
encourage sharing with GAA users.
183. On the other hand, it is our hope
that the approach we adopt herein will
encourage Priority Access Licensees to
use their unique knowledge of their own
networks—in collaboration with SAS
Administrators—to craft more tailored
protection contours within the bounds
of the default protection contours
defined in section 96.25 that will
encourage more spectral reuse by both
Priority Access Licensees and GAA
users (47 CFR 96.25). For example, we
believe that a variety of economic
factors will incentivize Priority Access
Licensees to self-report their protection
contours so as to limit them to areas of
actual use (i.e., to contours smaller than
default contours). Specifically, it would
be in the interest of the licensee not to
overstate its PAL Protection Area to the
extent that it plans to take advantage of
the newly established secondary
markets rules for this band. Claiming a
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
smaller protection area would make
more area available to lease on the
secondary market, as described in
section IV(B). Our rules do not permit
a PAL licensee to lease its spectrum in
areas where it asserts actual use of the
spectrum, i.e., within its PAL Protection
Area (47 CFR 96.32). Thus, by reducing
the size of its PAL Protection Area, the
licensee could signal to potential lessees
that a significant portion of its Service
Area is available for lease, on a short or
long term basis, which could provide a
greater financial benefit to this licensee
than would be possible with a larger
PAL Protection Area. In addition, a
Priority Access Licensee that accepts a
protection contour that is larger than
needed to protect its operations could
limit the ability of GAA users to access
what is essentially an unused portion of
the Service Area and, in turn, contribute
to a collective action problem in which
Priority Access Licensees and GAA
users have little incentive to cooperate
with each other. To the extent that a
Priority Access Licensee also intends to
make use of spectrum on a GAA basis,
either within its Service Area or
elsewhere, it is in the interest of that
Priority Access Licensee not to seek to
establish larger protection areas than
needed, because establishing such
protection where it is not needed may
well encourage other Priority Access
Licensees to do likewise. Nevertheless,
we plan to monitor the operation of our
rules in this novel sharing environment,
to ensure that spectrum is utilized
efficiently.
184. We also note that Priority Access
Licensees may alter their reported PAL
Protection Areas freely throughout their
license term. As set forth herein, PAL
Protection Areas are reported or
calculated based on the registered
characteristics of a Priority Access
Licensee’s active CBSDs and, as such,
they may change depending on the
licensee’s network deployments or
business decisions.
185. Default Protection Contour
Boundaries. The default protection
contour will be defined and modeled by
the SAS as a ¥96 dBm/10 MHz contour
around each CBSD operating on a
Priority Access basis. If the contours
modeled around each individual CBSD
overlap, the SAS will combine them
into a single contour boundary. The
precise shape of the contour will be
modeled by the SAS using the
characteristics of CBSDs provided
pursuant to sections 96.41, 96.43, and
96.45 of the Commission’s rules and
commonly applied technical
assumptions as determined during the
SAS Approval Process (47 CFR 96.41,
96.43, 96.45). The default protection
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
contour is the outer limit of the
maximum area that any Priority Access
Licensee may claim as its PAL
Protection Area. Any area within the
PAL Protection Area will be protected
from interference from other CBSDs,
consistent with section 96.41(d) (47 CFR
96.41(d)). To ensure consistent
protection, the default protection
contours and, by extension, the
maximum PAL Protection Areas, must
be consistent across all SASs.
186. While the Commission’s rules are
technologically neutral, we believe that,
given the likely uses of the 3.5 GHz
Band, it is appropriate to use a
reasonable reference sensitivity for LTE
technologies as the basis for the
modeled default protection contours.
For example, 3GPP has defined two LTE
bands that overlap the 3.5 GHz band,
Band 42 from 3400 MHz to 3600 MHz,
and Band 43 from 3600 MHz to 3800
MHz. For both of these bands, the
reference sensitivity in a 10 MHz
bandwidth is ¥96 dBm indicating that
below this value the signal becomes too
weak relative to the noise floor for
adequate reception. Thus, we find that
defining the default protection contour
by reference to a signal strength of ¥96
dBm/10 MHz is appropriate for existing
and expected use cases, technologies,
and network deployments in the band.
187. We believe that this level of
protection is appropriate for the types of
dense, relatively low power
deployments that we expect in the band.
Equipment in such deployments
typically operate at levels above those
defined in the standard and we expect
that to hold true here too. Thus, using
a default protection contour referenced
to ¥96 dBm/10 MHz offers a degree of
protection sufficient to protect the most
common likely use cases in the band
without over-protecting Priority Access
licensees to an unreasonably low signal
level and thereby precluding GAA use
of the spectrum. Moreover, we believe
that a contour referenced to ¥96 dBm/
10 MHz is technologically neutral and
will provide appropriate protection for
a variety of current and future
technologies. Given the unique
licensing model used for PALs (e.g.,
short term licenses, no renewal
expectancy, census tract license areas,
no specific build out requirements) and
the technical interchangeability of GAA
and Priority Access authorizations, we
believe that this approach to
determining Priority Access use will
effectively discourage warehousing and
ensure that Priority Access Licensees
receive protection only in areas that are
in active use.
188. Calculation of Default Protection
Contours. While we do not mandate a
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49045
specific propagation model to determine
the default protection contour, we do
believe that it is in the public interest
to ensure that all SASs operate from a
common set of assumptions and
methodologies for determining the
default protection contours. Operating
from a common set of assumptions and
a common propagation model will
provide a predictable interference
landscape for potential licensees,
encouraging rapid deployment of
network elements and promoting
investment in the band. Moreover, we
believe that, at this time, these
assumptions should be as simple and
easily implementable as possible to
promote rapid deployment in the band.
These assumptions and methodologies
will be reviewed—and common models
and assumptions will be approved—by
WTB and OET as part of the SAS
approval process. We expect that the
assumptions and the implementation
within SASs will evolve over time to
build off of the collective learned
experience and expertise of SAS
Administrators and Priority Access
Licensees. WTB and OET will review
revised approaches and assumptions as
they are developed.
189. WTB and OET will consider the
consistency and ease of implementation
of proposed methodologies when
reviewing proposals from prospective
SAS Administrators. As such, we
encourage prospective SAS
Administrators to consider proposing a
simple, easily implementable model
(e.g., Cost–231, NTIA model, extended
HATA). The end-result of any model
should be a simple contour that is more
realistic than models that rely on worst
case assumptions (such as free space
path loss) or worst case parameters
(such as assuming all CBSDs are at the
maximum allowed height and power).
The model may be updated or modified
in the future—after review by WTB and
OET—as new data is collected from
actual deployments in the band.
190. This approach to propagation,
terrain, and clutter modeling is
consistent with the approach adopted in
section IV(C)(1)(d) for protection of FSS
earth stations and general propagation
determinations. At this time, we believe
that allowing SAS Administrators to
adopt proprietary approaches to
propagation, clutter, and terrain
modeling for purposes of determining
default protection contours would be
overly complex and would lead to
inconsistent—and possible
contradictory—results. A simple, easily
implementable model applied across all
approved SASs is in the public interest
as it is more likely to promote robust,
rapid investment in the band.
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49046
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
191. It is important to note that the
assumptions and modeling
methodologies that are approved as part
of the SAS approval process are only the
first step of an iterative process. We
expect to further refine these models
based on the real-world experiences of
SAS Administrators and Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users. We
encourage Priority Access Licensees,
GAA users, SAS Administrators, and
other interested stakeholders to work
collaboratively to improve the initial
default protection contours and leverage
their technological capabilities to
develop revised sharing models over
time. Such improvements may be
implemented at a later date.
c. Temporal Criteria
192. We will require the SAS to
enforce the PAL Protection Areas,
consistent with section 96.25 and
96.41(d). We believe that the public
interest will be best served by ensuring
that all such CBSDs are protected so
long as they continue to operate under
a PAL but that the SAS should not be
responsible for ensuring that CBSDs are
actually transmitting at any specific
time. Thus, we require that, if a CBSD
ceases to operate on a Priority Access
basis—or discontinues service for more
than seven days—it must inform the
SAS of this change in status and the
SAS must alter the PAL Protection Area
accordingly. If a CBSD discontinues
service and is later reactivated on a
Priority Access basis, the SAS must
expeditiously re-establish the PAL
Protection Area around that CBSD (47
CFR 96.39(c)(2)).
193. Pursuant to section 96.39(c) of
the Commission’s rules, a CBSD must
register with and be authorized by an
SAS prior to its initial service
transmission and must update the SAS
if any registration information changes
(47 CFR 96.39(c)(2)). Registration
information must include the requested
authorization status (GAA or Priority
Access) for each CBSD (47 CFR
96.39(c)(2)). We also require all CBSDs
to inform the SAS of any changes in
operational parameters or registration
information, including requested
authorization status (47 CFR
96.39(c)(2)). In addition, to ensure that
only operational Priority Access
authorized CBSDs are protected, we
adopt a new rule that requires each
CBSD to inform the SAS if it will cease
providing service on a permanent basis
and requires the SAS to discontinue the
PAL Protection Area for any CBSD that
does not contact the SAS for more than
seven days (47 CFR 96.25(c)(1)(ii)). As
OTI/PK correctly argues, without some
requirement limiting protections for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
registered Priority Access CBSDs to
periods of actual use, Priority Access
Licensees may be incentivized to deploy
CBSDs as ‘‘license savers’’ to foreclose
GAA use in areas without active service.
We agree with OTI/PK that CBSDs
‘‘regularly contact the SAS and provide
(or could provide) basic information on
whether they are actively transmitting.’’
Thus, the notification requirement is
wholly consistent with our stated goal
of protecting the actual service contours
of Priority Access Licensees and making
unused spectrum available for GAA use.
194. While we agree with OTI/PK, WiFi Alliance, and WISPA that it is
important to ensure that CBSDs are only
protected from interference when they
are in actual use, we do not believe that
implementing a technical methodology
to measure active use is necessary or
appropriate. The proposals put forth by
Wi-Fi Alliance and WISPA—and
supported by OTI/PK—would require
the SAS to affirmatively track data
packets or active RF transmissions on
individual CBSDs and allow GAA
access whenever the benchmarks for
active transmission are not met. If
implemented, such a requirement
would place a significant new burden
on SAS Administrators, increasing the
technological complexity of the SAS,
and complicating enforcement and
oversight for the Commission. Even if
the level of oversight envisioned by
WISPA and Wi-Fi Alliance is
technologically viable, we believe that
providing SAS Administrators with a
higher level of granular oversight over
individual CBSDs would hinder
investment in PALs and disincentivize
widespread deployment in the band.
Moreover, WISPA and Wi-Fi Alliance’s
proposals would not actually prevent
warehousing or the deployment of
‘‘license-saver’’ CBSDs since any CBSD
could simply be directed to transmit
null data packets at intervals sufficient
to satisfy the proposed requirements.
195. We also disagree with those
commenters that argue that Priority
Access Licensees should be permitted to
reserve portions of the band (by time,
frequency, or geography) as ‘‘guard
bands.’’ While we acknowledge that
such guard bands could offer additional
protection for Priority Access Licensees,
we do not believe they are necessary in
light of the technological and regulatory
features implemented in this band.
Moreover, allowing guard bands would
run counter to the Commission’s goals
for equitable shared use of the 3.5 GHz
Band. As we stated above, the three-tier
authorization framework is designed to
facilitate true, shared access to the band
between and among a wide variety of
users. Foreclosing access to an unused
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
portion of the band as a protective
measure does not advance these goals
and, indeed, would be likely to
encourage warehousing and inefficient
spectrum utilization by Priority Access
Licensees.
196. Our approach to temporal
sharing appropriately balances the need
to provide a degree of certainty for
prospective Priority Access Licensees
and the need to ensure that portions of
the 3.5 GHz Band are made available for
GAA users whenever frequencies are
not actually utilized by higher tier users.
In addition, consistent with our usual
policies, the rules place the
responsibility for accurately reporting
use—and the associated penalties for
non-compliance—on Priority Access
Licensees. We believe that this approach
will encourage investment in both the
Priority Access and GAA tiers, facilitate
efficient and widespread spectrum use,
and promote innovation in the 3.5 GHz
Band.
d. Congestion Metric and Advanced
Planning
197. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we noted
that, as technology develops, advanced
techniques such contention-based
protocols, ‘‘congestion metrics,’’ and
other advanced techniques could be
used by the SAS to coordinate power
levels in high-density areas among GAA
users. We noted that we intend to
continue an informal dialog with
stakeholders on these topics and
suggested that such approaches might
be appropriate areas of work for a multistakeholder group. Federated Wireless
contends that such a ‘‘congestion
metric’’ could ‘‘be used to define the
conditions to which the SAS will
manage GAA uses to ensure a consistent
level of service can be achieved as
congestion occurs.’’ Federated Wireless
suggests that such techniques could be
used to ensure that a definition of use
based on aggregate interference criteria
does not cause unfair treatment to GAA
users and that specific techniques
should be developed by a multistakeholder group. Federated also
suggests that technologies that employ
contention-based protocols or other
mechanisms to enable coexistence could
help to facilitate equitable use of the
band by GAA users.
198. The Commission has consistently
emphasized the importance of ensuring
that GAA users have consistent,
equitable access to the 3.5 GHz Band.
We are pleased that industry
stakeholders continue to work towards
the development of innovative
approaches to the issue of GAA coexistence. We encourage these efforts—
by both independent actors and multi-
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
stakeholder groups—and encourage
interested parties to continue to inform
us of new developments. We also direct
WTB and OET to review any approaches
to GAA coexistence submitted as part of
the SAS approval process.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Secondary Markets
1. Background
199. In the FNPRM we sought
comment on appropriate secondary
market rules for the 3.5 GHz Band.
Many commenters addressed secondary
markets issues and generally supported
a framework that would allow
secondary market transactions involving
PALs.
200. In the Second FNPRM, we sought
comment on specific aspects of the
secondary markets rules and requested
detailed proposals for implementing any
required rule changes. In particular, we
requested comment on any necessary
changes to our Part 1 rules to facilitate
the development of a secondary market
for PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band. Notably,
we asked whether partitioning and
disaggregation of PALs should be
permitted and sought comment on the
costs and benefits of allowing such
transactions. We also sought comment
on the potential use of spectrum
exchanges to facilitate the transfer of
PALs in the secondary market and
whether such exchanges should be
mandatory or could be allowed to
develop voluntarily under current rules.
Finally, we sought comment on the
legal, technical, and logistical issues
that should be considered, particularly
in regard to modifications to our rules
that could reduce transaction costs and
allow increased automation of transfer
and lease applications.
201. We also sought comment on the
application of our spectrum aggregation
limits for Priority Access Licensees,
both in the context of secondary markets
and in the context of initial licensing of
PALs, and we inquired as to how the
unique characteristics of PAL auctions
should be taken into account. Further,
we asked whether we should apply the
attribution standard used in our existing
rules to transactions involving mobile
wireless licenses for commercial use,
and we inquired how this standard
could reflect the need for a streamlined
process, potentially through a database
administrator, for transactions involving
PALs (47 CFR 20.22).
202. Several commenters responded
to these questions with a variety of
suggested approaches to secondary
markets rules for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. There is near
uniform support in the record for
allowing access to the 3.5 GHz Band
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
through secondary markets.
Commenters including AT&T, CTIA,
Federated Wireless, Google, Information
Technology Industry Council, PCIA,
Rajant, Verizon, WinnForum, and
WISPA agree that permitting access to
PAL spectrum through secondary
markets will increase flexibility and
encourage efficient use of spectrum in
the 3.5 GHz Band. AT&T further argues
that flexible secondary markets will
promote investment and innovation in
this band. Most commenters urge the
Commission to apply its secondary
markets rules to the 3.5 GHz Band, and
some go further, recommending that the
Commission apply a more streamlined
and flexible system to allow secondary
use of PAL spectrum, instead of its
traditional secondary market rules.
Verizon, for example, advocates
forbearance from prior approval of PAL
leases (and also license transfers) under
section 310(d) of the Communications
Act (47 U.S.C. 310(d)). Similarly,
Federated Wireless argues that
permitting access to PAL spectrum on
the secondary market ‘‘does not warrant
formal Commission approval any more
than does opportunistic GAA use of
PAL spectrum.’’ Rajant points out that
there is inherent liquidity due to the
nature of the PALs, in particular due to
their short license terms and small
geographic areas, and that establishing a
streamlined process to allow access to
secondary markets will bolster this
liquidity.
203. Only Microsoft and the Wi-Fi
Alliance state that a secondary market is
unnecessary and potentially contrary to
the public interest. They both state that
the SAS will enable GAA access to PAL
spectrum that is not in use, obviating
the need for secondary markets in this
band. Microsoft further argues that
allowing a secondary market will
encourage companies to speculate on
PALs, profiting by obtaining more PALs
than they need in order to make this
spectrum available in the secondary
market. Both Key Bridge and Cantor
Telecom address this concern, stating
that given the short license terms, small
geographic coverage areas and ample
availability of GAA spectrum, it would
be nearly impossible for licensees to
speculatively warehouse spectrum.
2. Light-Touch Leasing for Priority
Access Licensees
a. Background
204. Key Bridge and Federated
Wireless both state that the existing
spectrum leasing procedure is designed
for traditional wireless service in
traditionally licensed bands, which does
not apply to the 3.5 GHz Band,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49047
particularly since any number of GAA
users can access and share unused PAL
spectrum. Federated Wireless and
Rajant both state that certain entities
need the assured use of protected PAL
spectrum for only a short period of time,
such as for a special event, to provide
service to targeted areas, such as transit
rail lines and venues. Spectrum Bridge
argues that the time and expense
associated with the Commission’s
traditional approach to transaction
review in other licensed bands would
make it difficult or impossible for a
secondary market to develop in the 3.5
GHz Band.
205. A number of commenters
endorse a spectrum leasing procedure
similar to the one suggested by
Federated Wireless whereby the
Commission would first formally certify
lessees to use PAL spectrum and then
upon entering a leasing arrangement
with a PAL, the licensee would notify
the SAS, rather than obtaining prior
approval by the Commission for each
PAL secondary market transaction.
Federated Wireless suggests a
standardized electronic certification
process could be established so that
PAL licensees can provide users with
electronic consent, perhaps with a
secure verification key or certificate,
and the user can then submit the
electronic consent and verification key
to the SAS. Cantor Telecom states that
a precertification process permitting
rapid trades in the secondary market
will result in significant efficiency,
which is especially beneficial given the
tremendous number of potential PALs
available over more than 74,000 census
tracts.
206. Both Google and Federated
Wireless state that the SAS can easily
manage secondary use of PAL spectrum
without extra complexity, as SASs will
be designed and scaled to manage many
thousands of PAL and GAA assignments
and deployments. Key Bridge suggests
that the SAS can help ensure
transactions do not raise public interest
risks.
207. Rajant and WISPA support a
notice-only process. Rajant describes
how certain entities need the assured
use of PAL spectrum and argues that a
notice-only process will most effectively
allow such service to emerge in a
secondary market. WISPA states that by
requiring notification to the SAS and
not the Commission, the agency would
have very few administrative burdens.
208. Key Bridge and Cantor Telecom
suggest that the Commission assign all
unsold PALs to the secondary market
for resale. Key Bridge argues that
reverting unsold PALs to GAA use
creates artificial scarcity and starves the
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49048
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
secondary market. Instead, Key Bridge
states, the Commission could foster
economic innovation through a single
auction that will enable commercial
operators of all size and type to innovate
at their own pace. Cantor Telecom
supports a similar approach but suggests
that the PAL remain available for GAA
use until acquired on the secondary
market.
b. Discussion
209. We believe there are significant
benefits to a robust secondary market for
PAL spectrum. While our existing part
1 rules already provide for substantial
flexibility in this regard, we amend
those rules to include a streamlined
spectrum manager leasing process,
based on the current spectrum manager
leasing rules, tailored for the PAL
leasing context. We expect there will be
a demand for Priority Access rights for
a wide variety of use cases. We believe
that a robust, flexible, and lightly
regulated secondary market through
these band-specific spectrum manager
leasing rules will incentivize efficient
spectrum use, promote innovation, and
encourage the rapid deployment of
broadband networks in the 3.5 GHz
Band. We will also permit de facto
transfer leasing under the existing part
1 rules.
210. The focus of our secondary
markets policy for the 3.5 GHz Band
will be to permit Priority Access
Licensees to enter into a spectrum
manager lease under the ‘‘light-touch
leasing’’ regime we establish herein for
any portion of their licensed geographic
area for any bandwidth or period of time
within the scope of the PAL but outside
of its PAL Protection Area. We also
believe that the principles underlying
the streamlining of our rules for
assignments and transfers of control, as
well as for de facto transfer leasing, for
licenses of other Wireless Radio
Services (WRS), including our section
310(d) (47 U.S.C. 310(d)) forbearance
determinations that enabled us to
introduce significant streamlining into
the approval process for such
transactions involving WRS common
carrier licensees, apply with even
greater force here, given the relatively
short license terms and small License
Areas of PALs. We believe that further
changes in our rules governing these
types of transactions are not warranted
at this time. Moreover, as noted below,
in order to achieve a balance between
promoting a significant amount of
flexibility for PALs and enabling the
Commission to adequately enforce its
rules related to ownership and control,
we decline to permit PAL licensees to
engage in assignments, transfers of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
control, or de facto transfer leasing
agreements that result in partitioning or
disaggregation of their licenses in this
band.
211. The light-touch leasing
framework for PAL spectrum manager
leases builds off the Commission’s
existing spectrum manager leasing rules
and will provide Priority Access
Licensees the ability to lease certain
spectrum usage rights pursuant to a
highly streamlined process, while also
preserving the Commission’s ability to
fulfill its oversight and enforcement
responsibilities. With respect to the
Commission’s ability to fulfill these
responsibilities, we conclude that the
immediate processing procedures under
the existing spectrum manager leasing
rules (set forth in section 1.9020(e)(2))
(47 CFR 1.9020(e)(2)) would present
certain challenges due to the high
numbers—often for very short-term
durations—of spectrum manager leases
that we expect to see in this service.
Given the diverse range of deployments
and services that the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service is expected to
support—coupled with the large
number of PALs that we expect to issue
and their relatively small License
Areas—we see the potential for many
thousands of leases in the 3.5 GHz
Band. We expect that a significant
percentage of these leases will cover a
short period of time or even a single
event. Under the existing immediate
processing procedures, such transient
lease terms would render any
reasonable degree of Commission
oversight exceedingly difficult to
maintain during the lifetime of the
lease. Therefore, to facilitate
development of a robust secondary
market, we believe that it is critical to
employ a highly streamlined regulatory
approach for handling the spectrum
manager leasing process. In particular,
given that PALs are limited to threeyear, non-renewable license terms, it is
clear that any sort of prolonged leasing
process would be especially inefficient.
212. To address both the need for a
streamlined process and the
Commission’s obligation to maintain its
ability to fulfill its oversight and
enforcement responsibilities, we are
modifying the existing spectrum
manager lease rules—which are
designed for traditionally licensed,
exclusive use bands—to create a process
tailored to this band. Specifically, we
are establishing a procedure, based on
the immediate processing procedures in
the Part 1 spectrum manager leasing
rules, to permit parties contemplating
spectrum manager lease agreements
with Priority Access Licensees to submit
the required, non-lease specific
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
certifications to the Commission at any
time prior to reaching a spectrum
manager lease agreement with a Priority
Access Licensee. Potential lessees must
update their certification if any of the
required information changes, including
ownership information, and the
Commission may request verification of
any information contained in the
certifications at any time. The
Commission will process these
certifications expeditiously in order to
provide the SASs with confirmation that
the future lessee meets the
corresponding eligibility criteria for a
spectrum manager lease. With this
confirmation in hand, the SAS will be
positioned to expeditiously complete a
notification process for any spectrum
manager lease involving that lessee and
a Priority Access Licensee, once the
licensee notifies the SAS of the leasing
agreement. The SAS can then rapidly:
(1) Confirm that the lessee meets the
non-lease-specific basic qualifications
criteria (as evidenced by the
Commission’s prior verification of this
fact) and that the parties meet the leasespecific eligibility requirements; and (2)
notify the Commission that the parties
to the spectrum leasing agreement have
satisfied the requirements for invoking
the immediate processing procedures.
Once the SAS provides that
confirmation to the licensee and lessee,
the lessee may immediately begin
exercising leased spectrum usage rights
under the lease agreement.
213. In sum, the lessee’s ability to
provide the required non-lease specific
certifications to the Commission in
advance for its future spectrum manager
leases in this service, enables the lessee
to take advantage of a similar form of
expedited processing and use
procedures offered under the section
1.9020(e)(2) (47 CFR 1.9020(e)(2))
spectrum manager leasing rules for
other Wireless Radio Services, while
ensuring that the lessee makes the
necessary certifications with the
Commission regarding its qualifications
to enable the Commission to fulfill its
oversight and enforcement obligations.
214. The following bullets highlight
the essential elements of this light-touch
process for Priority Access spectrum
manager leases, and the discussion that
follows provides additional details:
• The lessee must certify with the
Commission that it meets the basic
qualifications for holding a license
authorization.
• The licensee must notify the SAS of
the leasing arrangement.
• The SAS must be able to confirm
that: (1) The lessee has provided the
required certification to the
Commission; (2) the lease will not
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
violate the 40 megahertz Priority Access
spectrum aggregation limit for the given
geographic area; and (3) the lease area
is within the lessor’s Service Area but
outside of its PAL Protection Area.
• On a daily basis, the SAS will
provide the Commission with an
electronic report of the leasing
notifications received from Priority
Access Licensees.
• The Commission will release a
weekly Public Notice listing the leasing
arrangements.
215. Applicability of Existing
Spectrum Leasing Rules to Priority
Access Licensees. Priority Access
Licensees may enter into spectrum
manager leases in accordance with
section 1.9020 (47 CFR 1.9020(e)(2)) of
the Commission’s rules, as amended in
this order, and pursuant to the rules
adopted herein. As required by section
1.9020 (47 CFR 1.9020(e)(2)), Priority
Access Licensees must retain de facto
and de jure control of the license. Under
the de facto control standard, both
Priority Access Licensees and their
lessees must comply with all applicable
Commission service and technical rules,
and the Priority Access Licensee is
‘‘directly and primarily responsible for
ensuring the spectrum lessee’s
compliance.’’ The Priority Access
Licensee remains responsible for all
interactions with the Commission and
must be the sole point of contact for
such interactions.
216. Consistent with these
requirements for retaining de facto
control, the licensee will notify the SAS
of any spectrum manager leasing
arrangement and continue to be directly
and primarily responsible for
maintaining its own eligibility to hold a
Commission license and for ensuring
the lessee’s compliance with
Commission rules, including operation
in conformance with applicable
technical and use rules as well as the
lessee’s own eligibility. The SAS will
function and communicate with CBSDs
in the same manner it would in the
absence of a lease. Thus, consistent with
the rules governing CBSD authorization
and coordination, the SAS will
communicate directly with all CBSDs,
regardless of whether they are operated
by a licensee or lessee, thereby
facilitating a lessee’s compliance with
technical and service rules and
safeguarding other users. For example, if
the SAS determines that a lessee’s CBSD
is causing interference, the SAS will
relocate the CBSD to an unencumbered
channel or deauthorize its operation
without the need for licensee
involvement.
217. As stated above, we will permit
parties that contemplate becoming
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
lessees in the 3.5 GHz Band to certify
with the Commission in advance of
entering into a leasing arrangement that
they meet the basic qualifications for
holding a license authorization (other
than those qualifications that can only
be determined on a license-specific
basis), similar to the suggestions of
Cantor Telecom and Federated Wireless.
Basic qualifications that can be certified
through this advance processing
include, for example, the applicable
foreign ownership eligibility criteria,
character and other qualification
requirements criteria applicable to the
licensee, and eligibility under the AntiDrug Abuse Act of 1988. Would-be
lessees that already hold PALs will
automatically be deemed to meet this
requirement, as they have already
demonstrated that they are qualified to
be a Commission licensee. WTB will
establish a process for entities that do
not hold PALs to provide such
certification to the Commission
electronically and issue a Public Notice
detailing this process. The Commission
will maintain a publicly available list of
all entities that have made the requisite
advance certifications, and those listed
parties may enter into leasing
arrangements with Priority Access
licensees and commence leased
operations when the SAS provides the
required confirmation. The foregoing
approach balances the Commission’s
oversight obligations while still
permitting an efficient leasing process
that places lessees in a position to offer
service upon confirmation from the
SAS. This is particularly important
given that multiple parties have
expressed an interest in using secondary
market transactions to acquire Priority
Access spectrum rights for specific,
time-limited events.
218. SAS Notification Procedure.
Separate from the lessee’s certification
with the Commission, Priority Access
Licensees will be required to submit the
following information about each
spectrum lease to any SAS that accepts
leasing notifications: (1) Necessary
information on the identity of the
spectrum lessee (including necessary
contact information) and its eligibility to
lease spectrum as demonstrated by
appearing on the certification list; (2)
the specific spectrum leased (in terms of
amount of bandwidth and geographic
area involved), including the call sign
affected by the lease; and (3) the length
of the lease. The licensee must also
certify that its ownership information is
current and update its ownership
information, if necessary. After the
licensee has provided this information
and the SAS has provided confirmation
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49049
that the notification has been received
and the lease meets the qualifications
set forth in section 96.66 (47 CFR 96.66),
the lessee may commence operations.
This is consistent with our current
practice of allowing immediate
processing for certain spectrum manager
leasing arrangements, while ensuring
that the Commission has adequate time
in advance of what may be very shortterm event leasing to confirm that
potential lessees are qualified under our
rules. Leasing parties may extend the
leasing arrangement beyond the initial
term, by providing advance notification
to the SAS, and they may terminate the
arrangement early by providing
notification to the SAS no later than ten
days after the early termination.
219. The SAS Administrators must
provide an electronic report of these
notifications to the Commission on a
daily basis. The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau will then
issue a weekly informational Public
Notice listing the leasing arrangements.
As with all spectrum manager leases,
the leasing notifications are subject to
post-notification review by interested
parties or the Bureau within 30 days,
and by the Commission within 40 days.
As under our existing spectrum manager
leasing rules, the Commission retains
the right to investigate and terminate
any such leasing arrangement if it
determines, post-notification, that the
arrangement constitutes an
unauthorized transfer of de facto
control, is otherwise in violation of the
Commission’s rules, or raises foreign
ownership, competitive, or other public
interest concerns.
220. SAS Responsibilities Regarding
3.5 GHz Band Spectrum Manager
Leasing Arrangements. An SAS
Administrator may choose whether it
will accept leasing notifications and
support leasing arrangements. However,
regardless of whether an SAS accepts
leasing notifications, it is responsible for
meeting the core functions established
in the 3.5 GHz R&O and in the
Commission’s rules, including obtaining
and storing sufficient information to
recognize and protect lessees CBSDs
authorized by other SASs. SASs that do
choose to accept and support leasing
arrangements must, at a minimum: (1)
Accept and store the information
required in a licensee’s notification; (2)
verify whether the lessee has made the
required certification with the
Commission; (3) verify that the lease
will not result in the lessee holding
more than the 40 megahertz of Priority
Access spectrum in a given License
Area, and that lessee operation will not
extend beyond the licensee’s Service
Area or within its PAL Protection Area;
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49050
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(4) inform the licensee as to whether the
notification has been received and
verified; and (5) provide the
Commission with electronic reports of
the leasing notifications it received on a
daily basis. Upon receipt of
confirmation from the SAS, the lessee
may commence operation consistent
with the rules governing Priority Access
Licensees set forth in section 96.25 (47
CFR 96.25).
221. Assigning Unsold PALs for
Resale. In response to Key Bridge and
Cantor Telecom’s suggestion that the
Commission automatically assign all
unsold PALs from the auction for resale
on the secondary market, we believe
this runs contrary to the three-tier
system which already permits access to
this spectrum through GAA use. Key
Bridge and Cantor argue that resale of
PALs will foster innovation, but
operators of all types can still innovate
through GAA use. Further, if there is
market demand, we will hold another
auction before three-year license
expiration, creating another opportunity
to access PAL spectrum.
222. Filings. The licensee retains the
responsibility to engage in all
interactions with the SAS and
Commission, including the submission
of requisite filings that are directly
related to the use of spectrum by the
licensee or lessee.
223. Regulatory Status. Priority
Access lessees are free to select their
regulatory status, regardless of the
licensee’s status. In the 3.5 GHz R&O we
allowed both Priority Access Licensees
and GAA users to choose whether to
provide service on a common carrier or
non-common carrier basis and for the
same reasons, we allow lessees to do the
same. As noted in the 3.5 GHz R&O, this
will encourage the ability of Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users’ ability
to use the same equipment
interchangeably and avoid hindering a
potential lessee’s ability to use spectrum
based on a Priority Access Licensee’s
regulatory status.
3. Partitioning and Disaggregation
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
a. Background
224. The Commission has permitted
partitioning and disaggregation on a
service-by-service basis, in order to
allow licensees to transfer the right to
use a portion of the spectrum
(disaggregation) or a portion of the
geographic license area for that
spectrum (partitioning) to parties that
value it more highly. In so doing, the
Commission is able to promote such
goals as more efficient use of and greater
access to spectrum, fewer barriers to
entry, greater competition, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
increased services to consumers. The
Commission has allowed partitioning
and disaggregation for many services,
including Multipoint Distribution
Service (MDS), General Wireless
Communications Services (GWCS), 800
MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile
Radio (SMR), 39 GHz fixed point-topoint microwave, the Wireless
Communications Service (WCS), PCS,
the 700 MHz Band, and the AWS–3
Band.
225. As these examples make clear,
the Commission has permitted
partitioning and disaggregation in
services with license areas that range in
size from CMAs and BTAs (with 734
units and 496 units, respectively) to the
much-larger EAs and REAGs (with 176
units and 12 units, respectively). In so
doing, the Commission has provided
greater flexibility for licensees to meet
market demand. For example, when the
Commission proposed partitioning and
disaggregation for PCS, it stated such a
policy would speed service to rural
areas and allow market entry by entities
that only have the ability to serve a
limited population. When the
Commission later established rules to
allow AWS–3 Band and 700 MHz Band
licensees to partition and disaggregate
their spectrum, it reiterated that this
would allow market entry by new
entrants and provide flexibility. In each
of these services, the Commission also
adopted specific construction
requirements to ensure the spectrum
was put to use. However, the
Commission has also limited or
prohibited partitioning and
disaggregation in bands that permit
different services to share the spectrum
in order to prevent interference and
promote shared use.
226. In the Second FNPRM, the
Commission sought comment on
whether to allow partitioning and
disaggregation of PALs in the 3.5 GHz
Band and stated that its initial view was
‘‘to prohibit such further segmentation
of PALs given their relatively small size
(census tracts) and short license terms
(three years) as well as the availability
of significant GAA spectrum.’’ Many
commenters, including AT&T, Cantor
Telecom, CTIA, Information Technology
Industry Council, Qualcomm,
WinnForum, and WISPA, support
partitioning and disaggregation in the
3.5 GHz Band and argue it will increase
liquidity in the secondary market. In
response to concerns regarding license
size, WISPA states that while census
tracts in non-rural areas may be small,
that is not always the case for rural
areas. Further, AT&T notes that there
are numerous scenarios where smaller
areas benefit from partitioning and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
disaggregation, such as when a licensee
wants to make its spectrum available in
a specific portion of its license area (e.g.,
a hospital or university) while
maintaining use for the rest of this area,
and it observes that such arrangements
are easy to administer. Cantor Telecom
and WISPA both state there are business
cases that cannot be achieved only
through GAA use, as it does not provide
the same level of protection, but WISPA
recognizes that leasing can be used to
achieve the same results. The
Information Technology Industry
Council suggests that concerns
regarding administrative burdens can be
alleviated by permitting secondary
markets without requiring prior
Commission approval.
227. Other commenters, however, do
not agree that partitioning and
disaggregation are needed for successful
spectrum utilization in this band, or
argue that it should be handled through
significantly different administrative
procedures. Key Bridge argues that
secondary market transactions involving
transfers (as opposed to leases) should
be promoted by the Commission. In
particular, Key Bridge contends that
traditional rules for transactions do not
apply well to the 3.5 GHz Band and it
therefore recommends that the
Commission minimize transaction costs
by allowing for immediate processing of
certain transactions, including
transactions that would normally fall
under rules specified in section 1.913
(47 CFR 1.913). Although CTIA states
that to the extent that Priority Access
Licensees find value in partitioning and
disaggregation, it should be permitted,
CTIA notes the already splintered
nature of census tract licensing raises
questions about the utility of
partitioning and disaggregation. In its
initial comments, Federated Wireless
states that partitioning and
disaggregation of PALs would prove
both administratively burdensome and
unnecessary due to the relatively small
size of PALs and their limited three-year
licenses terms. In its reply comments,
Federated Wireless clarifies that this
opposition was based on the fact that
‘‘pursuant to Commission rules
[partitioning and disaggregation]
processes would entail applying for, and
obtaining, Commission approval to
formally segment PALs into smaller
service areas or blocks of spectrum
smaller than 10 MHz.’’ Federated
Wireless further clarifies that it objects
to the administrative burden and not the
ability to move spectrum to parties that
value it more highly, as summarized in
its reply comments: ‘‘[I]f commenters
merely are advocating for secondary
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
uses of PAL spectrum for less than a full
census tract (partitioning) or less than
the full 10 MHz of PAL spectrum
(disaggregation), by using a certification
or notice procedure rather than
submission of formal Commission
applications for partitioning or
disaggregation, then Federal Wireless
agrees.’’
b. Discussion
228. The light-touch leasing process
adopted herein can achieve the
objectives sought by the majority of
commenters to make the spectrum use
rights held by Priority Access Licensees
available in secondary markets without
need for the Commission oversight
required of partitioning and
disaggregation. Under the light-touch
leasing rules, Priority Access Licensees
are free to lease any portion of their
spectrum or license outside of their PAL
Protection Area. This has the same
effect—lessees can provide targeted
access to geographic areas or quantities
of spectrum—without additional
administrative burden. Coupled with
the availability of 80 MHz or more of
GAA spectrum in each License Area,
these rules will provide the necessary
flexibility to service specific or targeted
markets. In response to WISPA’s
concern that census tracts are larger in
rural areas, making targeted service
more difficult without holding multiple
PALs, we expect GAA spectrum to be
particularly abundant in those rural
areas, making such services achievable
through GAA use.
229. In addition, we note that he
reasons for permitting partitioning and
disaggregation in more traditionally
licensed bands are not prevalent or are
absent in the 3.5 GHz Band, which has
much different characteristics. The
Commission’s primary reason for
allowing partitioning and disaggregation
in other bands was to promote key
policy goals such as access to spectrum
and flexibility of use, which in turn can
result in greater service to consumers. In
contrast to more traditional licensing
governing other bands, the existing 3.5
GHz Band rules inherently provide this
flexibility. As such, the Commission
allowed partitioning and disaggregation
to increase competition and expedite
the provision of service in the near term.
For example, the rules governing 700
MHz band licenses, which service rules
do allow partitioning and disaggregation
(47 CFR 27.15), include a ten-year
license term and larger license areas.
However, in the 3.5 GHz Band,
relatively short license terms and small
license areas should facilitate faster
deployment of service and allow
providers to target smaller populations,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
meeting the same goals. Further, lower
power limits, the ability to dynamically
share spectrum, and the absence of
construction obligations offer licensees
the ability to experiment with different
business models and serve niche
markets, another basis for allowing
partitioning and disaggregation in other
services. This flexibility is further
bolstered by the rules adopted herein to
permit secondary market transactions.
230. Finally, the Commission cannot
easily address administrative burdens
associated with partitioning and
disaggregation through a pre-approval
process, as Information Technology
Industry Council suggests. Unlike
leases, parties seeking approval for
partitioning and disaggregation must file
an application for partial assignment or
transfer of control of a license, even if
the transaction does not require prior
Commission approval (47 CFR 1.948).
While certain assignments and transfers
of control do not require prior
Commission approval, the assignor must
file an application for Commission
approval regardless (47 CFR 1.948(c)).
4. Spectrum Exchanges
a. Background
231. The majority of commenters
advocate that Commission should
permit spectrum exchanges for PALs.
Cantor Telecom states that a spectrum
exchange would permit qualified
participants to gain immediate access to
PAL usage rights along with additional
benefits, including enhanced price
discovery, transparency, and paperwork
and cost efficiencies, thereby improving
access to available bandwidth and
significantly increasing the liquidity of
the spectrum. AT&T, Verizon, and
WISPA, also support voluntary
spectrum exchanges. Alternatively,
Federated Wireless states that spectrum
exchanges would add complexity and
are unnecessary because they serve
functions already authorized to be
performed by the SAS. Further,
Federated Wireless claims that only a
fully functional SAS will have sufficient
knowledge to confirm whether a
secondary transaction meets the
conditions necessary to operate.
However, Cantor Telecom responds that
an SAS’s main purpose is to function as
a geolocation database, while a
spectrum exchange focuses on
facilitating secondary market access to
PALs.
232. Other commenters address
whether the SAS should act as a
spectrum exchange. Verizon asks that
the Commission not only permit, but
encourage SAS Administrators to
establish spectrum exchanges. AT&T,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49051
Google, and WISPA state that the
Commission should neither prohibit not
require an SAS to operate as a spectrum
exchange. AT&T also states that if an
SAS does act as a spectrum exchange,
these functions should be separable
from the core functions of the SAS.
b. Discussion
233. The rules that govern the 3.5 GHz
Band do not explicitly address spectrum
exchanges, and we take no action to
establish or prohibit spectrum
exchanges, nor do we take action to
favor any particular type of private
market exchange mechanism. In keeping
with the operational flexibility we have
created for the 3.5 GHz Band, we agree
with WISPA that market mechanisms
should drive the creation of spectrum
exchanges, instead of Commission rules.
This approach is consistent with the
Commission’s general approach of
relying on market processes where
possible in regard to secondary markets.
If a market demand develops for
spectrum exchanges in the 3.5 GHz
Band, it is in the public interest to allow
such exchanges to respond to this
demand consistent with the
requirements of the Communications
Act and our rules.
234. In regard to whether an SAS
should be permitted to also act as a
spectrum exchange, again we will let
market forces determine the role of the
SAS, and as such, stand-alone
exchanges or SAS-managed exchanges
are permitted. As suggested by Google,
there may be SAS Administrators who
decide that it is economical to operate
a spectrum exchange as a function of the
SAS. We also acknowledge Federated
Wireless’ concern that spectrum
exchanges will add unnecessary
complexity to band management.
However, the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service rules already require an SAS to
track Priority Access, GAA and
Incumbent Access operations and, as
such, we do not believe tracking PAL
ownership or coordinating with an
independent spectrum exchange would
be overly-burdensome. Moreover, our
rules do not require individual SAS
Administrators to act as spectrum
exchanges or to work with any thirdparty spectrum exchanges that may
develop. Rather, they provide the
flexibility for SAS Administrators to
provide these services at their option to
meet market demand. Similar to offering
leasing, the option to operate a spectrum
exchange is voluntary and so long as
SAS Administrators can fulfill their core
duties and comply with Commission
rules, an SAS may also operate a
spectrum exchange.
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49052
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
5. Spectrum Aggregation and
Attribution in the 3.5 GHz Band
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
a. Background
235. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the
Commission adopted a spectrum
aggregation limit that would allow
licensees to hold no more than four
PALs in one census tract at any given
time (or no more than 40 megahertz out
of the 70 megahertz allocated to PALs).
The Commission concluded that this
limit of 40 megahertz would facilitate
competition, innovation, and efficient
use of the 3.5 GHz Band, ensuring that
it would be allocated in a manner that
serves the public interest, convenience,
and necessity. However, for a variety of
reasons, the Commission decided it
would not include the 3.5 GHz Band in
the spectrum screen. The Second
FNPRM sought comment on the
application of our spectrum aggregation
limits in the context of the initial
licensing of PALs, whether to use the
Commission’s existing attribution
standard for these purposes, and how
any unique characteristics of PAL
auctions, such as the need for
streamlined processing, should be taken
into account.
236. The majority of commenters do
not directly address spectrum
aggregation limits but those that do urge
the Commission to refrain from
adopting spectrum aggregation rules.
AT&T believes that the Commission
should not stifle secondary markets by
adopting spectrum aggregation rules for
this band, as the 3.5 GHz Band is
nascent and no competitive issues have
arisen that suggest a need for regulation.
For the same reasons, AT&T opposes
applying the attribution standard in
existing rules to PALs, and no other
commenters address the application of
our attribution standard. Federated
Wireless also urges the Commission not
to count PALs toward spectrum
aggregation limits, stating this would
not be equitable since by its nature,
PALs will likely not be in use full time
by the licensee. The Information
Technology Industry Council requests
that the Commission consider allowing
a Priority Access Licensee to hold more
than four PALs (i.e., 40 megahertz) of
spectrum in one census tract, even for
a limited duration or geography.
b. Discussion
237. As noted above, we do not
include 3.5 GHz Band in the
Commission’s spectrum screen, as PALs
are not suitable and available for the
provision of mobile telephony and
broadband services in the same manner
as other bands that are currently
included in the Commission’s spectrum
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
screen applied to secondary market
transactions. This finding was based on
the unique characteristics of the band,
including multiple tiers of many users
and short license terms. We do not
revisit this finding here and there is no
support on the record for doing so.
238. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the
Commission also addressed a spectrum
aggregation limit within the Priority
Access tier and concluded that one
licensee many not hold more than 40
megahertz of the maximum of the 70
megahertz of Priority Access spectrum
in each License Area. As the
Commission decided in the order, this
spectrum aggregation limit will promote
diversity by ensuring the availability of
PALs to at least two users in those
geographic areas where there is the
greatest likelihood of demand, and will
incentivize innovation and competition
that will likely lead to more choices for
the consumer, while still allowing for
applications that require larger blocks of
spectrum. The Information Technology
Industry Council presents no additional
arguments and we also decline to revisit
the 40 megahertz spectrum aggregation
limit.
239. In light of the spectrum
aggregation limit in our rules, these
secondary markets rules must make
clear to whom the limit should apply.
Given the lack of record on attribution
issues in the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service context, we apply the
attribution threshold as set forth in
section 20.22 of the Commission’s rules
and referred to in the Second FNPRM
(47 CFR 20.22). These controlling and
non-controlling interests delineated in
section 20.22 (47 CFR 20.22) shall be
attributable to applicants for licenses
and parties to leasing arrangements in
the 3.5 GHz Band.
C. FSS Protection
1. In-Band Protection of FSS in the
3600–3700 MHz Band
a. Background
240. The Commission has licensed
FSS earth stations to receive on
frequencies in the 3600–3650 MHz and
3650–3700 MHz bands. FSS use of the
3600–3650 MHz band is limited to nonfederal international intercontinental
systems (47 CFR 2.106). In the 3.5 GHz
R&O, we adopted rules that require
CBSDs to protect existing in-band FSS
earth stations from interference (47 CFR
96.17). As described in section III(H),
we also require FSS earth stations
seeking protection under the rules to
register with the Commission annually,
or upon making changes to any of the
parameters listed in § 96.17(d) (47 CFR
96.17). The information included in
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
these registrations will be used by the
SASs to protect licensed FSS earth
stations. We found that, while there
were technical implementation details
to be worked out, an SAS-based system
should be an effective means of
protecting licensed FSS earth stations
and promoting broadband deployment
in the band. We also noted that specific
technical details and requirements may
be developed as part of the SAS
approval process and may be informed
by the work of an industry-led multistakeholder group. Therefore, in the
Second FNPRM, we sought comment on
specific approaches to calculating and
implementing FSS protections.
241. In the Second FNPRM, we sought
comment on: (1) Interference protection
criteria appropriate for establishing FSS
interference limits; (2) the methodology
for calculating exclusion distances for
CBSDs, and in particular, the
applicability of the Commission’s
example methodology in the 3650–3700
MHz proceeding; (3) whether or not to
establish default protection areas
around FSS earth stations; (4) the RF
propagation model(s) best suited for
SAS protections of FSS; (5) policy and
methods for adjudicating demands for
increased spectrum use at a location
that would result in the protection
criteria for an FSS earth station receiver
being exceeded; and (6) methods for
ensuring that End User Devices do not
interfere with FSS earth stations while
avoiding a mandate for geo-location
requirements on end user devices.
242. Numerous commenters
responded to the Second FNPRM,
presenting a range of proposed
approaches to the issues presented.
Those comments are addressed in detail
on a subject-by-subject basis below,
including calculation of FSS protection
areas; interference protection criteria;
RF propagation models; and other
issues. As with our efforts to address
other sharing issues in the 3.5 GHz
Band, the rules we have developed are
designed to enable use of the band for
new wireless services, while
maintaining protection for the in-band
FSS operations. We adopt specific inband FSS protections below based on
the characteristics of the FSS sites and
modeled to a conservative level, and
provide unprecedented protections for
certain C-Band FSS sites.
b. Calculation of FSS Protection Areas
(i) Background
243. In the Second FNPRM, we sought
comment as to whether we should
establish default earth station protection
areas based on assumed FSS earth
station receiver characteristics, such
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
that CBSD operation outside of this area
would be assumed not to cause
interference to earth stations, and
whether the geographic area could be
adjusted by an SAS to accommodate
actual FSS operating characteristics. We
also noted that the Commission’s
example methodology set forth in
Appendix D in the 3650–3700 MHz
Band R&O could be a useful starting
point for co-existence analysis, and we
sought comment on the use of this
methodology by an SAS to calculate
exclusion distances for CBSDs with
respect to individual FSS earth stations
in the 3.5 GHz Band.
244. Many commenters support
protection of incumbent FSS earth
stations from aggregate interference but
assert that default protection areas are
inefficient and utilizing worst case
assumptions may lead to overprotection
of FSS earth stations. Specifically,
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, Federated
Wireless, Google, Information
Technology Industry Council, Microsoft,
Wi-Fi Alliance, and WinnForum argue
against the imposition of default
protection areas based on worst case
assumptions. WinnForum claims that
default areas are inherently inefficient,
and almost inevitably, provide either
too little protection to the incumbent, or
overly restrict other operations. In
addition, default protection zones may
not account for aggregation effects and
would have to be quite large to account
for worst case aggregate interference.
The Information Technology Industry
Council also argues that for FSS, the
Commission should not adopt default or
generalized protection zones for all FSS
earth stations. The Wi-Fi Alliance
argues that the Commission should not
over-protect FSS earth stations and
SASs should be permitted to calculate
protection areas based on terrain
characteristics and FSS earth station
operational parameters. Microsoft
claims that it is possible to protect FSS
earth stations without imposing large
protection zones and that the size and
shape of each protected area should be
limited to that which is technically
necessary to protect licensed satellite
operations. Rajant argues for a factbased approach to sharing spectrum
with incumbent FSS and, from their
deployments in the 3650–3700 MHz
band, contends that much smaller
coordination zones than 150 km are
possible.
245. Google also argues that the
Commission should tailor FSS
protections to actual conditions, rather
than establishing a default protection
zone for all FSS earth stations.
According to Google, these protection
zones should account for real world
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
factors such as propagation, terrain,
earth station pointing angles, and
transmitter characteristics. They argue
that utilizing worst case or near worst
case assumptions for these elements
would result in over protection of FSS
earth stations, inefficient spectrum use,
and diminished investment in the band.
Google claims that an SAS can
dynamically calculate an appropriate
default protection area for each site,
based upon local terrain, pointing
directions for the FSS antenna, and
other site-specific considerations. Such
protection areas could be based upon
the antenna gain and receiving system
noise temperature of the particular
antenna for which the protection area is
being calculated. However, a default
protection area would only demarcate a
region beyond which all CBSDs will be
considered non-interfering. Within the
protection area, CBSDs would be
permitted to operate, provided that an
SAS determines that aggregate
interference does not exceed the
interference thresholds.
246. In its reply comments, Google
proposes a seven step methodology for
calculating interference protection for
FSS earth stations. Google’s approach,
which accounts for individual FSS site
characteristics and interference from
individual, as well as aggregate, CBSD
operations, includes calculations of FSS
antenna gain in the direction of a CBSD
requesting authorization to operate,
CBSD power spectral density in the
direction of the FSS antenna, path loss
between the CBSD and FSS earth station
antenna, the received interference
power at the FSS antenna from the
CBSD seeking authorization and the
aggregate interference power from all
CBSDs within a default protection area,
and a comparison of the aggregate
calculated power to an interference
threshold. Under Google’s proposal,
SASs would only allow CBSDs to
operate if the aggregate power of all
CBSDs in the area falls below the
permissible interference threshold.
247. Regarding the applicability of the
example methodology in Appendix D of
the 3650–3700 MHz Band R&O, Google
asserts that the Commission should not
adopt the separation distance
methodology in Appendix D because it
contains latent assumptions that are not
discernible from the information
provided. Examples include
assumptions regarding propagation
models and interference objectives that
are built into the equations.
Electrodynamics states that their testing
proves that the Appendix D
methodology is insufficient because
there is not an adequate basis for
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49053
microclimate analysis to justify the
methodology.
248. WinnForum also recommends
that the Commission adopt calculation
methods to protect FSS earth stations
that are based on actual deployment
characteristics and public, scientifically
reviewed propagation models.
WinnForum believes that the geometric
approach in Appendix D is an
appropriate method for the SAS to use
in calculating protections for FSS earth
stations. Specifically, WinnForum
contends that the operating parameters
laid out in Table 1 of Appendix D—
including antenna gain parameters,
system noise temperature, and
bandwidth—are appropriate parameters
for the SAS to use in protection
calculations. These operating
parameters also include the antenna
reference pattern in section 25.209(a)
(47 CFR 25.209(a)), system noise
temperature of 142.8 K, polarization
(linear or circular), and receive
bandwidth (40 kHz–36 MHz).
249. SIA argues that while some
aspects of the Appendix D methodology
such as the geometric analysis are useful
elements for conducting co-existence
analyses and calculating exclusion
distances for CBSDs with respect to
individual FSS earth stations, the
Appendix D methodology is not
sufficient to adequately protect FSS
operations from interference from
CBSDs. SIA claims that Appendix D has
two major flaws. First, it does not
provide a means to calculate separation
distances required when there are
multiple small cell interfering
transmitters and therefore cannot be
used to consider aggregate interference.
Second, the separation distance formula
does not consider critically important
variable parameters such as the power
of the in-band interfering signal, the
elevation profile from the earth station
to the small cell location of the
interfering in-band signal, the terrain
profile for the specific location, the time
variability of propagation path loss, and
the earth station receiver noise
temperature. Further, SIA states that,
since Appendix D does not discuss the
origin of the formula or the constants it
uses, SIA lacks the information
necessary to suggest appropriate
modifications and additional data for
adapting the formula for application to
the 3.5 GHz Band.
250. SIA supports the adoption of
protection criteria that use worst-case
assumptions rather than real-world
deployment conditions. SIA claims that
an approach based on a real-world
interference protection system is
misguided because it would be difficult
to achieve, unduly burden FSS
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49054
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
operators, and raise significant
confidentiality concerns. SIA argues
that a real-world interference protection
system would be challenging to
implement because it would require
design, development, installation,
testing, and maintenance of carrier
monitoring hardware, software, and
communications links among the FSS
earth stations and the SAS. According to
SIA, such a system would impose
unreasonable burdens on FSS operators
who would have to report changes every
time they occur. Moreover, the system
would need to include highly
commercially sensitive information
such as frequencies, bandwidths, and
carrier-to-noise ratios.
251. Federated Wireless contends that
SIA’s approach is far too conservative
and, by stacking worst case assumptions
atop one another, presents an unrealistic
view of the interference environment in
the 3.5 GHz Band. Federated Wireless
supports an approach based in realworld deployment characteristics and
measured data. Federated Wireless
notes that the Spectrum and Receiver
Performance Working Group of the
Commission’s Technological Advisory
Council (TAC) has endorsed a similar
approach. Federated Wireless also
proposes that active sensing of the radio
environment in the vicinity of FSS earth
station receivers, is technically feasible
and could enhance the protection
provided to incumbents. According to
Federated Wireless, such an approach
could be based on propagation models
and providing real-time measurement of
aggregate interference to the SAS as part
of a closed loop system that ensures
I/N levels do not exceed protection
criteria, even during anomalous
propagation conditions. It encourages
field trials with the satellite community
to demonstrate the effectiveness of SAS
protections.
(ii) Discussion
252. As we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O,
we believe that protections for FSS earth
stations in the 3.5 GHz Band should be
flexible and customized to the specific
parameters of each earth station and the
interference environment in the vicinity
of each earth station. We agree with
commenters that argue that the
information submitted by registered
CBSDs and FSS earth stations should be
used to customize the protections
afforded to FSS earth stations on
temporal, spectral, and geographic bases
and should not be based on worst case
assumptions. In addition, as discussed
below, while we do not mandate a
specific methodology for determining
such protection areas, certain
assumptions used in Appendix D of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
3650–3700 MHz Band R&O are
appropriate for determining FSS
protections in the 3.5 GHz Band as well.
253. We disagree with SIA’s proposal
to adopt static default protection zones
based on worst case assumptions. As
Google and Federated Wireless argue,
such static protection zones are not
reflective of the actual interference
protection needs of individual FSS earth
stations and will not promote efficient
use of the band. The approach
advocated by Google and Federated
Wireless is consistent with the TAC’s
recommendation to the Commission,
that ‘‘. . . worst case analyses, when
applicable, [should be used] only to
determine the consequences of harmful
interference, and tested statistical
techniques to assess risk [should be
used] to perform a thorough assessment
of the impact of mixing different
services in the same or nearby bands.’’
254. We agree that the adoption of
static protection zones based on worst
case assumptions would overprotect
FSS earth stations at the expense of new
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users
and would effectively prohibit new
deployment in some geographic areas
without any demonstration that such
deployments would actually cause
interference to individual FSS earth
stations. Such an approach would be
inconsistent with the Commission’s
goals as it would be likely to impede
innovation and erect barriers to efficient
use of the band.
255. We also disagree with SIA’s
assertion that an interference protection
methodology based on real-world
deployment factors would be difficult to
achieve, unduly burden FSS operators,
and raise confidentiality concerns. We
address—and reject—SIA’s arguments
with regard to the potential burdens of
registering and updating earth station
criteria in section III(H) above.
Moreover, we do not believe that the
information that FSS earth stations are
required to register with the
Commission is likely to be
commercially sensitive or confidential
(47 CFR 0.459). Indeed, SIA itself notes
that much of the information that FSS
earth station licensees must register
under section 96.17 (47 CFR 96.17) is
already registered with the Commission
in IBFS. We agree with those
commenters, including Federated
Wireless, Google, and WinnForum that
state that, by using the information from
FSS earth station registrations and
CBSD registrations in the surrounding
area, SASs will be able to enforce
customized protection areas tailored to
the specifications of each FSS earth
station in the 3.5 GHz Band. We believe
that such an approach will effectively
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
protect FSS earth stations, maximize
spectral efficiency, and promote
deployment in the band.
256. We also believe that it is
appropriate to establish an area around
FSS earth stations over which SASs will
calculate potential interference power
levels from all CBSDs in that area to
reduce the burden on SASs and narrow
the field for interference calculations.
CBSDs outside of this area are deemed
to be too far away to cause interference.
Reasonably defined areas will limit the
number of CBSDs that SASs would have
to account for in calculating protection
areas without increasing the risk of
interference to FSS earth stations. As
such, we find that SASs should account
for in-band, co-frequency interference
from all CBSDs within 150 km of an FSS
earth station when calculating
protection distances. This distance is
consistent with the 150 km FSS
protection distance established in the
3650–3700 MHz Band R&O. We also
adopt 40 km as the distance for adjacent
emission and blocking interference
calculations based on the analysis
presented in this proceeding by Alion.
We emphasize that these are not default
protection areas but merely the areas
within which SASs must account for
aggregate interference from CBSDs when
calculating protections for individual
FSS earth stations.
257. Regarding the methodology used
to calculate protection areas for FSS
earth stations the 3.5 GHz R&O
concluded that an analytic framework
similar to the one detailed in the 3650–
3700 MHz Band R&O would be
applicable to the 3.5 GHz Band. We
sought comment on the applicability
and use of this methodology in the
Second FNPRM. While some
commenters agree with aspects of the
Appendix D methodology, most
encouraged us not to adopt the
approach in its entirety for the 3.5 GHz
Band. After review of the record, we
agree that the Appendix D methodology
includes some relevant components but
it is not wholly suitable for an SASbased protection system. For instance,
in the Second FNPRM, we proposed that
FSS earth station protection criteria be
based on the FSS earth station off-axis
antenna gain performance standard that
was in section 25.209(a) of our rules at
that time (47 CFR 25.209(a)). Those
rules specified an envelope of maximum
FSS antenna gain as a function of the
angle (in degrees) from the main lobe
(47 CFR 25.209(a)(1) and (4)). The SAS
can use this standard for the calculation
of aggregate interference from CBSDs
located at different angles and distances
from the FSS antenna main beam. We
agree with WinnForum that the
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Commission’s rules that allow earth
stations to register pointing information
along with its operating parameters
would enable such geometric
calculations. Specifically, we adopt the
use of section 25.209(a)(1) and (4) (47
CFR 25.209(a)(1) and (4)) FSS antenna
gain envelopes in the methodology for
calculating exclusion distances. We also
agree with Google’s suggestion that we
adopt the FSS system noise floor value
in Appendix D (142.8 K). This value
was originally derived from SIA’s filings
in the 3650–3700 MHz proceeding.
Since its adoption, we are unaware of
any complaints related to the use of this
system noise floor value in the 3650–
3700 MHz Wireless Broadband Service.
258. We are encouraged by the efforts
of commenters to address the
development and implementation of
protection methodologies for FSS earth
stations in the 3.5 GHz Band. We
believe that these approaches—or
elements thereof—may be used to
establish consistent, flexible, and
effective protections for FSS earth
stations in the 3.5 GHz Band. However,
in the interest of promoting
technological and operational
flexibility, we do not believe that the
specific calculation approach in all
aspects should be codified beyond the
rules adopted in this section. We direct
WTB and OET to address whether and
how to do so during the SAS approval
process, consistent with the approach
adopted in this order.
259. We encourage industry to further
develop improvements to protection
criteria standards and incumbent
reliability requirements that are more
transparent and reproducible, based on
measurements and operational
experience, using realistic deployment
scenarios that are representative of real
risk. We also encourage industry to
continue to develop novel technological
approaches to interference protection,
including sensing techniques, which
may be used to improve protection
criteria in the future.
c. Interference Protection Criteria
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
(i) Background
260. In the Second FNPRM, we agreed
with commenters that responded to the
FNPRM that FSS earth stations could be
effectively protected by establishing a
maximum aggregate power limit at each
FSS earth station. We stated that an
aggregate threshold level should be
based on a theoretical thermal noise
floor (Interference-to-Noise ratio; I/N)
and account for earth station receiver
performance degradation as a result of
both desired and undesired signals
(Carrier-to-Interference-plus-Noise ratio;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
C/(I+N)). We proposed that signals from
CBSDs at the output of the FSS antenna
system be permitted up to this aggregate
threshold 47 CFR 25.209(a). We also
proposed that each SAS calculate the
permissible separation distance for a
CBSD requesting activation, using an
appropriate calculation methodology
and propagation model, and taking into
account the registered parameters of the
CBSD and FSS earth station. We sought
comment on appropriate interference
protection criteria and requested
technical analyses and field studies to
support any such submissions. We
instructed commenters to assume the
use of appropriate, commercially
available earth station receiver input
filters in compiling their analyses.
261. SIA, Google, and the WinnForum
propose to protect in-band FSS earth
stations from aggregate interference
using a protection criterion equal to an
I/N of ¥12 dB. This value is derived
from ITU–R S.1432–1. Google proposes
that interference into FSS earth stations
should not exceed 6% of the system
noise temperature, corresponding to I/N
of ¥12 dB. WinnForum agrees and
contends that in-band FSS earth stations
should be required to accept no more
than 6% of the noise floor (I/N = ¥12
dB) in aggregate interference. SIA also
argues that interference protection
criteria should be based on limiting the
increase of an earth station receiver’s
noise floor to 6%, equal to I/N of ¥12
dB.
262. Federated Wireless claims that
I/N of ¥12 dB is overly conservative
and that the real characteristics of FSS
systems and potential interferers should
be used for interference analysis.
Federated Wireless goes on to say that
at a minimum, the proper application of
ITU–R S.1432 would result in the use of
I/N of ¥12 dB criterion for long term
effects, which suggests support for I/N
of ¥12 dB as an initial long term
median value for protection, subject to
future change and improvement as more
evidence of the real characteristics of
FSS systems and potential interferers
becomes known. In a separate filing,
Federated Wireless asked the
Commission to take note of the
approach to managing interference from
End User Devices that was suggested in
the final report of the Commerce
Spectrum Management Advisory
Committee (CSMAC) Working Group
1(CSMAC Report). Federated Wireless
argues that the CSMAC Report supports
the use of a protection criterion equal to
I/N of ¥10 dB as proposed in various
ITU documents. iPosi also disagrees
with SIA regarding the level of
protection that should be afforded, and
proposes an aggregate source I/N of ¥6
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49055
dB, stating that while FSS link margins
are small, the allowable aggregate
interference must be measurable.
263. Radio Soft & LS Telecom contend
that interference criteria should be
based on C/(I+N) because, as described
in the FNPRM, noise floor itself is too
pessimistic, considering that signals
even a few dB above noise will allow
dramatically improved access to CBSDs
without any reliability degradation to an
incumbent FSS. While proposing an
I/N value of ¥12 dB, Google asserts that
this value represents only 0.25 dB in
noise floor degradation, and represents
an even smaller portion of the carrierto-interference plus noise (C/(I+N))
ratio. SIA argues that interference
protection criteria should not be based
on C/(I+N), explaining that the desired
signal level at the FSS should not be a
part of the calculation. SIA states that
this would require the FSS to report
signal level changes every time they
occur, which would be unduly
burdensome and has not been proposed
in this proceeding.
(ii) Discussion
264. Many commenters argue that
protection of FSS earth station receivers
from aggregate interference should be
based on a received interference power
limit at the FSS receiver. We agree that
allowing the SAS to calculate
protections based on an aggregate
interference limit would be the most
flexible and efficient means of
protecting FSS earth stations and
facilitating widespread deployment in
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
Accordingly, we require the SASs to
utilize the received interference power
to determine appropriate and consistent
protections tailored to the actual
deployment and operational parameters
of FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz
Band consistent with the approach
described above.
265. Commenters representing both
satellite interests and new-entrants
contend that protection for FSS earth
stations should be based on an I/N of
¥12 dB, as set forth in ITU–R S.1432–
1 at the FSS earth station’s receiver. As
noted above, there are also some
commenters that believe this criterion is
overly conservative. Consistent with the
majority of commenters on this issue,
we find that using I/N of ¥12 dB as a
long term median threshold will
provide sufficient protection for in-band
FSS earth stations. While we are basing
our approach to FSS protection on this
value, we note that some commenters
believe that it may be more conservative
than is necessary to protect FSS earth
stations. We agree that this threshold
may be conservative but we do not
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49056
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
believe that commenters provide
sufficient evidence for us to adopt a less
conservative I/N value for protection of
FSS earth stations at this time.
Nonetheless, we will monitor industry
efforts to study the real world protection
needs of FSS earth stations in the band
as well as the effects of Citizens
Broadband Radio Service equipment on
such earth stations. We may revisit the
interference threshold in the future if
justified by future technical studies and
real world observations.
266. Consistent with these findings,
we adopt a long term interference
threshold for protecting FSS from inband co-channel interference from
CBSD fundamental emissions. We adopt
a long term median aggregate protection
limit based on I/N of ¥12 dB at the
output of the FSS antenna system, with
the FSS system noise, N, based on T =
142.8 K as noted above. Thus, the long
term median threshold is the thermal
system noise floor of the FSS receiver
raised by the acceptable added
interference (¥12 dB) relative to that
system noise level, which equates to: I
= ¥129 dBm/MHz (this is calculated
using the equation in dBm/MHz; I = N
+ I/N = (k+T+B) + I/N = ¥198.6 dBm/
Hz/K + 21.5 dB–K + 60 dB–Hz/MHz +
(¥12 dB); where 21.5 dB–K is
equivalent to 142.8 K; 21.5 =
10log10(142.8)).
267. We also reject SIA’s proposal to
apply the interference protection
methodology described in ITU–R
S.1432–1 in the 3.5 GHz Band. We note
that SIA has argued in favor of utilizing
ITU–R S.1432–1 in other proceedings
and we have consistently refused to
adopt all of its methods and
assumptions. Notably, in the 3650–3700
MHz Band R&O, we found that the
specifications in ITU–R S.1432–1 are
design criteria for FSS earth stations,
not interference protection criteria and,
accordingly, rejected its specifications
as suitable interference criteria in that
proceeding. While ITU–R S.1432–1
utilizes the long-term I/N of ¥12 that
commenters support and we adopt, it
also includes assumptions and
approaches that are inapplicable to
terrestrial mobile services. Indeed, ITU–
R S.1432–1 specifically addresses
degradations to FSS signals from time
invariant interference and notes that
there are currently no recommendations
dealing with interference from coprimary allocated mobile systems into
FSS systems, while the 3.5 GHz Band
will likely be used for terrestrial mobile
service. As a result, the assumptions
and methods used in ITU–R S.1432–1
are not necessarily applicable to this
band. The assumptions are based on an
arbitrary allotment of time invariant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
interference and do not clearly define
the time allowance corresponding to
other sources of interference. Moreover,
the assumptions are unsupported by
either performance measurements or
operational experience. Therefore,
consistent with established Commission
precedent, we find that the ITU
approach is inappropriate for use with
terrestrial mobile service and decline to
adopt the methodology described in
ITU–R S.1432–1 for this band.
268. We believe that the long-term
median interference limit adopted
herein will effectively protect in-band
FSS earth stations from interference.
However, we encourage prospective
SAS Administrators to consider the
possibility of short-term interference
while developing their protection
models for submission during the SAS
approval process and to work with FSS
earth station licensees to resolve any
reports of actual interference, consistent
with section 96.17(f) (47 CFR 96.17(f)).
269. Reference FSS RF Filter. In the
NPRM, we sought comment on methods
of mitigating out-of-band interference
from CBSDs. In the FNPRM, we
specifically sought comment on the use
of filters to reduce or eliminate
interference from out-of-band sources.
In the Second FNPRM, we instructed
commenters to assume the use of
appropriate, commercially available
earth station receiver input filters when
performing interference analyses. A
diverse array of commenters addressed
the efficacy of filters throughout this
proceeding and utilized filtering
assumptions in analyzing interference
effects on FSS earth stations. After
review of the record and consistent with
the Commission’s instructions in the
Second FNPRM, we require that the
SAS must utilize assumptions
consistent with the capabilities of
commercially available filters in
determining interference protections for
FSS earth stations.
270. The Content Interests sponsored
analyses by Alion have referenced a
commonly available RF filter from
Microwave Filter Co (Model 13961W) in
their coexistence studies. The Content
Interests sponsored analysis by
Comsearch uses an FSS RF filter mask
for a commercially available C-Band
interference elimination filter that has
similar characteristics. While these
references are for commercial filters
applied to the C-Band, we believe that
these RF filter masks represent state-ofthe art filter performance that would
also be commonly found for protecting
FSS earth stations in the 3600–3700
MHz band. As evidence of this, we find
two examples of C-Band RF filters from
Microwave Filter Co. with passband
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lower edges at 3600 MHz and 3625
MHz, and a filter from Eagle Comtronics
Inc. with a passband lower edge at 3600
MHz, all with similar rejection
characteristics and low insertion loss.
271. We expect that FSS licensees
will take reasonable steps to protect
their licensed band of operation with
applicable RF interference rejection
filters, and we therefore adopt a
reference FSS RF filter mask with
similar characteristics as those
referenced here. Specifically, we adopt
a reference RF filter to be considered for
in-band FSS protection with 0.5 dB
insertion loss in the passband, 0.6 dB/
MHz attenuation to 30.5 dB at 50 MHz
offset below the lower edge of the FSS
earth station’s authorized passband and
0.25 dB/MHz attenuation to 55.5 dB at
greater than or equal to 150 MHz offset
below the lower edge of the FSS earth
station’s authorized passband. Based on
the filings in the record regarding filter
performance, we believe that these
specifications represent common
capabilities of filters that are
commercially available in the band and
should not be construed as an
endorsement of any particular
technology, filter type, or product.
272. Blocking. As detailed above,
throughout this proceeding, we have
sought comment on the effects of
aggregate interference on FSS earth
station receivers (47 CFR 96.17). While
much of the record has been focused on
the effects of co-channel interference
and OOBE on FSS earth stations in the
3.5 GHz Band, some commenters have
argued that receiver blocking effects due
to strong signal effects from adjacent
channel CBSD transmissions may also
cause significant interference to FSS
earth stations by overloading or
blocking the RF front end of these
receivers. Indeed, the Commission
specifically sought comment on the
point at which even significantly
reduced OOBE limits would cease to
provide additional protection benefits
due to these blocking effects.
Specifically, commenters have filed
analyses with calculations of the
maximum RF input power that can be
fed to an FSS earth station’s low noise
block downconverter (LNB) from
neighboring non-FSS transmitters
operating outside of the FSS earth
station’s authorized passband, while
still maintaining reasonable linear
performance. They contend that RF
input power from fundamental
emissions outside of the FSS earth
station’s authorized passband that
exceed this FSS input power limit can
cause serious distortion and
interference, called LNA/LNB overdrive,
LNB saturation, or blocking. After
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
review of this information, we find that
it is appropriate to limit fundamental
CBSD emissions outside of the FSS
earth station’s authorized passband so
that the aggregate RF power at the
output of a reference FSS RF filter and
antenna system would not exceed a
median adjacent blocking interference
threshold.
273. SIA has filed a study of sharing
considerations between small cells and
geostationary satellite networks in the
3.4–4.2 GHz band. SIA references ITU–
R M.2109 that analyzes the possibility of
FSS LNA/LNB overdrive into non-linear
operation at input power of ¥60 dBm.
SIA states, ‘‘There is a large variance
between devices of this power level,
with input power levels typically
ranging anywhere from ¥44 dBm to
¥60 dBm. However, a median value of
¥55 dBm can be used as a
representative number.’’ Furthermore,
SIA states ‘‘The maximum input power
that can be fed into the LNA/LNB and
still maintain linear operation is unique
to each device but is approximately 10
dB below the input power level
associated with the 1 dB gain
compression point (see Section 8.1.1
and Annex E of ITU–R M.2109).
Accordingly, the maximum power that
can be fed into the LNA/LNB and have
the device remain in the linear mode of
operation is approximately ¥65 dBm’’
The large variance in input power limits
and the median value of ¥55 dBm cited
by SIA above are all represented
without reference to specific
manufacturer products or specifications.
We have analyzed a specific product
that we believe has typical performance
characteristics. That filter, on which we
base the blocking limit, has an input
power limit of ¥54 dBm, which differs
from the median value cited by SIA by
only 1 dB. Because we are basing the
requirement on a typical filter and there
is variance among filters that are
commercially available, we believe that
a more conservative 6 dB back-off from
this input power limit, rather than the
3 dB recommended by SIA is
appropriate. We therefore adopt ¥60
dBm RMS as the median blocking limit
from aggregate adjacent CBSDs, at the
output of a reference RF filter and
antenna. We believe this results in a
reasonable threshold that would
effectively protect many devices but not
necessarily the worst case weakest
device with the lowest input power
limit. Finally, we note that these
specifications represent common
capabilities of filters that are
commercially available in the band and
should not be construed as an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
endorsement of any particular
technology, filter type, or product.
d. RF Propagation Models
(i) Background
274. In the Second FNPRM, we sought
comment on what propagation model(s)
are best suited for SAS-based
protections of FSS. We also requested
measurement results to validate model
parameters for short range and long
range propagation scenarios involving
urban clutter, environmental factors,
and indoor-to-outdoor propagation. We
tentatively concluded that each SAS
must use the same propagation model.
275. Commenters including AT&T
and SIA recommend the use of a single
propagation model or a uniform set of
models to promote fairness and
consistency. AT&T advocates the use of
uniform models across SASs, vetted and
validated by an expert international
body. AT&T asserts that such models
would produce the same results,
simplify SAS administration by
reducing the frequency in which SASs
need to communicate with each other,
and would prevent conflicting spectrum
assignments between users served by
different SASs. SIA urges the
Commission to mandate the use of ITU
propagation model ITU–R P.452–15.
SIA argues that this model is well suited
for point-to-point interference
predictions and able to account for
actual terrain variations between
transmitter and receiver. SIA asserts
that, to adequately protect FSS
incumbents, the prescribed level of
interference cannot be exceeded, and
that any propagation model must
measure how high the interference is,
rather than how often some level is
exceeded. SIA also argues that it is
crucial that the propagation model be
vetted by ITU Study Group 3 or an
appropriate scientific body such as
NTIA’s Boulder ITS.
276. Other commenters argue that the
Commission should allow SAS
Administrators to adopt varying
propagation models to promote
investment, innovation, and more
intensive spectrum use in the 3.5 GHz
Band. Google argues that variation in
interference determination capabilities
does not cause disparate protection
requirements or operational
inconsistencies because the inability to
determine non-interference is not the
same as a determination of interference.
According to Google, both results
adequately protect incumbents, and
they are not inconsistent—one simply
employs methods that determine noninterference in a particular location with
a higher degree of certainty. Moreover,
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49057
Google argues that results of these
interference determinations will be
shared with other SAS Administrators,
so all providers can make use of the
most precise determination, without any
additional operational complexity.
Google also argues that while ITU–R
P.452–15 can serve as a suitable
baseline or safe-harbor propagation
model, the Commission’s certification
process provides a means for vetting
modified approaches followed by public
testing. Dynamic Spectrum Alliance and
OTI/PK also argue that the Commission
should establish a baseline propagation
model and allow SAS providers to
differentiate themselves by offering
more sophisticated modeling
techniques.
277. WinnForum members
recommend that while such models are
in development, the Commission should
require SASs to use an existing public
and reviewed interference prediction
propagation model, such as ITU P.452–
15, or the ITM model developed by
NTIA. There is agreement among
WinnForum members to use an
interference prediction propagation
model, however, there is no agreement
as to whether different SAS
implementations should be permitted to
make use of different propagation
models. As another alternative, iPosi
proposes a conservative deterministic
approach to FSS protection by using
measured building loss coupled with
free space path loss, arguing that clutter
models are statistical and require a leap
of faith as to their accuracy for the
specific scenario.
(ii) Discussion
278. After review of the record, we
continue to believe that it is in the
public interest for each SAS to utilize
the same propagation model for FSS
earth station protection. However, we
also decline to impose a specific
propagation model at this time and
encourage industry to work
collaboratively to develop a simple,
easily implementable model (e.g., the
ITM/Extended Hata model used to
determine the coastal Exclusion Zones).
This model may account for terrain and
clutter, must be implementable by any
SAS, and must not rely on proprietary
information unavailable to all SAS
Administrators. We direct WTB and
OET, in coordination with NTIA and
DoD, to review any such models
submitted as part of the SAS approval
process and to select an appropriate
model prior to final approval of any
SASs.
279. We disagree with commenters
that contend that each SAS
Administrator should be permitted to
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49058
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
use its own propagation model to
determine protection for FSS earth
stations. Such an approach could result
in inconsistent and, in some cases,
incompatible protection determination
between different SASs. While Google
asserts that allowing for differentiated
propagation models would not lead to
inconsistent results between SAS
Administrators, it has not presented
sufficient evidence that would lead us
to support such a counter intuitive
conclusion. Moreover, even if Google’s
assertions are plausible, we believe that,
especially at the outset, simplicity and
consistency will serve the public
interest more than additional flexibility
for SAS Administrators. To effectively
promote investment and ensure that
FSS earth stations are protected, it is
important for all users in the band—
incumbents and Citizens Broadband
Radio Service users alike—to have
confidence that protection criteria will
be applied uniformly by all SASs. This
approach is consistent with our policies
regarding federal incumbent protection
and determinations of Priority Access
use as set forth in section IV(A)(2).
Consistency among SASs will promote
predictable and stable spectrum
assignments, assure uniform protection
of FSS earth stations, and encourage
robust deployment in the band. We
therefore find that it is in the public
interest for SASs to make use of the
same propagation model for
determining FSS protections.
280. While we decline to impose a
particular propagation model at this
time, we disagree with SIA’s assertions
that the Commission should use a
propagation model that protects against
worst case interference scenarios.
Utilizing a free space model or another
model that does not account for real
world propagation effects and
conditions would unnecessarily
overprotect FSS earth stations and
impede deployment in the band. The
Commission’s goal is to ensure that
Incumbent Users are protected
consistent with real world applications
and conditions and the propagation
model used to protect Incumbent Users
must reflect and further those goals.
281. Finally, we recognize certain
limitations of the models that have been
suggested in the record, such as ITU–R
P.452 and Longley-Rice ITM. We agree,
for example, with the statement in ITU–
R M.2109 that, in using the propagation
model in ITU–R P.452, a smooth earth
model that is representative of coastal
areas and flat inland plain regions, is
not representative of areas that have
different physical characteristics and
the use of such a model may result in
the overestimation of the interference
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
into a receiving FSS earth station. This
is an example of the fact that one
propagation model may not be suitable
for all RF environments, and that
multiple models (either in combination
or applied individually in the
circumstances for which they are best
suited) may be appropriate in covering
diverse environments with multiple
characteristics (e.g., urban clutter, over
sea and land, long distance rural paths,
etc.). We also note that the ExtendedHata model was creatively used in
conjunction with ITM by NTIA for
analyzing interference protection zones
to protect incumbent DoD Navy radar
systems in this band. We believe that
the limitations of any single model in
covering diverse RF environments
(including indoor and outdoor
environments) and the need for accurate
modeling to help determine protections,
require more industry model
development prior to selecting a default
propagation modeling method for use in
the 3.5 GHz Band. We encourage the
industry to continue to pursue creative
approaches to propagation modeling
that accurately account for real world
effects across a variety of terrains and
deployment scenarios.
e. Other Issues
(i) Background
282. Policy and Methods for
Adjudicating Demands for Increased
Spectrum Use. In the Second FNPRM,
we sought comment on fair and nondiscriminatory methods of adjudicating
requests for increased spectrum use at a
location that would exceed the
protection threshold for an FSS earth
station receiver. We also sought
comment on solutions that avoid caps
on CBSD service deployment, while
protecting FSS earth stations from
harmful interference.
283. WinnForum continues to study
the issue of aggregate interference
margin allotment and did not propose a
specific methodology for addressing
requests that could exceed the aggregate
interference threshold for a particular
FSS earth station. WinnForum members
agree that aggregate interference
protection for FSS earth stations is
independent of the mechanism of
application of those limits.
284. SIA argues that protection of
incumbent FSS is not possible with
unconstrained interference growth and,
as such, some maximum aggregate
interference limit must be enforced.
According to SIA, enforcement of such
aggregate interference caps may result in
a cap on CBSD deployment in a given
geographic area or frequency range.
Google argues that a variety of
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
approaches to managing aggregate
interference from multiple CBSDs may
be suitable, and it is neither necessary
nor beneficial to impose one particular
method in the Commission’s rules.
According to Google, it may be
appropriate to impose some level of
power adjustment in cases of extreme
congestion, but the methodology for
doing so need not be universal and can
be better addressed by the Commission
through the SAS approval process.
Google states that regardless of how the
Commission chooses to protect
aggregate effects, it is important for the
Commission to do so.
285. Methods for Ensuring That End
User Devices Do Not Interfere with FSS.
In the Second FNPRM, we sought
comment on reasonable methods for
ensuring that the mobility, location, and
orientation of End User Devices are
managed effectively to avoid excessive
interference to in-band FSS earth
stations, while avoiding a mandate for
geo-location requirements on End User
Devices. As discussed in detail in
section III(E), commenters were sharply
divided on the issue of mandatory geolocation for End User Devices.
286. Federated Wireless also
submitted a comment asking the
Commission to take note of the
approach to managing interference from
End User Devices that was suggested in
the CSMAC Report. According to
Federated Wireless, ‘‘[i]n the CSMAC
Report, the EIRP of each UE used to
compute the aggregate interference level
is randomly selected in accordance with
the Cumulative Distribution Function
(CDF) curves, generated through MonteCarlo simulations based on realistic UE
operating conditions.’’ Federated
Wireless asserts that this is a useful
corollary to the methods that the SAS
will use to calculate potential
interference from End User Devices in
the 3.5 GHz Band.
(ii) Discussion
287. Policy and Methods for
Adjudicating Requests for Increased
Spectrum Use. We decline to adopt a
specific policy for adjudicating
demands for increased spectrum use.
We agree with Google that that there are
multiple methods and tools at the
disposal of SAS Administrators (e.g.,
power control, GAA frequency
reassignment, etc.) to ensure that the
FSS protection criteria established in
our rules are not exceeded. We believe
that SAS Administrators should be
permitted flexibility in addressing these
issues within the framework established
by the Commission’s rules. We direct
WTB and OET to carefully review any
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
such approaches submitted as part of
the SAS approval process.
288. Methods for Ensuring That End
User Devices Do Not Interfere with FSS.
As discussed in detail in section III(F),
we will not adopt a mandate for geolocation of End User Devices. We
believe that CBSDs—which operate at
significantly higher power levels than
End User Devices—will be the primary
sources of potential interference in the
band and, therefore, they are the devices
that should be monitored for
interference protection purposes.
However, we recognize that some
commenters have raised concerns about
potential interference from End User
Devices. In light of the low power
permitted for these devices, we do not
believe that it is necessary at this time
to adopt rules to directly address
potential interference from End User
Devices. However, we encourage the
industry to develop standards for
analyzing and modeling interference
from End User Devices. Similarly, we
encourage SAS administrators to take
such models into account when
developing interference protection
strategies. We direct WTB and OET to
review such approaches during and
after the SAS approval process and take
appropriate steps to address any such
interference if it arises.
2. C-Band FSS Protection
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
a. Background
289. As described in detail in section
III(E) above, in the 3.5 GHz R&O, we
adopted stringent out-of-band emission
limits for protection of adjacent C-band
FSS earth stations. In the Second
FNPRM, we sought further comment on
whether any measures in addition to the
OOBE limits are needed to protect CBand FSS earth stations from out-ofband interference from Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users and, if
so, what those measures should be. We
also sought comment as to whether the
protection criteria for out-of-band FSS
earth stations should be the same or
different than for in-band FSS earth
stations.
290. SIA argues that C-Band earth
stations should be protected from OOBE
from CBSDs and End User Devices
based on limiting any increase in the
noise floor to no more than 1%,
equivalent to I/N of ¥20 dB, consistent
with ITU–R S.1432–1. GCI supports this
position and argues that this strict
protection criteria is necessary to
protect critical services provided by CBand users. As described in section
III(C) above, SIA also argued in its
petition for reconsideration that
significant separation distances would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
be needed to protect FSS earth stations.
As part of its petition, SIA submitted a
technical analysis by RKF Engineering
using an out-of-band interference
criterion of I/N = ¥23 dB. In addition,
SIA notes that C-Band satellites are
required to locate their TT&C operations
close to the 3700 MHz band-edge.
291. Google argues that the
Commission should reject SIA’s
suggestion that C-Band FSS earth
stations be protected at a level
equivalent to an I/N of ¥20 dB. Google
argues that this approach would limit
noise floor degradation to a virtually
unmeasurable 0.04 dB and limit
interference temperature to an amount
equivalent to about ‘‘half of the cosmic
microwave background left over from
the Big Bang.’’ Put another way, Google
claims that, using SIA’s criterion,
‘‘satellite earth stations will experience
harmful interference if exposed to the
amount of radiated emissions received
by an omnidirectional antenna placed
approximately 10 cm from a cup of
coffee.’’ According to Google, such
grossly conservative interference
thresholds would needlessly constrain
deployment of CBSDs in the 3.5 GHz
Band by restricting harmless emissions.
292. The Content Interests also filed
in support of expansive protections for
C-Band FSS earth stations, in addition
to the OOBE limits adopted in the 3.5
GHz R&O. They contend that, since CBand operations play a critical role in
delivering television content to
hundreds of millions of people, any
parameters the Commission adopts for
operations in the 3.5 GHz Band must be
carefully analyzed to ensure C-Band
operations do not experience
interference. The Content Interests also
submitted a study by Alion to update
two previous studies submitted in this
proceeding on the effects of Citizens
Broadband Radio Service operations on
C-Band FSS earth stations, to account
for the technical rules adopted in the 3.5
GHz R&O, including the OOBE limits
adopted in that order. The new Alion
study asserts that: Protecting a C-Band
earth station from a single CBSD would
require a protection distance of up to
9.63 km for Category A devices and up
to 16.4 km for Category B devices (rural
or non-rural). Alion contends that, in
one scenario which looked at potential
anomalous propagation effects, the
required protection distance could be
more than 125 km for Category B rural
and non-rural devices. Thus, Alion
concludes that future Citizens
Broadband Radio Service operations
must be coordinated with C-Band FSS
earth stations to prevent harmful
interference to C-Band operations. Alion
also claims that the protection distances
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49059
for multiple CBSDs could be
significantly larger than for single-entry
cases and that the addition of a few
dozen CBSDs could double or triple the
required protection distance. Alion
asserts that SAS(s) must be
sophisticated enough to know how
many CBSDs are deployed in an area
and appropriately extend the protection
zone such that aggregated emissions do
not violate the interference threshold.
293. Federated Wireless agrees with
the Content Interests on the importance
of protecting incumbent C-Band
operations from any harmful
interference that may be generated by
CBSDs. It states that both knowledge of
specific propagation conditions and
providing accurate CBSD and
incumbent earth station radio
configuration information to the SAS is
vital for spectrum sharing and
incumbent protection. However,
Federated Wireless notes that the
aggregate interference calculations will
not be overly complex, because they
need only to be focused on a discrete
site. As such, Federated Wireless argues
that the calculations needed to
determine FSS earth station protections
are simpler than the mechanisms that
will be implemented to protect PALs
which require protection around an
entire contour. Federated Wireless also
disagrees with the assumptions and
engineering inputs applied in the Alion
analysis. Federated Wireless contends
that these assumptions and inputs are
overly conservative and, while
theoretically possible, in no way reflect
expected operating conditions for either
C-Band FSS earth stations or Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users.
Federated Wireless argues that the Alion
analysis compounds worst-case
assumptions that do not accurately
reflect the likely interference
environment in the 3.5 GHz Band,
leading to wholly unrealistic
interference computations. According to
Federated Wireless, these worst-case
assumptions include: (1) Unclear
application of the propagation model;
(2) misleading application of I/N
thresholds; (3) unrealistic FSS elevation
angle assumptions; (4) excessive CBSD
installation height; (5) flawed
application of device emission masks;
(6) worst-case CBSD operating
frequencies; and (7) overly conservative
interference thresholds. Federated also
cites a warning recently expressed by
the Commission’s Technological
Advisory Council of the pitfalls of
employing worst-case assumption in
interference analysis (i.e., ‘‘Selecting
single values, often extreme ‘worst case’
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49060
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
values, is not representative of actual
risk’’).
294. Google also takes issue with the
assumptions and methodologies put
forth by the Content Interests and Alion.
Google contends that the Content
Interests and Alion’s analysis depends
on two mistaken presumptions: (1) That
C-Band FSS earth stations are entitled to
geographic protection in addition to the
stringent OOBE limits established in the
3.5 GHz Order; and (2) that worst-case
assumptions should be used to establish
such protections. Google also questions
the validity of the Alion report’s
conclusions based on the fact that CBand FSS earth stations are frequently
deployed in close proximity to active
3650–3700 MHz band transmitters.
Google argues that C-Band FSS earth
stations are not necessarily entitled to
geographic protection of their sites in
addition to the OOBE limits adopted by
the Commission and, if such protections
are adopted, they should be based on
known characteristics of FSS earth
stations and CBSDs, not worst-case
assumptions.
295. There is no agreement among the
members of the WinnForum on an
appropriate protection level for C-Band
FSS earth stations. However, consistent
with its approach to the protection of inband FSS earth stations, WinnForum
opposes the imposition of default
protection areas and supports a
coordination approach based on terrain,
clutter, and other real-world
considerations.
b. Discussion
296. As discussed in detail in section
III(E), we continue to believe that our
stringent OOBE limits will act as the
primary means of protecting C-Band
FSS earth station operations. Moreover,
for reasons discussed below, we are not
persuaded by the commenters who
assert that measures in addition to those
OOBE limits are needed to provide
adequate protection from interference to
C-Band FSS earth station operations, in
most cases. However, we recognize that,
in some situations, additional measures
may be appropriate for earth stations
performing critical TT&C functions.
These protections will be determined
consistent with the processes and
protection levels used to determine
protection areas for FSS earth stations in
the 3600–3700 MHz band. In addition,
as described in section III(H)(2), we
adopt measures to facilitate
communication and coordination
among Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users, C-Band FSS licensees,
and SAS Administrators to effectively
prevent and address any interference
issues that may arise. Finally, we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
emphasize that any C-Band FSS earth
station licensees seeking protection
must submit an annual registration
consistent with section 96.17 of the
Commission’s rules or upon making
changes to any of the operational
parameters listed in that section (47 CFR
96.17).
297. We disagree with assertions
made by SIA, GCI, and the Content
Interests that all C-band FSS earth
stations must be protected by
geographic protection zones to prevent
interference to the services provided by
the operators of these earth stations. We
address the concerns raised by these
commenters about the potential for
harmful interference into C-Band FSS
earth stations with the stringent OOBE
limits adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O and
affirmed in section III(E) above and with
new rules protecting TT&C earth
stations and facilitating coordination
between Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users and C-Band FSS licensees.
We also note that creating mandatory
geographic protection zones to protect
FSS earth station licensees from coprimary commercial operations in an
adjacent band would be unprecedented.
Indeed, the Commission declined to
extend such protections to licensees in
the C-Band when it adopted rules
governing the 3650–3700 MHz Band
Wireless Broadband Service (47 CFR
90.1301 through 90.1338). Accordingly,
consistent with Commission precedent,
we will not require SAS Administrators
to establish geographic protection areas
for C-Band FSS earth station licensees.
298. While we do not believe that
geographic protections should be
mandatory for all C-Band FSS earth
stations, we do agree that it would be
appropriate to extend additional
protections to FSS earth stations used
for TT&C using the same methods used
to protect FSS earth stations in the 3.5
GHz Band. As SIA correctly notes, the
Commission requires FSS operators to
perform TT&C operations in band edge
spectrum (47 CFR 25.202(g)). As a
result, according to SIA, C-Band
satellites frequently rely on a telemetry
carrier near 3700 MHz. We recognize
the critical importance of these TT&C
functions to ensuring the safe operation
and control of C-Band satellite systems
and, accordingly, we will require SAS
Administrators to implement and
enforce additional protection criteria for
these earth stations. Consistent with our
approach to protecting in-band FSS
earth stations, SAS Administrators will
be required to model protection areas
based on a median I/N of ¥12 dB at
earth stations with TT&C earth stations
operating in accordance with section
25.202(g) (47 CFR 25.202(g)). We find
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that utilizing the same protection
criteria for in-band FSS earth stations
and C-Band TT&C earth stations is in
the public interest and consistent with
the Commission’s goals for this band. In
addition, because these TT&C functions
are performed from relatively few CBand earth stations, the additional
protection we are providing should not
present a significant impediment to
deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band or a
significant additional burden for SAS
Administrators. C-Band earth stations
used for TT&C functions will be
protected using the same processes and
technological assumptions used to
protect earth stations in the 3600–3700
MHz band, as described in section
IV(C)(1). In light of our conclusions
below on the potential for interference,
we believe this approach strikes the
appropriate balance between the
concerns of C-Band licensees and the
need to create an environment
conducive to robust deployment in the
3.5 GHz Band.
299. Though we find that C-Band
earth stations used for TT&C should be
afforded protection based on a
maximum I/N at their receivers, we do
not agree with the methodology or
results of the Alion report. As Federated
Wireless argues, the Alion report
submitted by the Content Interests relies
on a series of worst case assumptions
and overly conservative protection
thresholds in reaching its conclusions
about the requisite protection distances
for C-Band FSS earth stations. We also
take note of the TAC’s recent assertion,
cited by Federated Wireless, that
‘‘selecting single values, often extreme
‘worst case’ values, is not representative
of actual risk.’’ We agree and believe
that Alion’s worst case assumptions
combine to predict unrealistic and
overly restrictive protection areas which
would stifle investment and
disincentivize new deployments.
Protecting C-Band earth stations in the
manner suggested by Alion would be
inconsistent with our approach to inband FSS protection and would lead to
inefficient spectrum use. As such—just
as with protection of in-band FSS earth
stations—we are basing protection of CBand FSS earth stations used for TT&C
on real world deployment scenarios and
operational conditions.
300. As evidenced by our adoption of
an interference limit equal to an I/N of
¥12 dB, we also find that SIA and GCI’s
request to protect adjacent band FSS
based on an I/N of ¥20 dB would lead
to overprotection of C-Band FSS earth
stations and is not reflective of the
actual, real world protection
requirements of C-Band earth stations.
Similarly, we reject SIA’s modelling
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
approach which is based on an even
more stringent I/N of ¥23 dB. We agree
with Google that this level of protection
is unnecessary and would likely
overprotect C-Band FSS earth stations to
a significant degree. Indeed, Google
contends that limiting emissions at the
earth station receiver to an I/N of ¥20
dB would limit noise floor degradation
to a virtually unmeasurable 0.04 dB and
limit interference temperature to an
amount equivalent to about ‘‘half of the
cosmic microwave background left over
from the Big Bang.’’ From the record, it
is unclear why adjacent band receivers
should be protected to such a stringent
degree. Indeed, we can see no
compelling public interest reason to
provide a greater degree of protection to
services in an adjacent band than we
provide to co-primary services in the
same band. Accordingly, we find that
the I/N limits advocated by SIA, GCI,
and the Content Interests are excessive
and would lead to over-protection of
FSS earth stations in the C-Band. Such
excessive protection would be
inconsistent with the Commission’s
desire to promote sharing and encourage
the robust development of innovative
services in the 3.5 GHz Band. Rather, we
find that earth stations eligible for
additional protections under the rules
(i.e., those with TT&C operations just
above 3700 MHz) should be protected
using the same I/N limit and
methodology used to protect FSS earth
stations in the 3.5 GHz Band.
301. While we do not believe that the
public interest would be served by
requiring geographic protection of all CBand FSS earth stations, elsewhere in
this order we adopt additional measures
that will help to address and mitigate
the interference concerns raised by
commenters. Specifically, as described
in section III(H), we adopt a rule
requiring SAS Administrators to accept
and respond promptly to reports of
interference or requests for additional
protection from C-Band licensees (47
CFR 96.17(f)). We encourage SAS
Administrators to take appropriate steps
to address any requests or complaints
that they receive, and direct WTB and
OET to review complaint receipt and
resolution procedures during the SAS
approval process. We emphasize that
the Commission retains ultimate
authority over and responsibility for
addressing interference issues and
conflicts between licensees. If
interference issues are not addressed in
a satisfactory matter, the Commission
may impose additional requirements to
ensure timely mitigation and resolution.
302. Finally, we note that, consistent
with the approach used to protect in
band FSS earth stations described in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
section IV(C)(1), the Commission’s rules
assume the use of commercially
available filters to mitigate interference
from OOBE. C-Band FSS earth stations
seeking protection under section 96.17
(47 CFR 96.17) of the Commission’s
rules should employ appropriate filters
to mitigate interference issues. Any
protections developed and implemented
by SASs—whether mandatory
protections of earth stations used for
TT&C or protections developed by an
SAS in response to a coordination
request under section 96.17(f)—will
assume that such filters are in use (47
CFR 96.17(f)). While we acknowledge
that filters may not address all
interference issues, there is significant
evidence in the record that filters are
readily available at a reasonable price
and can help alleviate interference
concerns in many cases. We expect that,
in an environment with multiple coprimary services in adjacent bands, the
responsibility for interference mitigation
and avoidance will be shared among the
parties.
3. Device Authorization
a. Background
303. In the Second FNPRM we sought
comment on Google’s suggestion that
market incentives may be feasible to
encourage industry to deploy radios
with improved (lower) adjacent
emissions. We sought comment on how
such protection could be practically
implemented without burdensome
equipment authorization requirements,
necessitating changes to our part 2 rules
(47 CFR 2.1, et seq.), and whether it
could be achieved by defining a small
number of classes of devices that are
distinguished by increasingly stringent
OOBE limits.
304. In response, Google reiterated its
argument that by allowing devices with
better emissions performance to operate
in closer proximity to FSS operations
the Commission would foster
investment in devices with improved
OOBE characteristics. Google stresses
that CBSDs would not be required to
meet OOBE requirements that are more
stringent than the ones set forth in part
96 but manufacturers should be given
the option to build devices that
outperform the baseline requirements.
In turn, these devices could access
spectrum in geographic areas not
accessible to devices with standard
OOBE performance.
305. Google claims that adopting such
an approach to OOBE will require only
minor adjustments to the Commission’s
equipment certification framework and
proposes specific changes to this
process. According to Google,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49061
certification reports should: (1) Specify
actual levels of OOBE; and (2) state the
minimum level, in dB, by which the
device is lower than the regulatory
limits (47 CFR 96.41(e)). The test lab
should also categorize the device within
a class based on how much it reduces
OOBE beyond what is required and the
device’s class should be included as a
field in the FCC’s certification database.
306. Federated Wireless states that it
notionally supports Google’s proposal
but urges the Commission to carefully
review the proposed modifications to
our equipment authorization rules
before making changes that could
hinder commercial development in the
3.5 GHz Band. However, Federated
Wireless also contends that it is possible
that Google’s proposal for a process to
categorize better performing devices
could be achieved by modifying the part
96 rules to state that when equipment
makers demonstrate conformance of
CBSDs and end user devices pursuant to
other rule parts, they should provide the
supporting data to demonstrate
conformance rather than just a pass/fail
result.
307. SIA and Qualcomm both address
this issue, as well. SIA cautions that that
‘‘relying on market incentives could
undermine device quality, since
competitive pricing can eliminate the
price premium needed to achieve and
maintain high quality in device
production.’’ Further, SIA states that
regardless of whether manufacturers
choose to market devices that perform
better than is required by OOBE limits,
the devices would still need to be
certified to provide consumers with
adequate assurances about a given
device’s performance. Qualcomm
expressly asks the Commission to reject
Google’s proposal, arguing that since the
OOBE limit ‘‘just 20 MHz outside the
band edges will force 3.5 GHz
equipment, at least mobile devices, to
implement power back-off, the FCC
should not implement even tighter
OOBE limits at the upper edge of the
band for certain classes of devices to
protect C-band FSS earth stations as
described in the Second FNPRM.’’
Qualcomm argues that developing
multiple classes of devices would
challenge equipment designs and likely
force mobile devices to use significantly
less power and/or operate well within
the 3.5 GHz band edge to comply.
Moreover, Qualcomm argues that
should the Commission consider
implementing classes of devices with
tighter OOBE limits, it should first
‘‘verify that satellite receiver blocking is
‘not’ the actual limiting factor, in which
case more stringent OOBE limits would
not help and would be an unnecessary
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49062
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
regulatory burden.’’ Google counters
Qualcomm’s arguments claiming that
Qualcomm appears to misunderstand
Google’s proposal, because no CBSD
would be required to meet more
stringent OOBE requirements than set
forth in part 96. Instead, manufacturers
would have the option to build devices
that outperform baseline requirements.
b. Discussion
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
308. We decline to make changes to
our existing equipment certification
process or the rules governing OOBE
power levels for CBSDs and End User
Devices. We must balance our overarching goal of encouraging innovation
with the fact that the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service and the
devices that will operate in the band are
in the nascent stages of development. As
such, the rules that govern them must
not be overly complicated and must
adequately protect incumbents. At this
stage, we believe that Google’s proposal
would add unnecessary complication to
our device authorization process,
particularly in the early stages of testing
equipment that will operate in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
Further, there is no specific data that
shows this approach would not create a
risk to incumbent operations and, as
noted by Qualcomm, it may not be
effective at all if satellite receiver
blocking is more limiting than OOBE.
309. We disagree with Google that its
proposal would only require minor
changes to our equipment authorization
process or that such changes would be
easily implementable. As noted by
Federated Wireless, the suggested
modifications could require the
Commission to conduct an additional
rulemaking. Such a rulemaking—and
any new certification procedures
adopted therein—could delay
commercial deployment in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. Therefore, on
balance, we find that it is in the public
interest to proceed using the current
device certification rules to ensure that
service is made available quickly and
without unintended consequences.
However, we remain open to the
possibility of variable device
certifications for different OOBE
capabilities and we may revisit this
issue in the future.
A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
310. Pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the
Commission included a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the
Report and Order (see https://
ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001755029.pdf).
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
311. This Order on Reconsideration
and Second Report and Order contains
new information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public,
and other Federal agencies are invited to
comment on the new information
collection requirements contained in
this proceeding. In addition, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, we seek specific comment
on how we might ‘‘further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
312. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 603–
604), as amended (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities by the policies
and rules adopted in this Second Report
and Order and Order on
Reconsideration (Second Order and
Order on Reconsideration), as
applicable. The Commission will send a
copy of this Second Order including
this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA). In addition, the
Second Order and Order on
Reconsideration and FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
313. As required by the RFA, the
Commission incorporated an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and Order (NPRM), Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) and
Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) and a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) in the R&O. The Commission
sought written public comment on the
proposals in the NPRM and FNPRM,
including comment on the IRFA. No
comments were filed addressing the
IRFA. This present FRFA conforms to
the RFA.
C. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
V. Procedural Matters
VerDate Sep<11>2014
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Jkt 238001
314. In this Second Order and Order
on Reconsideration we finalize the rules
governing the innovative Citizens
Broadband Radio Service in the 3550–
3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band). In the
R&O, the Commission adopted rules for
commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band,
including technical and use rules and
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
interference protection measures, which
was used for Department of Defense
Radar services and commercial fixed
Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations
(space-to-earth) prior creation the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
315. Facing ever-increasing demands
of wireless innovation and constrained
availability of clear sources of spectrum,
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service is
an opportunity to add much-needed
capacity through innovative sharing.
The R&O represented a major
contribution toward the Commission’s
goal of making 500 megahertz newly
available for broadband use and will
help to unleash broadband
opportunities for consumers throughout
the country, particularly in areas with
overburdened spectrum resources.
Through this Second Order, we finalize
the regulatory scheme we created in
2015, putting in place the last rules
necessary for this service to become
commercially available. These rules
address the definition of ‘‘use’’ by
Priority Access Licensees, access to the
3.5 GHz Band via secondary markets,
and FSS protection criteria.
316. The Citizens Broadband Radio
Service takes advantage of advances in
technology and spectrum policy to
dissolve age-old regulatory divisions
between commercial and federal users,
exclusive and non-exclusive
authorizations, and private and carrier
networks. The regulatory framework
takes from recommendations from the
President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) and
substantial engagement and input from
stakeholders representing a cross
section of the communications,
technology, and public interest realms.
317. The comprehensive regulatory
scheme adopted in the R&O included
specific licensing, technical, and service
rules to enable dynamic sharing
between three tiers of users in the 3.5
GHz Band. The Spectrum Access
System (SAS) is the advanced frequency
coordinator (or coordinators) necessary
to assign rights and maximize efficiency
in the band. The SAS(s) will incorporate
information from the Environmental
Sensing Capability (ESC), which will be
used to increase available spectrum in
coastal areas while continuing to protect
incumbent Department of Defense radar
systems.
318. In this Second Order and Order
on Reconsideration, we reaffirm this
regulatory scheme, and deny several
petitions for reconsideration of various
aspects of the R&O. We also grant
certain requests for reconsideration,
including the following: We increase the
power limit for non-rural Category B
CBSDs to that applicable in rural areas,
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
provide greater flexibility on how to
measure and direct the power, revise
our rules to make clear that SASs must
be capable of receiving and responding
to interference complaints from FSS
earth station licensees, and allow a
single PAL to be issued in License Areas
located in Rural Areas without an
auction. Finally, we define what PAL
uses serve to preclude GAA uses,
slightly modify our streamlined
spectrum leasing and assignment
procedures for application in the 3.5
GHz band, decline to permit
partitioning and disaggregation in the
band, and provide for interference
protections for FSS earth stations in this
band and the adjacent C-band. We
developed a comprehensive approach
intended to balance consideration of
complex issues and competing
considerations involved in creating a
sharing regime in this band, and each
rule is a necessary component. We
reaffirm our commitment to add much
needed capacity spectrum to the
marketplace through innovative sharing
rules and techniques, and believe the
rules established in the R&O, as
amended by the Second Order and
Order on Reconsideration are the best
means to do so.
319. As a result of the Commission’s
actions in the R&O and Second Order
and Order on Reconsideration, small
business will have access to spectrum
that is currently unavailable to them.
The potential uses for this spectrum are
vast. For example, wireless carriers can
deploy small cells on a GAA basis
where they need additional capacity.
Real estate owners can deploy neutral
host systems in high-traffic venues,
allowing for cost-effective network
sharing among multiple wireless
providers and their customers.
Manufacturers, utilities, and other large
economic sectors, can construct private
wireless broadband networks to
automate industrial processes that
require some measure of interference
protection and yet are not appropriately
outsourced to a commercial cellular
network. All of these applications can
potentially share common wireless
technologies, providing economies of
scale and facilitating intensive use of
the spectrum. Further, small businesses
can access this spectrum on the
secondary market. The Commission’s
actions in the Second Order and Order
on Reconsideration thus constitute a
significant benefit for small businesses.
D. Legal Basis
320. The actions are authorized under
sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 5(c), 302a, 303,
304, 307(e), and 316 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
154(j), 155(c), 302a, 303, 304, 307(e),
and 316.
E. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities To Which the
Rules Will Apply
321. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules and policies, if
adopted. The RFA generally defines the
term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,
the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same
meaning as the term ‘‘small business
concern’’ under the Small Business Act.
A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA.
322. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time,
affect small entities that are not easily
categorized at present. We therefore
describe here, at the outset, three
comprehensive, statutory small entity
size standards that encompass entities
that could be directly affected by the
proposals under consideration. As of
2010, there were 28.2 million small
businesses in the United States,
according to the SBA. Additionally, a
‘‘small organization’’ is generally ‘‘any
not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.’’
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were
approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined
generally as ‘‘governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with
a population of less than fifty
thousand.’’ Census Bureau data for 2007
indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this
total, as many as 88,761 entities may
qualify as ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we estimate that
most governmental jurisdictions are
small.
323. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except satellite). This industry
comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services
using that spectrum, such as cellular
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49063
phone services, paging services,
wireless Internet access, and wireless
video services. The appropriate size
standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers. The size standard for that
category is that a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census
Bureau data for 2007, show that there
were 1,383 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 1,368 had employment of 999 or
fewer, and 15 firms had employment of
1,000 employees or more. Thus, under
this category and the associated small
business size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities that may be
affected by our actions.
324. Satellite Telecommunications
and All Other Telecommunications.
Satellite telecommunications service
providers include satellite and earth
station operators. Since 2007, the SBA
has recognized two census categories for
satellite telecommunications firms:
‘‘Satellite Telecommunications’’ and
‘‘Other Telecommunications.’’ Under
the ‘‘Satellite Telecommunications’’
category, a business is considered small
if it had $32.5 million or less in annual
receipts. Under the ‘‘Other
Telecommunications’’ category, a
business is considered small if it had
$32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
325. The first category of Satellite
Telecommunications ‘‘comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
providing point-to-point
telecommunications services to other
establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting
industries by forwarding and receiving
communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.’’ For this category,
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that
there were a total of 512 satellite
communications firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 482 firms
had annual receipts of under $25
million.
326. The second category of Other
Telecommunications is comprised of
entities ‘‘primarily engaged in providing
specialized telecommunications
services, such as satellite tracking,
communications telemetry, and radar
station operation. This industry also
includes establishments primarily
engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities
connected with one or more terrestrial
systems and capable of transmitting
telecommunications to, and receiving
telecommunications from, satellite
systems. Establishments providing
Internet services or voice over Internet
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49064
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
protocol (VoIP) services via clientsupplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry.’’ For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2007 show that there
were a total of 2,383 firms that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 2,346
firms had annual receipts of under $25
million. We anticipate that some of
these ‘‘Other Telecommunications
firms,’’ which are small entities, are
earth station applicants/licensees that
might be affected by our rule changes.
327. While our rule changes may have
an impact on both earth and space
station applicants and licensees, space
station applicants and licensees rarely
qualify under the definition of a small
entity. Generally, space stations cost
hundreds of millions of dollars to
construct, launch and operate.
Consequently, we do not anticipate that
any space station operators are small
entities that would be affected by our
actions.
328. Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ‘‘This
industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing
radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment.
Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television
equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio
and television studio and broadcasting
equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for firms in
this category, which is: All such firms
having 750 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
2010, there were a total of 810
establishments in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 787 had employment of under
500, and an additional 23 had
employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under
this size standard, the majority of firms
can be considered small.
F. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
329. The projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements resulting from the Second
Order and Order on Reconsideration
will apply to all entities in the same
manner, consistent with the approach
we adopted in the R&O. It is possible
that small entities will need to hire
attorneys and engineers on a contract
basis to comply with the rules. We
believe that while our proposals require
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
small entities to comply with the rules
established for the Citizens Broadband
Radio service, they will receive the
ability to access spectrum that is
currently unavailable to them. On
balance, this will constitute a significant
benefit for small business.
330. Order on Reconsideration. Under
the amended rules, FSS earth station
licensees may request additional
protection from SAS Administrators to
prevent harmful interference and in
order to provide additional protection
for out-of-band earth stations with
telemetry, tracking, and control (TT&C)
responsibilities, we extend the annual
registration requirement to these sites.
331. Second Order. Under the new
rules, Priority Access Licensees may
transfer, assign, or lease their spectrum
on the secondary market. In order to
benefit from the streamlined approach
to spectrum manager leasing applicable
to the 3.5 GHz Band, lessees may seek
certification from the Commission that
they are qualified to act as a
Commission licensee and licensees
must notify the SAS of the leasing
arrangement before the lessee
commences service. This process is
similar to the certification and
notification requirements to invoke
immediate processing under existing
spectrum manager leasing rules.
Further, we extend the current process
for transfers, assignments, and de facto
leases to the 3.5 GHz Band. The
reporting requirements are no different
from the reporting requirements already
required for all other services to which
our secondary market policies apply.
332. Under the new rules, as part of
the requirements for defining PAL
Protection Areas, Priority Access
Licensees must notify the SAS if a
previously activated CBSD is no longer
in use and may choose to self-report
protection contours smaller than the
default protection contour to the SAS.
G. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
333. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
334. Order on Reconsideration. The
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements resulting from
this order will apply to all entities in the
same manner. The Commission believes
that applying the same rules equally to
all entities in this context promotes
fairness. The Commission does not
believe that the costs and/or
administrative burdens associated with
the rules will unduly burden small
entities. The rules the Commission
adopts should benefit small entities by
giving them more information, more
flexibility, and more options for gaining
access to valuable wireless spectrum.
All Citizens Broadband Radio Service
Devices (CBSDs) must comply with the
amended technical and operational
requirements aimed at preventing
interference to Incumbent Access and
Priority Access users, including revised
power limits non-rural Category B
CBSDs and elimination of conducted
power limits for all CBSDs and the
revised method for defining a Priority
Access Licensee’s protection area. We
believe changes will provide operational
flexibility to Priority Access Licensees
and GAA users, which, regardless of
size, must operate CBSDs that meet
these technical requirements.
335. Second Order. The reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements resulting from the Second
Order will apply to all entities in the
same manner. The Commission believes
that applying the same rules equally to
all entities in this context promotes
fairness. The Commission does not
believe that the costs and/or
administrative burdens associated with
the rules will unduly burden small
entities. The rules the Commission
adopts should benefit small entities by
giving them more information, more
flexibility, and more options for gaining
access to valuable wireless spectrum.
Specifically, the definition of use
adopted in the Second Order leverages
advances in computing technology and
economics to determine protection
contours by adopting a SAS-based
engineering approach, while allowing
Priority Access Licensees to report their
Protection Areas based on actual
network deployment. Establishing a
baseline protection criteria will allow
General Authorized Access users
reasonable opportunities for additional
access to the band. We considered
adopting an economic or hybrid
economic/engineering definition of use
but determined an engineering approach
would promote the most efficient use of
the band by all entities. Further, we
permit access to the 3.5 GHz Band
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
through secondary markets and adopt a
light-touch version of our leasing rules
that will allow Priority Access Licensees
to lease any portion of their spectrum or
geographic area, outside of its PAL
Protection Area, for any bandwidth or
duration period of time within the terms
of the license. We believe that this
streamlined approach to leasing will
benefit all entities, including small
entities, by allowing them to gain
immediate access to spectrum to
implement their business plans with
reduced regulatory delay and
transaction costs.
H. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Final
Rules
336. None.
I. Report to Congress
337. The Commission will send a
copy of the Second Report and Order
and Order on Reconsideration,
including the FRFA, in a report to
Congress pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act. In addition, the
Commission will send a copy the
Second Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration, including the FRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (5 U.S.C.
603(a)). A copy of this Second Report
and Order and Order on
Reconsideration and FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register (5 U.SC. 603(a)).
J. Congressional Review Act
338. The Commission will send a
copy of this Order on Reconsideration
and Second Report and Order in a
report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
339. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 5(c),
302, 303, 304, 307(e), and 316 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
154(j), 155(c), 302, 303, 304, 307(e), and
316, that this Order on Reconsideration
and Second Report and Order in GN
Docket No. 12–354 is adopted and the
rules shall become effective thirty (30)
days after publication of the text or
summary thereof in the Federal
Register, except for those rules and
requirements that require approval by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, which shall become effective after
the Commission publishes a document
in the Federal Register announcing
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and
procedure, Communications common
carriers, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 2
Communications equipment,
Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 96
Telecommunications, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 2,
and 96 as follows:
PART 1—PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 1
continues to read as follows:
■
VI. Ordering Clauses
VerDate Sep<11>2014
such approval and the relevant effective
date.
340. It is further ordered, pursuant to
section 405 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and
section 1.429 of the Commission’s rules,
47 CFR 1.429, that the petitions for
reconsideration of the Report and Order
and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking are denied, except to the
extent set forth in this Order on
Reconsideration and Second Report and
Order.
341. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Order on Reconsideration and
Second Report and Order, including the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
Jkt 238001
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79, et seq.; 47 U.S.C.
151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225,
227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452,
and 1455.
2. Section 1.9005 is amended by
adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.9005
Included services.
*
*
*
*
*
(p) The Citizens Broadband Radio
Service in the 3550–3650 MHz band
(part 96 of this chapter).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 1.9020 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 1.9020 Spectrum manager leasing
arrangements.
*
PO 00000
*
Frm 00043
*
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4700
49065
(e) Notifications regarding spectrum
manager leasing arrangements. A
licensee that seeks to enter into a
spectrum manager leasing arrangement
must notify the Commission of the
arrangement in advance of the spectrum
lessee’s commencement of operations
under the lease. Unless the license
covering the spectrum to be leased is
held pursuant to the Commission’s
designated entity rules and continues to
be subject to unjust enrichment
requirements and/or transfer restrictions
(see §§ 1.2110 and 1.2111, and
§§ 24.709, 24.714, and 24.839 of this
chapter) or restrictions in § 1.9046 and
§ 96.32 of this chapter, the spectrum
manager lease notification will be
processed pursuant to either the general
notification procedures or the
immediate processing procedures, as set
forth herein. The licensee must submit
the notification to the Commission by
electronic filing using the Universal
Licensing System (ULS) and FCC Form
608, except that a licensee falling within
the provisions of § 1.913(d) may file the
notification either electronically or
manually. If the license covering the
spectrum to be leased is held pursuant
to the Commission’s designated entity
rules, the spectrum manager lease will
require Commission acceptance of the
spectrum manager lease notification
prior to the commencement of
operations under the lease.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 1.9046 is added to read as
follows:
§ 1.9046 Special provisions related to
spectrum manager leasing in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service.
(a) Scope. Subject to § 96.32 of this
chapter, a Priority Access Licensee, as
defined in § 96.3 of this chapter, is
permitted to engage in spectrum
manager leasing for any portion of its
spectrum or geographic area, outside of
the PAL Protection Area, for any
bandwidth or duration period of time
within the terms of the license with any
entity that has provided a certification
to the Commission in accordance with
this section or pursuant to the general
notification procedures of § 1.9020(e).
(b) Certification. The lessee seeking to
engage in spectrum manager leasing
pursuant to this section must certify
with the Commission that it meets the
same eligibility and qualification
requirements applicable to the licensee
before entering into a spectrum manger
leasing arrangement with a Priority
Access Licensee, as defined in § 96.3 of
this chapter and maintain the accuracy
of such certifications.
(1) Priority Access Licensees, as
defined in § 96.3 of this chapter, are
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49066
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
deemed to meet the certification
requirements.
(2) Entities may also certify by using
the Universal Licensing System and
FCC Form 608.
(c) Notifications regarding spectrum
manager leasing arrangements. Prior to
lessee operation, the licensee seeking to
engage in spectrum manager leasing
pursuant to § 1.9020(e) must submit
notification of the leasing arrangement
to the Spectrum Access System
Administrator, as defined in § 96.3 of
this chapter, by electronic filing. The
notification shall include the following
information:
(1) Lessee contact information
including name, address, telephone
number, fax number, email address;
(2) Lessee FCC Registration Number
(FRN);
(3) Name of Real Party in Interest and
related FCC Registration Number (FRN);
(4) The specific spectrum leased (in
terms of amount of bandwidth and
geographic area involved) including the
call sign(s) affected by the lease; and
(5) The duration of the lease.
(d) Expiration, extension, or
termination of a spectrum leasing
arrangement. (1) Absent Commission
termination or except as provided in
paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section, a
spectrum leasing arrangement entered
into pursuant to this section will expire
on the termination date set forth in the
spectrum leasing notification.
(2) A spectrum leasing arrangement
may be extended beyond the initial term
set forth in the spectrum leasing
notification for an additional period not
to exceed the term of the Priority Access
License, as defined in § 96.3 of this
chapter, provided that the licensee
notifies the Spectrum Access System
Administrator, as defined in § 96.3 of
this chapter, of the extension in advance
of operation under the extended term
and does so pursuant to the notification
procedures in this section.
(3) If a spectrum leasing arrangement
is terminated earlier than the
termination date set forth in the
notification, either by the licensee or by
the parties’ mutual agreement, the
licensee must file a notification with the
Spectrum Access System Administrator,
no later than ten (10) days after the early
termination, indicating the date of the
termination. If the parties fail to put the
spectrum leasing arrangement into
effect, they must so notify the Spectrum
Access System Administrator as
promptly as practicable.
(e) The Commission will place
information concerning the
commencement, an extension or an
early termination of a spectrum leasing
arrangement on public notice.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS
AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
5. The authority citation for part 2
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and
336, unless otherwise noted.
6. Section 2.106 is amended in the
footnote for US107 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 2.106
*
Table of frequency allocations.
*
*
*
*
United States (US) Footnotes
*
*
*
*
*
US107 * * *
(a) Earth stations authorized prior to,
or granted as a result of an application
filed prior to July 23, 2015, and
constructed within 12 months of initial
authorization may continue to operate
on a primary basis. Applications for
modifications to such earth station
facilities filed after July 23, 2015 shall
not be accepted, except for repair or
replacement of equipment; changes in
polarization, antenna orientation, or
ownership; and increases in antenna
size for interference mitigation
purposes.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 96—CITIZENS BROADBAND
RADIO SERVICE
7. The authority citation for part 96
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 307.
8. Section 96.3 is amended by adding
the definition for ‘‘PAL Protection Area’’
in alphabetical order to read as follows:
■
§ 96.3
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
PAL Protection Area. The area within
the Priority Access Licensee’s default
protection contour, as calculated by the
SAS in accordance with § 96.25 (or
smaller, self-reported protection
contour). This area will be protected
from interference in accordance with
§§ 96.25 and 96.41(d).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Section 96.15 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(4) to
read as follows:
§ 96.15
users.
Protection of federal incumbent
(a) * * *
(4) Within 300 seconds after the ESC
communicates that it has detected a
signal from a federal system in a given
area, or the SAS is otherwise notified of
current federal incumbent use of the
band, the SAS must either confirm
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
suspension of the CBSD’s operation or
its relocation to another unoccupied
frequency, if available. If the President
of the United States (or another
designated Federal Government entity)
issues instructions to discontinue use of
CBSDs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 606, SAS
Administrators must instruct CBSDs to
cease operations as soon as technically
possible.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Within 300 seconds after the ESC
communicates that it has detected a
signal from a federal system in a given
area, or the SAS is otherwise notified of
current federal incumbent use of the
band, the SAS must either confirm
suspension of the CBSD’s operation or
its relocation to another unoccupied
frequency. If the President of the United
States (or another designated Federal
Government entity) issues instructions
to discontinue use of CBSDs pursuant to
47 U.S.C. 606, SAS Administrators must
instruct CBSDs to cease operations as
soon as technically possible.
■ 10. Section 96.17 is amended by
revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) and by
adding paragraphs (d)(1)(vi) and (f) to
read as follows:
§ 96.17 Protection of existing fixed
satellite service (FSS) earth stations in the
3600–3700 MHz Band and 3700–4200 MHz
Band.
(a) FSS earth stations licensed to
operate in the 3600–3700 MHz band
listed at www.fcc.gov/cbrs-protected-fsssites shall be protected from CBSD
operation consistent with this section.
The protections in this section shall
only apply to registered FSS earth
stations that are authorized to operate
on a co-primary basis consistent with
§ 2.106 of this chapter.
(1) FSS earth stations in the 3650–
3700 MHz band will be afforded
protection consistent with this section
only after the conditions set forth in
§ 96.21(c) are satisfied.
(2) Co-channel. The aggregate
passband radiofrequency (RF) power
spectral density at the output of a
reference RF filter and antenna at the
location of an FSS earth station
operating in the 3600–3700 MHz band,
produced by emissions from all cochannel CBSDs (within 150 km)
operating in the Citizens Band Radio
Service shall not exceed a median root
mean square (RMS) value of ¥129 dBm/
MHz. The reference antenna system
requires SAS to calculate antenna gain
using § 25.209(a)(1) and (4) of this
chapter, and a reference RF filter
between the feed-horn and low noise
amplifier (LNA)/low noise block
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
downconverter (LNB), with 0.5 dB
insertion loss in the passband.
(3) Blocking. The aggregate RF power
at the output of a reference RF filter and
antenna at the location of an FSS earth
station operating in the 3600–3700 MHz
band, produced by emissions from all
CBSDs (within 40 km), shall not exceed
a median RMS value of ¥60 dBm. The
reference antenna system requires an
SAS to calculate antenna gain using
§ 25.209(a)(1) and (4) of this chapter,
and a reference RF filter between the
feed-horn and LNA/LNB, with a filter
mask of 0.6 dB/MHz attenuation to 30.5
dB at 50 MHz offset below the lower
edge of the FSS earth station’s
authorized passband, and 0.25 dB/MHz
attenuation to 55.5 dB at an offset
greater than or equal to 150 MHz below
the lower edge of the FSS earth station’s
authorized passband.
(b) Registered FSS earth stations in
the 3700–4200 MHz band listed at
www.fcc.gov/cbrs-protected-fss-sites
shall be protected from CBSD operation
in accordance with this section. Only
licensed FSS earth stations used for
satellite telemetry, tracking, and control
(TT&C) operations will be protected
under this section. Other licensed 3700–
4200 MHz earth stations may be
protected consistent with § 96.17(f).
(1) Out-of-band emissions into FSS.
The aggregate passband RF power
spectral density at the output of a
reference RF filter and antenna at the
location of a TT&C FSS earth station
operating in the 3700–4200 MHz band,
produced by emissions from all CBSDs
(within 40 km) operating in the Citizens
Band Radio Service shall not exceed a
median RMS value of ¥129 dBm/MHz.
The reference antenna system requires
SAS to calculate antenna gain using
§ 25.209(a)(1) and (4) of this chapter,
and a reference RF filter between the
feed-horn and LNA/LNB, with 0.5 dB
insertion loss in the passband.
(2) Blocking. The aggregate RF power
at the output of a reference RF filter and
antenna at the location of a TT&C FSS
earth station operating in the 3700–4200
MHz band, produced by emissions from
all CBSDs (within 40 km), shall not
exceed a median RMS value of ¥60
dBm. The reference antenna system
requires SAS to calculate antenna gain
using § 25.209(a)(1) and (4) of this
chapter, and a reference RF filter
between the feed-horn and LNA/LNB,
with a filter mask of 0.6 dB/MHz
attenuation to 30.5 dB at 50 MHz offset
below the lower edge of the FSS earth
station’s authorized passband, and 0.25
dB/MHz attenuation to 55.5 dB at an
offset greater than or equal to150 MHz
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
below the lower edge of the FSS earth
station’s authorized passband.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Whether the earth station is used
for satellite telemetry, tracking, and
control (for earth stations in the 3700–
4200 MHz band).
*
*
*
*
*
(e) CBSDs may operate within areas
that may cause interference to FSS earth
stations, in excess of the levels
described in § 96.17(a) and (b), provided
that the licensee of the FSS earth station
and the authorized user of the CBSD
mutually agree on such operation and
the terms of any such agreement are
provided to an SAS Administrator that
agrees to enforce them. The terms of any
such agreement shall be communicated
promptly to all other SAS
Administrators.
(f) FSS earth station licensees in the
3600–3700 and 3700–4200 MHz bands
may request additional protection from
SAS Administrators to prevent harmful
interference into their systems. SAS
Administrators must establish a process
to receive and address such requests,
consistent with §§ 96.53(o) and 96.63
and shall make good faith efforts to
address interference concerns,
consistent with their other
responsibilities under this part. In
addressing such requests, SASs shall
assume that 3700–4200 MHz earth
stations are utilizing filters with the
characteristics described in § 96.17(a)(3)
or (b)(2) as appropriate for the 3600–
3700 or 3700–4200 MHz band.
■ 11. Section 96.21 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 96.21 Protection of existing operators in
the 3650–3700 MHz Band.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Grandfathered Wireless Broadband
Licensees and Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users must protect authorized
grandfathered FSS earth stations in the
3650–3700 MHz band, consistent with
the existing protection criteria in 47
CFR part 90, subpart Z, until the last
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband
Licensee’s license expires within the
protection area defined for a particular
grandfathered FSS earth station.
Thereafter, the protection criteria in
§ 96.17 applicable to FSS earth stations
in the 3600–3700 MHz band shall apply.
■ 12. Section 96.25 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 96.25
Priority access licenses.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) PAL Protection Areas. PAL
channels shall be made available for
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
49067
assignment by the SAS for General
Authorized Access use only in areas
outside of PAL Protection Areas
consistent with this section and
§ 96.41(d).
(1) A CBSD will be considered to be
in use for purposes of calculating a PAL
Protection Area once it is registered and
authorized for use on a Priority Access
basis by an SAS consistent with
§§ 96.39, 96.53, and 96.57.
(i) Priority Access Licensees must
inform the SAS if a previously activated
CBSD is no longer in use.
(ii) Any CBSD that does not make
contact with the SAS for seven days
shall not be considered in use and will
be excluded from the calculation of the
PAL Protection Area until such time as
contact with the SAS is re-established.
(2) The default protection contour
will be determined by the SAS as a ¥96
dBm/10 MHz contour around each
CBSD. The default protection contour
will be calculated based on information
included in the CBSD registration and
shall be determined and enforced
consistently across all SASs.
(i) The default protection contour is
the outer limit of the PAL Protection
Area for any CBSD but a Priority Access
Licensee may choose to self-report
protection contours smaller than the
default protection contour to the SAS.
(ii) If the PAL Protection Areas for
multiple CBSDs operated by the same
Priority Access Licensees overlap, the
SAS shall combine the PAL Protection
Areas for such CBSDs into a single
protection area.
(3) The PAL Protection Area may not
extend beyond the boundaries of the
Priority Access Licensee’s Service Area.
■ 13. Section 96.29 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 96.29
Competitive bidding procedures.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Except in Rural Areas, when there
is only one application for initial
Priority Access Licenses in a License
Area that is accepted for filing for a
specific auction, no PAL will be
assigned for that License Area, the
auction with respect to that License
Area will be canceled, and the spectrum
will remain accessible solely for shared
GAA use until the next filing window
for competitive bidding of PALs. In
Rural Areas, when there is only one
application for initial Priority Access
Licenses in a License Area, that
applicant will be granted a PAL if
otherwise qualified under the
Commission’s rules.
■ 14. Section 96.31 is revised to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
49068
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
§ 96.31 Aggregation of priority access
licenses.
Device
(a) Priority Access Licensees may
aggregate up to four PAL channels in
any License Area at any given time.
(b) The criteria in § 20.22(b) of this
chapter will apply in order to attribute
partial ownership and other interests for
the purpose of applying the aggregation
limit in paragraph (a) of this section.
15. Add § 96.32 to subpart C to read
as follows:
■
§ 96.32 Priority access assignments of
authorization, transfers of control, and
leasing arrangements.
(a) Priority Access Licensees may
transfer or assign their licenses and
enter into de facto leasing arrangements
in accordance with part 1 of this
chapter.
(b) Priority Access Licensees may not
partition or disaggregate their licenses
or partially assign or transfer their
licenses nor may they enter into de facto
leasing arrangements for a portion of
their licenses.
(c) Priority Access Licensees may
enter into spectrum manager leasing
arrangements with approved entities as
prescribed in § 1.9046 of this chapter.
Priority Access Licensees may only
enter into leasing arrangements for areas
that are within their Service Area and
outside of their PAL Protection Areas.
16. Section 96.35 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 96.35
General authorized access use.
(a) General Authorized Access Users
shall be permitted to use frequencies
assigned to PALs when such frequencies
are not in use, as determined by the
SAS, consistent with § 96.25(c).
*
*
*
*
*
17. Section 96.41 is revised to read as
follows:
■
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 96.41
General radio requirements.
The requirements in this section
apply to CBSDs and their associated
End User Devices, unless otherwise
specified.
(a) Digital modulation. Systems
operating in the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service must use digital
modulation techniques.
(b) Power limits. Unless otherwise
specified in this section, the maximum
effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP)
and maximum Power Spectral Density
(PSD) of any CBSD and End User Device
must comply with the limits shown in
the table in this paragraph (b):
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
Maximum
EIRP
(dBm/10
megahertz)
Maximum
PSD
(dBm/MHz)
23
n/a
30
20
47
37
End User Device
Category A
CBSD ............
Category B
CBSD 1 ..........
1 Category
B CBSDs will only be authorized
for use after an ESC is approved and commercially deployed consistent with §§ 96.15
and 96.67.
(c) Power management. CBSDs and
End User Devices shall limit their
operating power to the minimum
necessary for successful operations.
(1) CBSDs must support transmit
power control capability and the
capability to limit their maximum EIRP
and the maximum EIRP of associated
End User Devices in response to
instructions from an SAS.
(2) End User Devices shall include
transmit power control capability and
the capability to limit their maximum
EIRP in response to instructions from
their associated CBSDs.
(d) Received Signal Strength Limits.
(1) For both Priority Access and GAA
users, CBSD transmissions must be
managed such that the aggregate
received signal strength for all locations
within the PAL Protection Area of any
co-channel PAL, shall not exceed an
average (RMS) power level of ¥80 dBm
in any direction when integrated over a
10 megahertz reference bandwidth, with
the measurement antenna placed at a
height of 1.5 meters above ground level,
unless the affected PAL licensees agree
to an alternative limit and communicate
that to the SAS.
(2) These limits shall not apply for cochannel operations at the boundary
between geographically adjacent PALs
held by the same Priority Access
Licensee.
(e) 3.5 GHz Emissions and
Interference Limits—(1) General
protection levels. Except as otherwise
specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, for channel and frequency
assignments made by the SAS to CBSDs,
the conducted power of any emission
outside the fundamental emission
(whether in or outside of the authorized
band) shall not exceed ¥13 dBm/MHz
within 0–10 megahertz above the upper
SAS-assigned channel edge and within
0–10 megahertz below the lower SASassigned channel edge. At all
frequencies greater than 10 megahertz
above the upper SAS assigned channel
edge and less than 10 MHz below the
lower SAS assigned channel edge, the
conducted power of any emission shall
not exceed ¥25 dBm/MHz. The upper
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and lower SAS assigned channel edges
are the upper and lower limits of any
channel assigned to a CBSD by an SAS,
or in the case of multiple contiguous
channels, the upper and lower limits of
the combined contiguous channels.
(2) Additional protection levels.
Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, the conducted power of any
emissions below 3530 MHz or above
3720 MHz shall not exceed ¥40dBm/
MHz.
(3) Measurement procedure. (i)
Compliance with this provision 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 authorized frequency
channel, a resolution bandwidth of no
less than one percent of the
fundamental emission bandwidth may
be employed. A narrower resolution
bandwidth is permitted in all cases to
improve measurement accuracy
provided the measured power is
integrated over the full reference
bandwidth (i.e., 1 MHz or 1 percent of
emission bandwidth, as specified). The
emission bandwidth is defined as the
width of the signal between two points,
one below the carrier center frequency
and one above the carrier center
frequency, outside of which all
emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB
below the transmitter power.
(ii) When measuring unwanted
emissions to demonstrate compliance
with the limits, the CBSD and End User
Device nominal carrier frequency/
channel shall be adjusted as close to the
licensee’s authorized frequency block
edges, both upper and lower, as the
design permits.
(iii) Compliance with emission limits
shall be demonstrated using either
average (RMS)-detected or peakdetected power measurement
techniques.
(4) When an emission outside of the
authorized bandwidth causes harmful
interference, the Commission may, at its
discretion, require greater attenuation
than specified in this section.
(f) Reception limits. Priority Access
Licensees must accept adjacent channel
and in-band blocking interference
(emissions from other authorized
Priority Access or GAA CBSDs
transmitting between 3550 and 3700
MHz) up to a power spectral density
level not to exceed ¥40 dBm in any
direction with greater than 99%
probability when integrated over a 10
megahertz reference bandwidth, with
the measurement antenna placed at a
height of 1.5 meters above ground level,
unless the affected Priority Access
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Licensees agree to an alternative limit
and communicates that to the SAS.
Note to paragraph (f): Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users should
be aware that there are Federal
Government radar systems in the band
and adjacent bands that could adversely
affect their operations.
(g) Power measurement. The peak-toaverage power ratio (PAPR) of any CBSD
transmitter output power must not
exceed 13 dB. PAPR measurements
should be made using either an
instrument with complementary
cumulative distribution function (CCDF)
capabilities or another Commission
approved procedure. The measurement
must be performed using a signal
corresponding to the highest PAPR
expected during periods of continuous
transmission.
■ 18. Section 96.53 is amended by
revising paragraph (i) and by adding
paragraph (o) to read as follows:
§ 96.53 Spectrum access system purposes
and functionality.
*
*
*
*
(i) To protect Priority Access
Licensees from interference caused by
other PALs and from General
Authorized Access Users, including the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:36 Jul 25, 2016
Jkt 238001
calculation and enforcement of PAL
Protection Areas, consistent with
§ 96.25.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) To receive reports of interference
and requests for additional protection
from Incumbent Access users and
promptly address interference issues.
■ 19. Section 96.57 is amended by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 96.57 Registration, authentication, and
authorization of Citizens Broadband Radio
Service Devices.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) An SAS must calculate and
enforce PAL Protection Areas consistent
with § 96.25 and such calculation and
enforcement shall be consistent across
all SASs.
■ 20. Add § 96.66 to subpart F to read
as follows:
§ 96.66 Spectrum access system
responsibilities related to priority access
spectrum manager leases.
(a) An SAS Administrator that
chooses to accept and support leasing
notifications shall:
(1) Verify that the lessee is on the
certification list, as established in
§ 1.9046 of this chapter.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
49069
(2) Establish a process for acquiring
and storing the lease notification
information and synchronizing this
information, including information
about the expiration, extension, or
termination of leasing arrangements,
with the Commission databases at least
once a day;
(3) Verify that the lease will not result
in the lessee holding more than the 40
megahertz of Priority Access spectrum
in a given License Area;
(4) Verify that the area to be leased is
within the Priority Access Licensee’s
Service Area and outside of the Priority
Access Licensee’s PAL Protection Area;
and
(5) Provide confirmation to licensee
and lessee whether the notification has
been received and verified.
(b) During the period of the lease and
within the geographic area of a lease,
SASs shall treat any CBSD operated by
the lessee the same as a similarly
situated CBSDs operated by the lessor
for frequency assignment and
interference mitigation purposes.
[FR Doc. 2016–14505 Filed 7–25–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\26JYR3.SGM
26JYR3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49023-49069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14505]
[[Page 49023]]
Vol. 81
Tuesday,
No. 143
July 26, 2016
Part IV
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 96
Amendment of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Commercial
Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 49024]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 96
[WT Docket No. 12-354; FCC 16-55]
Amendment of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Commercial
Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
addresses eight petitions for reconsideration on certain rules adopted
in the Report and Order (Report and Order) in this proceeding governing
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz band. The
Commission also finalizes the regulatory scheme established in the
Report and Order to make this spectrum available for wireless broadband
through dynamic sharing among three tiers of users.
DATES: Effective August 25, 2016 except for Sec. Sec. 1.9046, 96.3,
96.17(b), 96.25(c)(1)(i), and 96.32(a) and (b) which contain
information collection requirements subject to approval by the Office
of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective
date for those sections.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Powell, Paul.Powell@fcc.gov, of
the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-
1618. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact
Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918 or send an email to PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-354,
FCC 16-55 released on May 2, 2106. The complete text of the public
notice is available for viewing via the Commission's ECFS Web site by
entering the docket number, WT Docket No. 12-354. The complete text of
the public notice is also available for public inspection and copying
from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday
or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference
Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554, telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-488-5563.
The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration
and Second Report & Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
I. Introduction and Executive Summary
1. In this Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Second
Order) we finalize the rules governing the innovative Citizens
Broadband Radio Service in the 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band).
Facing ever-increasing demands of wireless innovation and constrained
availability of clear sources of spectrum, the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service is an opportunity to add much-needed capacity through
innovative sharing. With this Second Order, we finalize the regulatory
scheme we created in 2015, putting in place the last rules necessary
for this service to become commercially available. (80 FR 36163, June
23, 2015)
2. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service takes advantage of advances
in technology and spectrum policy to dissolve age-old regulatory
divisions between commercial and federal users, exclusive and non-
exclusive authorizations, and private and carrier networks. The
regulatory framework takes from recommendations from the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and substantial
engagement and input from stakeholders representing a cross section of
the communications, technology, and public interest realms.
3. The comprehensive regulatory scheme adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O
included specific licensing, technical, and service rules to enable
dynamic sharing between three tiers of users in the 3.5 GHz Band. The
Spectrum Access System (SAS) is the advanced frequency coordinator (or
coordinators) necessary to assign rights and maximize efficiency in the
band. The SAS(s) will incorporate information from the Environmental
Sensing Capability (ESC), which will be used to increase available
spectrum in coastal areas while continuing to protect incumbent
Department of Defense (DoD) radar systems.
4. In this Second Order, we reaffirm the regulatory approach
adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O. In doing so, we deny several petitions for
reconsideration that are inconsistent with our goals and grant others
that advocated rule modifications that would facilitate more equitable
and efficient use of the 3.5 GHz Band. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we developed
a comprehensive approach intended to balance consideration of the
complex issues and competing considerations involved in creating a
sharing regime in this band, and each rule is a vital part of that
approach. We reaffirm our commitment to add much needed capacity
spectrum to the marketplace through innovative sharing rules and
techniques, and believe the rules established in the 3.5 GHz R&O are
the best means to do so.
5. Nonetheless, we do agree with some petitioners who argue for an
increase in the power level for non-rural Category B CBSDs and greater
flexibility in how to measure and direct the power. This will provide
additional flexibility for all CBSD deployments to potentially increase
their utility, and create additional flexibility for non-rural
deployments. While rejecting arguments both to increase and to decrease
our out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits for CBSDs, we revise our
measurement of such limits to conform to the well-established root mean
square (RMS) measurement technique reflected in our rules for other
services. We also adopt a limited exception to the PAL assignment rules
that would allow a single PAL to be issued in License Areas located in
Rural Areas in the absence of mutually exclusive applications. At SIA's
request, we also revise our rules to make clear that SASs must be
capable of receiving and responding to interference complaints from
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth station licensees.
6. While we created a robust and substantial regulatory framework
in the 3.5 GHz R&O, there were several technical issues that required
further refinement and input on the record. To bolster the record on
these issues, we released a Second FNPRM seeking comment on how to: (1)
Define ``use'' of Priority Access License (PAL) areas to determine the
availability of spectrum for General Authorized Access (GAA) use; (2)
implement and promote a robust secondary market in the band; and (3)
optimize protections for licensed in-band and out-of-band FSS earth
stations.
7. These are important issues, and are fundamental to the fabric of
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. They explore how to maximize the
efficient use of spectrum by allowing opportunistic GAA use of spectrum
when and where it is not utilized by Priority Access Licensees. They
look at how we can maximize the amount of spectrum available in the
band by optimizing the protection of in-band and out-of-band FSS earth
stations, while leveraging the SAS and other tools to maximize
operations towards the 3700 MHz band edge. They examine how to create
reliable and flexible secondary market rules that can be implemented
across hundreds of thousands of licenses.
[[Page 49025]]
8. In resolving these final issues, we strive to establish simple
rules that are implementable in the near term, while protecting DoD
radar systems consistent with the process and procedures established in
the 3.5 GHz R&O. We establish a definition of use that allows Priority
Access Licensees to certify the extent of their service area to an SAS,
while also establishing a maximum point at which they will receive
protection. This is a both a flexible and objective way to allow
Priority Access Licensees to design and deploy networks, and SAS
Administrators to provide objective protection and effective GAA
access. We authorize ``light-touch leasing'' to allow Priority Access
Licensees to leverage the secondary market to provide access to any
qualified lessee with minimal administrative requirements or
transaction costs. Finally, we establish protection criteria for in-
band FSS, and out-of-band FSS sites used for telemetry, command, and
control (TT&C) that provides a high level of reliability, while also
allowing the SASs to optimize based on the characteristics of the FSS
earth station, the terrain, the CBSD deployment characteristics near
the site, and other factors.
9. With these decisions, we complete the regulatory framework for
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, and set the stage for the
commercial availability of a contiguous 150 megahertz of spectrum for
wireless broadband use.
II. Procedural Background
A. 3.5 GHz NPRM, Licensing Public Notice, and FNPRM
10. As part of its ongoing efforts to address the growing demand
for fixed and mobile broadband capacity, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC or Commission) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(78 FR 1188, January 8, 2013) in December 2012 proposing to make an
additional 100 megahertz (or up to 150 megahertz under a supplemental
proposal) of spectrum available for shared wireless broadband use.
Specifically, the NPRM proposed to create a new Citizens Broadband
Radio Service. The technical rules focused on the use of low-powered
small cells to drive increases in broadband capacity and spectrum reuse
and an SAS that would coordinate multiple tiers of users.
11. In November 2013, in response to comments received on the
record up to that point, the Commission released the Licensing PN (78
FR 73794, December 9, 2013), which described a Revised Framework that
elaborated upon some of the licensing concepts and alternatives set
forth in the NPRM. The Revised Framework retained the three-tier model
proposed in the NPRM but expanded eligibility for access to the
Priority Access tier with competitive bidding for assigning licenses
within that tier. Like the NPRM's main proposal, the Revised Framework
cited the unique capabilities of small cell and SAS technologies to
enable sharing among users in the Priority Access and GAA tiers.
12. In April 2014, the Commission released the 3.5 GHz FNPRM (79 FR
31247, June 2, 2014), proposing specific rules for a new Citizens
Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz Band to be codified in a new
proposed part 96. The FNPRM built upon the concepts and proposals set
forth in the NPRM and the Licensing PN and reflected the extensive
record generated in the proceeding. Notably, the 3.5 GHz FNPRM proposed
to: (1) Implement the three-tier authorization model proposed in the
NPRM; (2) establish Exclusion Zones based on recommendations set forth
in the Fast Track Report to ensure compatibility between incumbent
federal operations and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users; (3)
create an open eligibility authorization system for Priority Access and
GAA operations; (4) establish granular, exclusive spectrum rights for
the Priority Access tier, consistent with parameters discussed in the
Licensing PN; (5) set a defined ``floor'' for GAA spectrum
availability, to ensure that GAA access is available nationwide
(subject to Incumbent Access tier use); (6) set guidelines to allow
contained access users to request up to 20 megahertz of reserved
frequencies from the GAA pool for use within their facilities; (7)
establish baseline technical rules for fixed or nomadic base stations
operating in the 3.5 GHz Band; and (8) set guidelines for the operation
and certification of SASs in the band. The FNPRM also sought comment
on: (1) Protection criteria for Incumbent Access users; (2) potential
protection of FSS earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band (C-Band);
(3) competitive bidding procedures for resolving mutually exclusive
applications for Priority Access Licenses (PALs); and (4) the possible
extension of the proposed rules to include the 3650-3700 MHz band.
B. Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
13. On April 17, 2015, the Commission released the 3.5 GHz R&O,
which established the Citizens Broadband Radio Service under a new part
96 of the Commission's rules. The 3.5 GHz R&O established a three-tier
framework for making the entirety of the 3.5 GHz Band available for
shared commercial use utilizing an SAS to coordinate operations between
and among users in different tiers. This three-tier sharing framework
is largely consistent with the proposals put forth in the FNPRM.
14. Incumbent Access users represent the highest tier in this
framework and receive interference protection from all Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users. Protected incumbents include federal
shipborne and ground-based radar operations and FSS earth stations in
the 3600-3700 MHz band and, for a finite period, grandfathered
terrestrial wireless operations in the 3650-3700 MHz portion of the
band. Non-federal incumbents must register the parameters of their
operations with the Commission and/or an SAS to receive protection from
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users (47 CFR 96.15, 96.17, 96.21). In
addition, an ESC may be used to detect transmissions from DoD radar
systems and transmit that information to an SAS to ensure that federal
Incumbent Users are protected from interference (47 CFR 96.15, 96.67).
15. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service itself consists of two
tiers--Priority Access and GAA--both assigned in any given location and
frequency by an SAS. Priority Access operations receive protection from
GAA operations. A PAL is defined as a non-renewable authorization to
use a 10 megahertz channel in a single census tract for three years.
PALs will be assigned via competitive bidding in up to 70 megahertz of
the 3550-3650 MHz portion of the band. One Priority Access Licensee may
hold up to forty megahertz of PALs in any given census tract at any
given time (47 CFR 96.25, 96.29).
16. GAA use will be licensed by rule throughout the 150 megahertz
band. Both Priority Access and GAA use will be assigned and coordinated
by an SAS, which will also perform additional coordination functions as
set forth in the rules. GAA users will be permitted to operate on any
frequencies not assigned to PALs. GAA users will receive no
interference protection from other Citizens Broadband Radio Service
users, including other GAA users, and must not interfere with higher
tier operations.
17. The Second FNPRM, which was released along with the 3.5 GHz
R&O, sought comment on how to define ``use'' by Priority Access
Licensees and whether the Commission should rely on an engineering
definition, an economic definition, or a hybrid of the two to
[[Page 49026]]
determine whether frequencies are in use. The Second FNPRM also sought
comment on the applicability of existing secondary market rules to PALs
and the appropriate administration of secondary market transactions in
the band. Finally, the Second FNPRM a sought comment on the methodology
and parameters for protecting in-band and C-Band FSS earth stations.
18. After the adoption of the 3.5 GHz R&O, and as directed therein,
on October 23, 2015, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB)
released a Public Notice (80 FR 69662, November 10, 2015) seeking
comment on the appropriate methodology for determining the contours for
protecting existing 3650-3700 MHz wireless broadband licensees from
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users during a fixed transition
period. Finally, as directed by the Commission in the 3.5 GHz R&O, WTB
and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) released a Public
Notice seeking proposals for future SAS Administrator(s) and ESC
operator(s) in the 3.5 GHz Band. The Public Notice summarized the
requirements for both SAS Administrators and ESC operators, as
established in the 3.5 GHz R&O, and described the process for
submitting proposals. It also briefly described the process that WTB/
OET will use to evaluate prospective SAS Administrators and ESC
operators.
C. Petitions for Reconsideration
19. Petitions for Reconsideration on the 3.5 GHz R&O were due July
23, 2015. The following eight parties filed petitions for
reconsideration: CTIA, Jon Peha, Motorola Solutions, NAB, Nokia
Solutions, SIA, Verizon, and WinnForum (80 FR 59705, October 2, 2015).
The arguments raised in these petitions are described in greater detail
in the relevant sections of the Second Order.
20. CTIA--The Wireless Association Petition. CTIA seeks revisions
to the licensing process for PALs, arguing that the Commission should
adopt a five-year license term with a renewal expectancy. CTIA asks the
Commission to reconsider its decision not to award a PAL in census
tracts unless there are mutually exclusive applications. CTIA also
seeks change to the technical rules, including changes to the OOBE
limits and the measurement procedure for such limits. Finally, CTIA
requests that the Commission increase the maximum effective isotropic
radiated power (EIRP) and conducted power limits for Category A and
Category B CBSDs.
21. Jon Peha Petition. Jon Peha seeks reconsideration of the
Commission's decision that ``when there is only one applicant for one
or more PALs in a given census tract, we will neither proceed to an
auction nor assign any PAL for that license area.'' Instead he argues
that the Commission should grant PALs in every market where there is
demand, even if there is only one bidder.
22. Motorola Solutions Petition. Motorola Solutions supports
WinnForum's Petition and also seeks reconsideration of the Commission's
decision to only issue PALs where two or more parties file an
application.
23. NAB Petition. NAB asks the Commission to eliminate professional
installation as a method to report the geographic location of a CBSD to
an SAS. NAB contends that location data should be reported
automatically by a mandatory geo-location capability built into the
device.
24. Nokia Solutions Petition. Nokia Solutions asks the Commission
to increase the response time from when an ESC communicates it has
detected a signal from a federal system in a given area that the SAS
must either confirm suspension of the CBSD's operation or relocation
from 60 seconds to 600 seconds. Nokia Solutions also argues that the
Commission should specify emission limits for End User Devices that are
compliant with 3GPP specifications. Nokia Solutions seeks changes to
the power limits, asking that the total transmit power for CBSDs be
stated simply as maximum EIRP and increased by 6 dB for Category A and
9 dB for Category B CBSDs. Finally, Nokia Solutions asks that the
Commission revise the vertical location accuracy requirements to align
with US Government Position Accuracy standard for outdoor installation
and remove such requirements for indoor installations.
25. SIA Petition. SIA seeks changes to a variety of technical rules
and aspects of the FSS protection rules. Among other things, SIA states
that the Commission should adopt a stringent OOBE limit at 3680 MHz to
protect C-Band operations immediately above the 3700 MHz band edge. SIA
also argues that the Commission should: (1) Decrease the maximum power
limits for CBSDs; (2) reduce the 60-second timeframe for a CBSD to
confirm deactivation or a change in frequency; (3) eliminate or clarify
the annual registration requirements for FSS earth stations; (4)
establish procedures for reporting FSS interference to SASs and
implementing immediate shutdown procedures in response to such reports;
and (5) reconsider the freeze on new co-primary FSS earth stations in
the band.
26. Verizon Petition. Verizon seeks reconsideration of the power
limits, stating that the Commission should increase the EIRP to levels
closer to real-world small cell deployments and to rely solely on EIRP
rather than imposing limits on both EIRP and conducted power.
27. WinnForum Petition. The WinnForum asks the Commission to
reconsider a number of the technical rules governing the 3.5 GHz Band.
WinnForum argues that the Commission should: (1) Increase the
reconfiguration response time from when an ESC communicates it has
detected a signal from a federal system in a given area that the SAS
must either confirm suspension of the CBSD's operation or relocation
from 60 seconds to 600 seconds; (2) increase Category A and Category B
CBSD EIRP limits and provide additional flexibility between EIRP and
conducted power limits; and (3) modify the geo-location rules to allow
SASs to estimate CBSD elevation above ground level for purpose of
determining vertical location accuracy.
D. Oppositions and Replies to Petitions for Reconsideration
28. Oppositions to the petitions for reconsideration were due
October 19, 2015, and replies to oppositions were due October 29, 2015.
Eight parties filed responses. The arguments raised in these
oppositions are described in greater detail in the relevant sections of
the Second Order.
29. CTIA Opposition. CTIA opposes SIA's petition and supports the
petitions filed by Jon Peha and Motorola Solutions. CTIA asks the
Commission to reject SIA's request to impose stricter OOBE limits and
states the 3.5 GHz FNPRM provided adequate notice that that the
Commission would extend these limits for the 3650-3700 MHz band. CTIA
claims the power limits for non-rural Category B CBSDs should be
increased to provide operators with additional flexibility. Finally,
CTIA supports Jon Peha's and Motorola Solutions' request that the
Commission issue PALs in all census tracts, even if there is only one
applicant.
30. Federated Wireless Opposition. Federated Wireless asks that the
Commission take the following actions in response to the petitions for
reconsideration: (1) Increase maximum EIRP and conducted power limits
for CBSDs; (2) modify the elevation accuracy requirement to allow the
SAS to play a role in determining CBSD location; and (3) allow PALs to
be issued even when there is a single applicant in a given census
tract. Federated Wireless also asks the
[[Page 49027]]
Commission to reject the petitions that seek elimination of the option
to allow a professional installer to report geo-location and petitions
that request adoption of a maximum antenna height limitation for
Category B CBSDs.
31. Google Opposition. Google argues that the Commission should
reject SIA's request to strengthen OOBE limits and eliminate
registration requirements for FSS earth station operators. Google also
argues that professional installation can protect incumbents and the
Commission should retain this option to report geo-location accuracy
and that the SAS should not be required to perform additional
validation of location data. Google also supports many of the
petitioners for technical amendments to the rules to maximize spectrum
availability.
32. SIA Opposition. SIA asks the Commission to reject requests to
relax OOBE limits and use an RMS detection methodology for measuring a
device's compliance with the Commission's OOBE rules. SIA also opposes:
(1) Higher EIRP limits for CBSDs; (2) unlimited antenna height for
Category B CBSDs; and (3) any increase in the CBSD or SAS
reconfiguration time. Finally, SIA supports elimination of the
professional installation option for reporting location accuracy.
33. Qualcomm Opposition. Qualcomm supports CTIA's request to allow
the use of an RMS detector to measure OOBE. Qualcomm also supports
CTIA's request to relax the requirement limiting OOBE below 3530 MHz
and above 3720 MHz to -40 dBm/MHz.
34. T-Mobile Opposition. T-Mobile supports increasing the license
term for PALs from three years to ten years with a renewal expectancy.
T-Mobile also argues that the Commission should: (1) Make the total
number of PALs in a census tract for which applicants have applied
available for renewal; (2) increase OOBE and EIRP limits for CBSDs and
eliminate conducted power limits; and (3) increase the reconfiguration
response time when an incumbent user is detected. Finally, T-Mobile
asks the Commission to continue to evaluate whether geo-location
capabilities can be built into devices in the future.
35. Verizon Opposition. Verizon states that the Commission should
deny SIA's request for stricter OOBE limits and that SIA's concerns
about FSS protections are premature. Verizon reiterates its position
that allowing CBSDs to operate at higher power limits is crucial to the
success of this band.
36. WISPA Opposition. WISPA argues that the Commission should
retain the majority of its technical rules, including the maximum power
limit, absence of height restrictions for Category B CBSDs, elevation
reporting rule and the professional installation requirements. However,
WISPA supports requests to relax OOBE limits and to use an RMS detector
to measure these levels. WISPA opposes the petitions that request
increasing the three-year license term for PALs and opposes permitting
a renewal expectancy. However, WISPA supports the requests to award
PALs in census tracts even if there is only one application. Finally,
WISPA supports retaining the FSS earth station registration
requirements.
E. Responses to Second FNPRM
37. The Commission received comment on the three outstanding issues
in the Second FNPRM described above: (1) Defining use by PALs; (2)
creating secondary markets in the 3.5 GHz Band; and (3) FSS protection
criteria. These comments, and those received in subsequent rounds, are
summarized and referenced in the Second Order below.
III. Order on Reconsideration
38. Section 1.429 of the Commission's rules establishes the
standards for submission, review, and consideration of petitions for
reconsideration (47 CFR 1.429). The eight petitions for reconsideration
filed in this proceeding were assessed pursuant to the requirements set
forth in section 1.429 (47 CFR 1.429). The arguments made by
petitioners are addressed on an issue-by-issue basis below. Except as
otherwise set forth below, these petitions do not raise any new issues
not considered in the 3.5 GHz R&O, or where they do, we do not find
these arguments persuasive. Through this Order on Reconsideration we
reaffirm our commitment to the rules and comprehensive regulatory
framework established in the 3.5 GHz R&O.
A. PAL License Terms and Renewability
39. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission adopted a three-
year non-renewable license term for PALs. This represents an increase
from the one-year, non-renewable term that was originally proposed in
the FNPRM and on which the Commission sought comment in the Licensing
PN. After review of the record, the Commission found that three-year,
non-renewable license terms strike an appropriate balance between the
public interest need for targeted, flexible licensing and the need to
provide sufficient certainty for licensees to invest in the 3.5 GHz
Band.
40. CTIA asks that the Commission extend PAL license terms to five
years and grant an ongoing renewal expectancy, provided that the
licensee has deployed services and registered with an SAS. CTIA argues
that the existing three-year license term does not provide operators
sufficient time or assurance to realize a return on investment. CTIA
contends that many challenges associated with network deployment, such
as developing and certifying equipment, obtaining appropriate zoning
and permitting, and deploying infrastructure, are amplified in the 3.5
GHz Band given the novelty and complexity of higher frequency small
cell deployments. Further, CTIA cites IEEE's reluctance to develop a
standard to support IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN) for
the 3.5 GHz Band as a signal that the 3.5 GHz R&O is already affecting
investment and innovation. Three parties, AT&T, PCIA, and T-Mobile,
support CTIA's position.
41. WISPA filed an opposition to the CTIA Petition stating that the
Commission should not revisit the carefully balanced compromise that
resulted in the Commission's adoption of a three-year license term.
WISPA contends that the approach adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O reflects a
balance between the views of parties that prefer short-term licenses--
including WISPA members--and those that prefer longer license terms.
Further, WISPA doubts that large wireless carriers will choose not to
deploy in this band. Rather, WISPA notes that, in recent years, the
mobile wireless industry has embraced unlicensed deployment models and
argues that the Citizens Broadband Radio Service will provide similar
investment incentives for the industry.
42. CTIA filed a reply to WISPA's opposition reiterating its
arguments. CTIA argues that, while WISPA's members may not need the
same level of certainty that mobile operators will require, the
Commission should not ignore the novelty and complexity that mobile
operators will face when deploying in the 3.5 GHz Band.
43. Discussion. We deny CTIA's request and reaffirm our decision to
issue PALs with three-year non-renewable license terms. We agree with
WISPA that the 3.5 GHz R&O already reflects a balance among parties
that advocated for short license terms and those that prefer longer
terms. We originally proposed a one-year non-renewable license term for
PALs but, based on the record, we instead adopted a longer, three-year
license term and allowed applicants to apply for two consecutive terms,
during the first
[[Page 49028]]
applications window, for a total of six years. We continue to believe
that ``three-year non-renewable license terms--with the ability to
aggregate up to six years up-front--strike a balance between some
commenters' desire for flexibility with other commenters' need for
certainty.'' We set forth several arguments in favor of these findings
in the 3.5 GHz R&O and CTIA has not provided any new information that
would cause us to alter our analysis. Indeed, the arguments raised by
CTIA and supporting parties are similar to those raised by commenters
in response to the FNPRM. These arguments were already thoroughly
considered by the Commission in the 3.5 GHz R&O. As such, we continue
to believe that three-year, non-renewable license terms strike the
proper balance of interests for the 3.5 GHz Band.
44. We also continue to believe that the current rules will
effectively incentivize network investment. As we found in the 3.5 GHz
R&O, the rules governing the 3.5 GHz Band work in concert to promote
shared access to the band, foster innovation, and ensure that Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users are able to efficiently target their use
of the 3.5 GHz Band to their specific needs. Non-renewable, short-term
licenses are an essential component of this overall framework. They
allow operators to obtain PALs when and where Priority Access to the
band is needed while permitting periodic, market-based reassignment of
these rights in response to changes in local conditions and operator
needs. The technical rules and band-wide operability requirement ensure
that operators can easily utilize both Priority Access and GAA spectrum
in their networks and seamlessly switch between tiers without
purchasing additional equipment. In addition, our decision not to
impose specific construction requirements for PALs further increases
the flexibility and fungibility of these licenses and reduces the
barriers to fluid movement between service tiers. These unique features
of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service effectively negate the risk of
stranded investment for operators and incentivize efficient network
deployments.
45. CTIA asserts that deploying a network takes ``several years,''
and that six years is not a sufficient time period to build a network
and obtain the financial return an operator would need to justify
making such investments. But CTIA offers no support for its assertion
that ``several years'' must be more than six years to do so or that a
PAL is necessary to facilitate network construction. Nor does it
address our conclusion, as WISPA notes, that, even for larger carriers,
the economics and upgrade cycles for small cell use may resemble those
for Wi-Fi deployments rather than traditional macro cell deployments.
Furthermore, PAL Licenses Areas are significantly smaller, and
therefore require less network deployment, than market areas for other
wireless services. Given the differences in the nature and scope of
service in this shared band, we continue to believe that three-year,
non-renewable PAL terms along with the opportunity to acquire two
consecutive three-year licenses during the initial PAL auction
reasonably balance the stated interests of different users of this
shared band. This approach will promote competition, spur innovation,
and encourage rapid network deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band.
B. Assignment of PALs
46. Background. The Communications Act, as amended, requires the
Commission to use competitive bidding to assign licenses when
``mutually exclusive applications are accepted for any initial
license,'' subject to specified exemptions not applicable in this band
(47 U.S.C. 309(j)(1)-(2), (j)(6)(E)). In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we found that
mutual exclusivity exists when multiple applicants elect to bid on more
PALs than exist in a given census tract. We also found that, consistent
with previous spectrum auctions, mutual exclusivity will be determined
based upon the Commission's acceptance of competing applications.
Because of the ``generic'' nature of PAL frequency assignments, when
total PAL applications exceed the PAL bandwidth available in a License
Area, PAL applications are mutually exclusive because granting one
application would create conflict with another application.
47. Once mutual exclusivity has been established by competing
accepted applications seeking to acquire more PALs than are available
in a particular geographic area, the PALs in that area will be assigned
by competitive bidding, without regard to the number of applicants that
ultimately decide to bid or the actual number of PALs for which they
place bids. Under this approach, when there are two or more applicants
for PALs in a given census tract for a specific auction, we will make
available one less PAL than the total number of PALs in that tract for
which all applicants have applied, up to a maximum of seven.
48. CTIA, Jon Peha, and Motorola Solutions seek reconsideration of
the Commission's method for determining mutual exclusivity for PALs.
Federated Wireless, UTC, and WISPA support these petitions. Petitioners
assert that the Commission should make PALs available even if only one
applicant applies for a PAL in any given census tract and that the
number of available PALs should not depend on the number requested by
applicants. Petitioners claim that prospective licensees may have need
for exclusive access to spectrum in the 3.5 GHz Band and those needs
are not dependent on other parties. In addition, Motorola Solutions,
Federated Wireless, and UTC contend that the Commission's rule would
have negative effects on critical infrastructure industries that may
have an interest in exclusive spectrum access. Federated Wireless, UTC,
and WISPA argue that the Commission's approach to determining mutual
exclusivity is likely to have a disproportionate negative effect on
applicants in rural areas, where demand is likely to be sparser than in
more densely populated urban and suburban areas.
49. John Peha argues that the Commission has the legal authority to
auction PALs even when all applications in a given License Area are
received from the same source. WISPA and Motorola solutions suggest
that the Commission should set a reasonable licensing or administrative
fee if a single applicant applies for a PAL in a given census tract.
Federated Wireless and CTIA argue that PALs should be assigned on a
non-auctioned basis when there is only one applicant in a given License
Area.
50. Discussion. After review of the record, we largely affirm our
decision in the 3.5 GHz R&O and deny the petitions for reconsideration
of our determination not to assign PALs in the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service in geographic areas for which there is only one applicant, with
one limited exception. We modify our original decision to address the
limited case of applicants in Rural Areas that may exhibit lower demand
than other areas. Specifically, in the absence of mutually exclusive
applications, if there is a single applicant for one or more PALs in a
License Area within a Rural Area, as defined in section 96.3 (47 CFR
96.3), we will allow for the assignment of one PAL in that License
Area. We believe that this narrow exception is appropriate to create an
opportunity for operators that provide broadband services to Rural
Areas to secure assured exclusive access to spectrum, regardless of
competitive demand. As described below, other than this very limited
exception, we affirm our decision to issue PALs only through
competitive bidding.
[[Page 49029]]
51. Given the unique features of this band, we concluded in the 3.5
GHz R&O that our approach is consistent with the Commission's statutory
authority and precedent, and best serves the public interest.
Specifically, we found that if there is only a single applicant seeking
PALs in a geographic area, and therefore no mutual exclusivity (and
hence we have no auction authority), the best way to discharge our
statutory mandate to ``encourage the larger and more effective use of
radio in the public interest'' (47 U.S.C. 303(g)) is to provide access
to such spectrum via shared GAA use.
52. We continue to believe that the approach adopted in the 3.5 GHz
R&O fulfills our statutory mandate because it establishes an auction
process that promotes ``efficient and intensive use'' of this spectrum,
it allows for the ``development and rapid deployment of new
technologies, products, and services for the benefit of the public,
including those residing in rural areas,'' and it ``recover[s] for the
public . . . a portion of the value of the public spectrum resource
made available for commercial use'' (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3), 309(j)(4)).
This is a market-based approach that targets Priority Access rights
where and when there is actual market demand. None of the petitioners
presented new evidence to cause us to reconsider the conclusion that
this approach drives greater productivity and efficiency in spectrum
use and promotes innovation and the development of the next generation
of shared spectrum technologies by providing ample opportunities for
both GAA and PAL operations.
53. Petitioners indicate that there may be certain types of users
or applications that will require PALs for their operations, regardless
of whether there are competing users filing applications in a given
census tract. The fundamental benefit of a PAL is the right to
exclusive use of 10 megahertz of spectrum in a given census tract. In
the absence of competition for the spectrum, exclusivity is
unnecessary. Further, since there is no difference in the technical
rules governing GAA and Priority Access devices and users, the
permissible use cases for each tier of service are the same. In the
absence of multiple competing applications that exceed the supply of
PALs in a geographic area, there should be ample GAA spectrum available
for interested parties, thereby obviating the need for exclusive
rights. To the extent that petitioners advocate for the assignment of
PALs in geographic areas for which there is only one applicant because
a particular PAL applicant might anticipate operations that it believes
will require the interference protection that is associated with those
authorizations, we decline to revise the hybrid framework we adopted in
the 3.5 GHz R&O. In balancing competing public interest objectives, as
we often must, that framework was designed to select the best approach
to spectrum management based on local supply and demand. Accordingly,
where competitive rivalry for spectrum access is low, we determined to
allow the GAA tier to provide a low-cost entry point to the band. Where
rivalry for spectrum access is high, an auction will resolve mutually
exclusive applications for PALs in specific geographic areas. We
further adopted finite-term licensing to facilitate evolution of the
band and an ever-changing mix of GAA and Priority Access bandwidth over
time. As we explained in the 3.5 GHz R&O, this regulatory adaptability
should make the 3.5 GHz Band hospitable to a wide variety of users,
deployment models, and business cases, including some solutions to
market needs not adequately served by our conventional licensed or
unlicensed rules. By adopting rules that provide for widespread GAA use
of any spectrum for which we have not received mutually exclusive PAL
applications, we ensure that the spectrum will be put to a use for
which we have identified a clear public interest need.
54. We reject WISPA's assertion that our approach ``substitutes the
Commission's business judgment about shared spectrum use over an
applicant's business decision that may favor exclusive spectrum use.''
Whether or not a business desires exclusivity is independent of whether
there is a market-based need for exclusivity caused by rising demand
for the spectrum. The Commission's approach does indeed promote shared
spectrum use--a fundamental feature of the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service since its inception--while providing for prioritized access in
areas with heightened demand. In fact, the Commission's approach relies
purely on market demand to both trigger an auction and allocate PALs
according to that demand, consistent with long-standing Commission
practices that efficiently assign spectrum licenses via auction. Any
method that would allow PALs to be assigned absent competing
applications would not, as WISPA suggests, ensure ``a marketplace
decision,'' but rather one likely to encourage speculation, reduce
spectrum availability, and discourage innovation in the band.
55. After review of the record, we do however conclude that it
would serve the public interest to allow providers in Rural Areas to
have limited PAL access, even in the absence of mutually exclusive
applications in that area. Petitioners assert that, in the absence of
mutually exclusive PAL applications accepted for a geographic area, the
approach adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O will have a disproportionate
negative effect on rural providers, utilities, and critical
infrastructure facilities. Petitioners claim that such users may have a
need for the ``high quality of service and interference protection that
can only be afforded through acquisition of a PAL.'' We note that many
of these entities--including utilities and rural WISPs--currently
utilize the 3650-3700 MHz band (and other bands including 2.4 GHz, 5
GHz, and 900 MHz) on a non-exclusive basis without the option of
acquiring priority rights. These entities should be able to provide
similar services in the 3.5 GHz Band operating on a GAA basis with the
added option of purchasing a PAL if and when demand from more than one
party exists in a given geographic area. In addition, as described in
this section and section III(A), there is no type of service that is
permitted with a PAL that would not be technically allowed or viable
under a GAA authorization--the only variable is the ability to exclude
others from the use of the spectrum to ensure interference protection,
a need which has not been fully supported in the scenario of a single
PAL applicant in a geographic area.
56. However, given that demand for PALs may well be lower in less
populated areas--particularly early in the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service deployment cycle--some Rural Areas may not have multiple
applicants for PALs. While we believe that rural service providers can
and will provide a variety of robust broadband services in these areas
on a GAA basis, we believe that the public interest would be served by
ensuring that a PAL is available to a provider in these Rural Areas in
the unlikely event that there is a single PAL applicant in a given
area. Under this limited exception we will allow for one PAL in a
License Area located in a Rural Area in which mutually exclusivity does
not exist. If the Commission receives only one application that is
acceptable for filing for a License Area located in a Rural Area, the
Commission will issue a Public Notice cancelling the auction for this
license and establishing a date for the filing of a long-form
application, the acceptance of which would trigger the relevant
procedures permitting petitions to deny. We believe that granting this
limited exception to
[[Page 49030]]
our decision not to assign PALs in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service
in License Areas for which there is only one applicant is an
appropriate balance that will serve the public interest by allowing for
the opportunity for a rural service provider to acquire exclusive
spectrum use in a Rural Area where such access may facilitate its
ability to provide innovative services to customers in more remote
locations. However, recognizing the unique nature of this exception,
the Commission reserves the right to review and reconsider this
approach at a later date. We do not believe there is any reason to
change any other aspect of the PAL licensing scheme for Rural Areas or
any other use case.
57. We also note that the opportunity to purchase PALs is not a
one-time event for this band. Because PALs are licensed for three-year,
non-renewable terms, we will periodically open application windows for
new PALs that take effect upon expiration of previously assigned PALs.
Additionally, if sufficient interest is expressed by prospective PAL
users, we will open interim filing windows to accept applications for
unassigned PALs, i.e., PALs that could be made available for auction,
before the expiration of an ongoing three-year PAL term. Therefore, as
the band develops, our approach provides mechanisms to make PALs
available in response to changing market conditions.
58. While we could issue PALs on a non-auctioned basis--as
suggested by Federated Wireless and CTIA--we conclude that doing so in
this band would not result in as efficient an assignment of the
spectrum as licensing the spectrum for shared GAA use, except for the
limited exception described above. As part of its proposal that we
assign PALs in a license area with only one applicant, Motorola
Solutions asserted that the ``interested party would be expected to pay
a reasonable licensing/administrative fee for such PAL use, and may be
expected to pay a reasonable fee to a SAS database provider for
interference protection.'' Neither Motorola Solutions nor WISPA put
forward any theory as to how we would assess this fee under our
statutory authority, or how it could replicate a mechanism reflecting
the spectrum's fair market value. We believe the record on this issue
is insufficient to support Motorola's proposal. We continue to believe
the adopted rules are the best way to ``encourage the larger and more
effective use of radio in the public interest'' and nothing in the
record supports reconsideration of this determination.
C. SAS and CBSD Response Time
59. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission adopted section
96.15(a)(4) (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4)), which requires that, for CBSDs
operating in the 3550-3650 MHz band, ``[w]ithin 60 seconds after the
ESC communicates that it has detected a signal from a federal system in
a given area, the SAS must either confirm suspension of the CBSD's
operation or its relocation to another unoccupied frequency, if
available.'' The Commission adopted identical requirements for CBSDs
operating in the 3650-3700 MHz band. The Commission also requires that
``A CBSD must receive and comply with any incoming commands from its
associated SAS about any changes to power limits and frequency
assignments. A CBSD must cease transmission, move to another frequency
range, or change its power level within 60 seconds as instructed by an
SAS.''
60. Motorola Solutions, Nokia Solutions, and WinnForum petition the
Commission to increase the first of these two intervals (SAS
reconfiguration response time in section 96.15) from 60 seconds to 600
seconds. WinnForum contends that this increase is necessary to ensure a
smooth handover of CBSDs to new frequencies or bands. They emphasize
the complexity of optimizing these transitions among a number of
different SASs and network operators. WinnForum also argues that some
critical infrastructure and emergency use cases may need a longer time
to effect a seamless transition from the affected frequencies. However,
they acknowledge that most CBSDs could probably be cleared after only
300 seconds. Nokia Solutions also suggests that the reconfiguration
time be increased to 600 seconds and indicates that, even in a best
case scenario, a complex network cannot be suspended or relocated
within 60 seconds. Google and WISPA also support WinnForum's Petition.
61. Google notes that there is a tension between the SAS
reconfiguration rule and the second of these two intervals (the
reconfiguration requirement in section 96.39 that requires CBSDs to
cease operations or move to a non-interfering frequency within 60
seconds of receiving instructions from the SAS) (47 CFR 96.39).
According to Google, in practice, the combination of these two rules
would be to effectively require CBSDs to take action in less than 60
seconds. Google contends that, to resolve this tension, the Commission
should increase the interval for SASs to respond to ESC directions but
retain the 60-second timeframe for CBSDs to respond to SAS commands.
62. SIA argues that the 60-second response time in section 96.39
(47 CFR 96.39) for CBSDs to move or discontinue operations is too long
and asks that the Commission reduce that timeframe. SIA argues that
even a one-minute delay could cause significant damage to incumbent
satellite systems. SIA asserts that, since the CBSD response time is in
addition to any additional time needed for the SAS to process
information from the CBSD and communicate with the device, interference
could continue for longer than 60 seconds in practice. SIA asserts that
the petitions for increases in SAS response time only reinforce their
concerns about how quickly harmful interference into incumbent FSS
earth stations can be addressed. Google asserts that SIA misunderstands
the different types of commands addressed by the Commission's rules and
the arguments made by petitioners. Google contends that nothing in
petitioners' requests to increase the SAS reconfiguration timeframe in
section 96.15 (47 CFR 96.15) casts doubt on the ability of CBSDs to
respond to instructions from an SAS within the 60-second window
established by section 96.39 (47 CFR 96.39).
63. Discussion. After review of the record, we believe that the SAS
reconfiguration time should be increased. Petitioners contend that 60
seconds is an insufficient window for SASs and licensees to effectively
reconfigure their networks in response to reported interference.
Indeed, Nokia Solutions argues that it may be impossible to effect such
changes even under ideal circumstances. These problems are likely to be
more acute with networks consisting of a large number of CBSDs. While
we take no position on the veracity of these claims, from the evidence
presented, it appears that increasing the SAS reconfiguration timeframe
will help to promote robust development and deployment of broadband
networks in the 3.5 GHz Band.
64. However, given the importance of the incumbent services present
in the band, we do not believe that the 600-second SAS reconfiguration
timeframe suggested by commenters is appropriate. Federal Incumbent
Users must be assured that their mission critical operations will be
protected from harmful interference and that any interference reported
will be addressed in a timely manner. Therefore, we amend section
96.15(a)(4) and (b)(4) of the rules (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4) and (b)(4)) and
extend the SAS reconfiguration
[[Page 49031]]
timeframe to 300 seconds. Both Nokia Solutions and WinnForum indicated
that, while not ideal, a 300-second reconfiguration window would be
adequate for a majority of CBSDs to effectively cease transmitting or
transition to a non-interfering frequency. They do not provide a basis
for why as much as 600-seconds is needed, even for a large network. We
also amend sections 96.15(a)(4) and (b)(4) (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4) and
(b)(4)) to clarify that the 300-second reconfiguration window applies
to notifications regarding federal use from the ESC or any other
source, including federal Incumbent Users themselves. This modification
is necessary to ensure that federal Incumbent Users are protected from
harmful interference in all circumstances. However, the 300-second
timeframe will not necessarily apply if the President of the United
States (or another designated Federal Government entity) issues
instructions to discontinue use of CBSDs pursuant to section 706 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 157), as amended (War Powers of
President) (47 U.S.C. 606). In such cases, SAS Administrators must
instruct CBSDs to cease operations as soon as technically possible (but
no more than 300-seconds). We also note that at this time there is no
indication of how the increase in the SAS reconfiguration time will
impact federal radar systems. If it is demonstrated there is an
operational impact to the federal radar systems, the Commission will
review the SAS reconfiguration timeframe and will take appropriate
steps to address the operational impact to federal radar systems.
65. While some commenters claim that even this extended
reconfiguration window may cause service interruptions in some cases,
we believe that 300 seconds will ordinarily provide operators with
sufficient time to smoothly discontinue transmissions or move to non-
interfering frequencies. Moreover, given the critical importance of the
federal operations in the band, we must ensure that CBSDs are shut down
as quickly as possible after the presence of federal operations is
reported by an ESC or actual interference is reported by a federal
user. This change also resolves the tension between sections 96.15 and
96.39 (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4), 96.39(c)(2)) pointed out by Google.
Therefore, we find that a 300-second response timeframe strikes the
appropriate balance between protecting incumbent operations and
facilitating commercial deployments in the band. In addition, given the
technical capabilities of SASs and CBSDs, we believe that it is both
reasonable and technically feasible to require Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users to comply with this modified response timeframe.
66. We refuse SIA's request to shorten the 60-second CBSD
reconfiguration timeframe in section 96.39 of the rules. As Google
correctly notes, SIA's arguments on this point were considered by the
Commission when the rule was adopted. SIA does not raise any
substantive new arguments that would compel us to override our prior
decision. To the extent that incumbent FSS earth station licensees may
have specific, time-limited requests for protection during certain
periods, we encourage FSS licensees to work with SAS Administrators to
address these concerns. As detailed in section III(H)(2) and section
96.17(f) (47 CFR 96.17(f)), SAS Administrators must develop procedures
to receive and respond to such requests. Accordingly, in light of this
requirement, we continue to believe that the 60-second CBSD
reconfiguration timeframe in section 96.39 (47 CFR 96.39) is sufficient
to ensure that federal and non-federal users are protected.
D. CBSD Power Limits
67. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission found that ``it
is vitally important to establish flexible, yet simple, rules that
would allow for a wide variety of innovative services to be deployed in
the 3.5 GHz Band.'' To advance this goal, the Commission defined two
categories of CBSDs--Category A and Category B--with parameters
appropriate for different use cases. Category A and Category B CBSDs
are differentiated primarily by their maximum permissible power and the
rules governing their deployment. In addition, Category B CBSDs may
only be authorized in the 3550-3650 MHz portion of the band after an
ESC is approved and operational. GAA users and Priority Access
Licensees may operate CBSDs in both categories and must operate in
accordance with instructions from an SAS which, for interference
prevention purposes, may authorize an operational power level below the
maximum allowable power level (47 CFR 96.41, 96.43, 96.45).
68. Category A CBSDs are limited to a maximum conducted transmit
power of 24 dBm and a maximum EIRP of 30 dBm in 10 megahertz and may be
deployed either indoors or outdoors (with antennas for outdoor
deployments not exceeding 6 meters height above average terrain) (47
CFR 96.41(b), 96.43(a)). These parameters are consistent with the
baseline small cell use case proposed in the FNPRM and the phased
federal-commercial sharing plan proposed by NTIA and adopted in the 3.5
GHz R&O.
69. Category B CBSDs, which may only be used outdoors, are
permitted to operate at higher power than Category A, providing greater
flexibility and ensuring ongoing compatibility with existing 3650-3700
MHz band operations (47 CFR 96.41(b), 96.45). In non-rural areas, the
conducted power limit is the same as Category A (24 dBm/10 MHz), but
the EIRP limit is 40 dBm/10 MHz. In rural areas, the conducted power
limit is increased to 30 dBm/10 MHz and EIRP to 47 dBm/10 MHz (47 CFR
96.41(b)). The EIRP limit was set to encourage the use of higher gain
antennas and directional transmission in urban areas to facilitate co-
existence of PALs and GAAs in spatially tight spectrum sharing
environment. The higher rural power limits reflect challenges for
deploying wireless coverage in rural areas as well as decreased
contention for spectrum resources due to lower population density in
those areas.
70. CTIA, Motorola Solutions, Nokia Solutions, Verizon, and
WinnForum petitioned the Commission to increase CBSD power limits. AT&T
and Federated Wireless supported these arguments. Petitioners assert
that the maximum power levels for Category A devices should be raised
to 36 dBm EIRP. Petitioners contend that the Category A power levels
adopted by the Commission are insufficient to provide significant
indoor coverage. Nokia Solutions and WinnForum also contend that a 36
dBm maximum EIRP would be consistent with levels the Commission has
approved for unlicensed devices.
71. Petitioners also argue that the maximum permissible EIRP for
Category B CBSDs should be raised to 49 dBm for non-rural deployments
and to 56 dBm for rural deployments. WinnForum contends that the
proposed increases would bring the Commission's rules in line with the
power levels of existing urban pico-cells. Verizon contends that the
maximum EIRP that the Commission adopted for Category B CBSDs is well
below the power levels of the small cells that are used in current
licensed deployments. Verizon also argues that the existing rules would
significantly limit the coverage that each cell could achieve, driving
up network costs. Federated Wireless agrees and adds that ``Even at the
increased EIRP limit, CBSDs will still operate at power levels no
greater than those employed in typical small cell deployments.''
72. Many petitioners also assert that the Commission should
increase the flexibility for operators to deploy lower
[[Page 49032]]
gain antennas by relaxing the limitations on conducted power for
Category A and B CBSDs. For example, Nokia Solutions and Verizon argue
that the limitations on conducted power should be removed entirely to
provide additional flexibility network operators in the 3.5 GHz Band.
WinnForum proposes that the allowed conducted power be scaled up 1 dB
for each 1 dB lost in antenna gain, up to the maximum of 40 dBm
conducted power for Category B CBSDs. WinnForum argues that this
approach would not preclude the use of omni-directional antennas while
still maintaining adequate coverage areas for outdoor deployments.
73. SIA opposes any increase in maximum EIRP for Category A or
Category B CBSDs and, in fact, argues that they should be reduced to
levels stated in the FNPRM. SIA contends that higher EIRP limits will
increase the risks of interference with incumbent FSS earth stations
and significantly increase the size of required separation distances
around these stations. They also see risks associated with not limiting
the antenna height for Category B CBSDs due to interference to
incumbent in-band and out-of-band FSS receivers.
74. WISPA argues that the Commission should not change the maximum
allowable EIRP for Category B CBSDs. In WISPA's view, the Commission's
rules strike the proper balance between various interests and encourage
operators of outdoor networks to deploy more efficient, high-gain,
sectorized antennas. Federated Wireless disagrees with WISPA and
contends that increased EIRP and flexibility is essential to promote
innovation and enable more efficient spectrum use.
75. Discussion. After review of the record, we agree with
commenters that contend that additional flexibility for non-rural
outdoor CBSDs would promote deployment in the band and, accordingly, we
increase the maximum allowable EIRP for non-rural Category B CBSDs from
40 dBm/10 MHz to 47 dBm/10 MHz, making the power levels allowed for
both non-rural and rural deployments the same. Category B CBSDs will
continue to be authorized for use in the 3550-3650 MHz band only after
an ESC is approved and commercially deployed consistent with sections
96.15 and 96.67 (47 CFR 96.15, 96.67). We also eliminate the conducted
power limits for all CBSDs. However, we also conclude that it would not
be in the public interest to increase the maximum allowable EIRP for
Category A CBSDs and rural Category B CBSDs beyond the levels
established in the 3.5 GHz R&O. Combined, these changes will provide
increased flexibility to all network operators without increasing the
potential for interference in the 3.5 GHz Band.
76. As we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, we are cognizant that the
determination of power limits for all categories of CBSD must balance
the consideration of several different public interest objectives. On
the one hand, higher limits may provide more technical and operational
flexibility for users of the band to increase coverage with fewer
CBSDs, potentially reducing deployment costs. On the other hand, lower
power limits may lead to greater spatial reuse of the band, reduced
coexistence challenges, and increased aggregate network capacity. Our
determinations herein strive to balance these considerations to create
a flexible regime suitable for a wide variety of use cases.
77. With regard to Category B CBSDs, we agree with commenters that
higher maximum EIRP may help promote more flexible use and reduce
deployment costs in non-rural areas while not significantly increasing
coexistence issues. Specifically, we increase the maximum EIRP for
Category B CBSDs in non-rural areas to 47 dBm/10 MHz to match the
maximum EIRP permitted in rural areas. Petitioners generally argue that
higher power is needed to facilitate network deployment and decrease
costs. Although we remain concerned about more substantial power
increases in more congested areas, we agree that allowing non-rural
CBSDs to match the EIRP of rural CBSDs is consistent with the
Commission's goals for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service and is a
modest increase that will not adversely affect the interference
environment in the 3.5 GHz Band.
78. However, we do not agree that the maximum EIRP for Category B
CBSDs should be increased to 49 dBm/10 MHz in non-rural areas and 56
dBm/10 MHz in rural areas as requested by several petitioners. While we
see the merit in increasing the maximum power available to network
operators using Category B CBSDs in non-rural areas, we believe that an
increase to 47 dBm/10MHz to match the level permitted for rural CBSDs
will adequately address the concerns raised by Petitioners without
negative effects on the interference environment in the band. This
change represents a significant increase in power for non-rural
applications with a corresponding potential for more coverage area for
each CBSD. This change will also simplify the rules by removing the
distinction between rural and non-rural power levels, allowing for
uniform development and deployment of Category B CBSDs. We also note
that Category B CBSDs will continue to be authorized for use in the
3550-3650 MHz band only after an ESC is approved and commercially
deployed consistent with sections 96.15 and 96.67 (47 CFR 96.15,
96.67).
79. We continue to believe that the power limit that we adopted for
Category A CBSDs in the 3.5 GHz R&O is appropriate for the baseline--
primarily indoor or at street level--small cell use case in the band.
Moreover, the Exclusion Zones protecting federal radar systems that
were studied by NTIA and adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O are based on a
maximum EIRP of 30 dBm/10 MHz. Any change to the maximum EIRP for
Category A CBSDs would require the Exclusion Zones to be reconsidered
and expanded, preventing deployment in large portions of the country
prior to the development and approval of an ESC.
80. While we acknowledge that some petitioners would prefer that we
increase the Category A power levels to allow higher power levels
indoors, we believe that the rules appropriately balance the need for
operational flexibility with the need to promote efficient spatial and
spectral reuse of the band. Transmitting at higher power levels indoors
and low outdoor elevations--especially in high traffic areas with
multiple PALs and GAAs operating in the same or nearby locations--would
likely present significant coexistence challenges. Higher power levels
in dense indoor deployments would also increase the likelihood of
interference from operators assigned to adjacent channels due to
receiver blocking effects. Thus, given the interference risks
associated with higher power levels, the delays in deployment of this
new service that would result from revisiting the size of the Exclusion
Zones prior to implementing an ESC capability, and the disruption to
the balance between PAL and GAA use struck in the 3.5 GHz R&O, we
conclude that the maximum EIRP for Category A CBSDs should remain
capped at 30 dBm/10 MHz.
81. We are also cognizant of the concerns raised by SIA regarding
the need for greater protections for FSS earth stations in the presence
of higher power CBSDs but note that the FSS interference protection
criteria described in section IV(C)(1) addresses these concerns. We
emphasize that the increase in allowable EIRP for non-rural Category B
CBSDs is an increase in the maximum allowable EIRP and should not be
construed as a guaranteed power level for CBSD deployments, whether
[[Page 49033]]
they are operated on a GAA or Priority Access basis. We note that CBSDs
must still comply with the Commission's rules to prevent interference
to Incumbent Users, including the requirements to operate only at power
levels and in locations authorized by the SAS (47 CFR 96.39(c)).
Indeed, given that the potential for co-channel and adjacent channel
interference may increase at higher power levels, the SAS's
responsibility to authorize lower maximum operational power limits,
when and where needed to meet the interference protection requirements
as defined in Commission's rules, will be even more important in light
of the increased maximum power levels authorized herein.
82. Finally, we find that removing maximum conducted power limits
for all CBSDs will provide operators with additional flexibility for
network deployments and encourage investment in the band. Several
petitioners, including WinnForum, Verizon, and Federated Wireless,
contend that the Commission's rules requiring Category B CBSDs to use
sectorized, highly directional antennas in urban areas would lead to
inefficient deployments. Notably, Federated Wireless contends that,
since most CBSDs will be deployed below the clutter in urban areas,
sectorized antennas would be unable to provide the coverage needed for
urban deployment. In addition, since the Exclusion Zones and other
protection contours in the band are based on EIRP, removing the
conducted power limits should not increase the required protection
areas around incumbent sites. Therefore, we agree with petitioners
that, on balance, increased flexibility will serve the public interest
and promote investment in the 3.5 GHz Band. We note that this has no
impact on our OOBE requirements, which continue to be expressed in
terms of conducted power. That is, although the rule changes described
in this section will allow higher total conducted power, they do not
allow higher OOBE power.
83. In making this change to remove maximum conducted power limits
for all CBSDs we also recognize that we must limit the peak to average
power ratio (PAPR) of signals in the band so that excessive peak power
levels do not cause transient interference into other systems. Many
commenters have expressed interest in deploying LTE equipment in the
3.5 GHz Band. We note that such signals use OFDM based modulation,
which can have a large PAPR. NTIA recently published emission spectrum
measurements for a 3.5 GHz LTE hot spot device shows that the peak to
average ratio of such devices may range as high as 12-13 dB. Thus,
based on these measurements and consistent with the Commission's rules
in other licensed mobile broadband services, we are limiting CBSD PAPR
to no more than 13 dB (47 CFR 24.232(d) and 27.50(a)(1)(B) and (d)(5)).
84. Finally, SIA argues that unlimited antenna heights for Category
B CBSDs will necessitate larger protection areas for FSS earth
stations. SIA does not propose a specific remedy or alternate rule
governing antenna heights. We note that Category B CBSDs are required
to report antenna height as part of their CBSD registration under
section 96.45(d) (47 CFR 96.45(d)) and SASs are required to take such
antenna height (along with maximum power, location, antenna
configuration, and other registered information) into consideration
when calculating potential interference effects and protection
distances (47 CFR 96.17(d), 96.45(d), 96.53, 96.55). Indeed, the
protection criteria set forth in the rules may require an effective
limit on Category B antenna elevation in some cases. We continue to
believe that the SAS can utilize information reported by CBSDs to
effectively coordinate operations in the 3.5 GHz Band and see no reason
to impose restrictions on the height of Category B CBSD antennas at
this time.
E. OOBE and Adjacent Channel Emissions Limits
1. OOBE and Adjacent Channel Emissions
85. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we adopted emissions and
interference limits that will further the Commission's goals and
promote effective coexistence of different users in the band.
Specifically, we adopted the following conducted OOBE limits for
devices in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service:
-13 dBm/MHz from 0 to 10 megahertz from the SAS assigned
channel edge
-25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz from the SAS assigned
channel edge down to 3530 MHz and up to 3720 MHz
-40 dBm/MHz below 3530 MHz and above 3720 MHz
86. CTIA, Nokia Solutions, and SIA petition the Commission to
change its OOBE limits. CTIA contends that the -40 dBm/MHz OOBE limit
simply is too restrictive and is not necessary to protect operations in
the adjacent band below 3530 MHz and above 3720 MHz. CTIA also asserts
that, if the Commission determines that the -40 dBm/MHz limit is
necessary to protect adjacent operations, the Commission should
increase the transition gap to 40 megahertz to allow operators using 20
megahertz LTE channels to operate at higher power. Qualcomm supports
CTIA's comments and asserts that the FCC should not implement tighter
OOBE limits at the 3700 MHz band edge for certain classes of devices to
protect C-band FSS earth stations. According to Qualcomm, stringent
OOBE limits will challenge equipment designs and likely force mobile
devices to use significantly less power and/or operate well inside the
3.5 GHz Band edges to comply. Google, T-Mobile, and WISPA also support
relaxation of the OOBE limits.
87. Nokia Solutions recommends that the Commission define OOBE
limits that comply with 3GPP specifications and would allow the use of
Bands 42 and 43 in the United States. According to Nokia only the
requirement of -25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 MHz from the assigned channel edge
down to 3530 MHz and up to 3720 MHz complies with the 3GPP
specification.
88. CTIA also argues that the Commission should adopt a limit of -
13 dBm/MHz from 0-20 megahertz outside the assigned channel edge and a
limit of -25 dBm/MHz for frequencies more than 20 megahertz outside
each assigned channel edge. Qualcomm agrees and contends that the
emissions limits that apply outside of the channel of operation were
designed around supporting 10 MHz-wide LTE channels, and thus would
force 20 MHz LTE and 40 MHz LTE operations to use substantially lower
transmit power than the level 10 MHz LTE operations are permitted to
use. According to Qualcomm, such reductions will create coverage
challenges and limit the band's ability to support wider bandwidth LTE
operations. Similarly, T-Mobile argues that 20 megahertz LTE channels
would have to be at least 20 megahertz from the channel-edge to meet
the -25 dBm/MHz limit without significantly reducing power levels. The
reduced power necessary to meet the -25 dBm/MHz limit would in turn
reduce coverage of those 20 megahertz channels and would depress
operators' desire to deploy those channels.
89. On the other hand, SIA argues that more restrictive OOBE limits
are needed to effectively protect C-Band FSS earth stations from CBSD
transmissions. SIA also asserts that the OOBE limits adopted by the
Commission were implemented without the required legal notice.
According to SIA, under the Commission's current OOBE rules, separation
distances between CBSDs and FSS earth stations could be more
[[Page 49034]]
than 15 km. GCI also argues that the Commission should implement more
stringent OOBE limits at the upper edge of the 3.5 GHz Band. According
to GCI, at a minimum, a -40 dBm/MHz limit should be implemented at the
band edge to protect C-Band FSS earth station receivers.
90. Some parties support the Commission's current OOBE limits.
Notably, Verizon argues that the current OOBE limits are sound and
oppose further OOBE restrictions. Federated Wireless also contends that
the Commission need not reconsider the OOBE issue now.
91. Discussion. After review of the diverse record on this issue,
we deny the petitions for reconsideration that requested changes to the
OOBE limits that the Commission adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O. We continue
to believe that the existing OOBE rules properly balance the need to
protect operations in adjacent bands--and in adjacent channels within
the 3.5 GHz Band--with the need to create an environment that will
promote robust deployment of broadband systems in the band.
92. We also believe that, while the OOBE limits are more
restrictive than those in other bands, they are wholly consistent with
the capabilities of the equipment and services likely to be deployed in
the 3.5 GHz Band. For emissions below 3530 MHz and above 3720 MHz, NTIA
measurements show that the OOBE of commercial products that operate
within the 3.5 GHz Band can be lower than -40 dBm/MHz at offsets higher
than 20 megahertz. Thus, according to NTIA research, the approach
adopted by the Commission appears to be practically realizable with
existing state-of-the-art products at little or no added cost and will
provide additional protection for incumbent systems while allowing for
more extensive deployment of CBSDs in the 3.5 GHz Band.
93. We disagree with CTIA and Qualcomm's argument that the
Commission's OOBE limits should be changed since they would force
operators using 20 megahertz channels to reduce power to comply with
the rules. As we noted in the 3.5 GHz R&O, ten megahertz channels
provide a flexible, scalable, and practically deployable bandwidth for
high data rate technologies, permitting multiple Priority Access
Licensees to operate in the same geographic area. While Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users are permitted to aggregate PAL channels
or operate across wider bandwidths--consistent with section 96.31 (47
CFR 96.31)--the technical rules required for effective coexistence
between and among different users of the band do not change, regardless
of the how much bandwidth is in use. We also note that power reduction
may not be necessary if Citizens Broadband Radio Service users utilize
robust filters or other alternative methods to address our OOBE limits.
While the flexibility to aggregate spectrum is a key element of the
Commission's licensing regime, reducing OOBE limits solely to
accommodate wider bandwidths would not further the principles of shared
access that are at the heart of this proceeding.
94. Moreover, petitioners do not provide convincing evidence or
technical analysis to support their claims regarding power reduction
nor do they address the potential effects such changes could have on
adjacent channel operations. We also expect to see more spectrally
efficient commercial products enter the marketplace in the near future
that will meet or exceed our requirements. The current rules support
the development of such new and innovative technologies while ensuring
a proper balance between the current and future users of the band.
95. We also reject SIA's arguments that the strictest OOBE limits
adopted by the Commission (-40 dBm/MHz) should have been set beginning
at 3680 MHz, which is 20 megahertz below the lower edge of the adjacent
C-Band, rather than at 3720 MHz. SIA argues that failing to do so will
lead to impermissible interference into C-Band FSS earth stations. As
we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, the -13 dBm/MHz OOBE limit at the band
edge is consistent with Commission precedent both in this band and in
other licensed spectrum bands. In addition, the transition gap that
requires OOBE to drop to -25 dBm/MHz after a 10 megahertz offset and -
40 dBm/MHz above 3720 megahertz is significantly more stringent than
limits in other bands or the limits that the Commission previously
adopted for the 3650-3700 MHz Wireless Broadband Radio Service. The
Commission adopted these more stringent limits in recognition of the
need to provide additional protection for important operations in the
C-Band. Indeed, as detailed above, several petitioners continue to
object to these limits as too stringent for certain wireless broadband
uses in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. After review of the
record, we remain convinced that the OOBE limits adopted in the 3.5 GHz
R&O strike the appropriate balance between the need to facilitate
innovation and investment in the 3.5 GHz Band and the need to protect
licensed C-Band FSS earth stations from interference.
96. However, while we maintain the existing OOBE limits, we do
acknowledge SIA's concerns regarding potential interference into C-Band
receivers used for critical telemetry, tracking, and control (TT&C)
operations at the band edge. Therefore, as detailed in section
IV(C)(2), we adopt rules to provide additional protection for these
facilities. We also adopt new rules to facilitate coordination between
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and licensed C-Band FSS earth
stations to address any interference issues that may arise.
97. Finally, we reject SIA's assertion that the Commission did not
provide proper notice prior to adopting the current OOBE rules in the
3.5 GHz R&O. As SIA itself notes, in the FNPRM, the Commission: (1)
Proposed an OOBE limit of -13 dBm/MHz at the band edge and -40 dBm/MHz
and 30 megahertz above and below the proposed band edges; (2) sought
comment on both OOBE limits and the size of the transition gap; and (3)
sought comment on extending the Citizens Broadband Radio Service to
3700 MHz. Even prior to that time, the Licensing PN sought comment on
``[w]hat provisions would need to be made for incumbent operators'' if
the band were so extended. And in the 3.5 GHz R&O itself, the
Commission determined to seek further comment on ``steps we can take
over and above those we've already taken to preempt and mitigate the
potential for interference'' to incumbent C-Band licensees, referring
specifically to ``our baseline emission performance rule.''
98. As SIA correctly states, ``a final rule need not be an exact
replica of the rule proposed in the Notice, the final rule must be a
`logical outgrowth' of the rule proposed.'' In this case, the
Commission had sought comment on the need for interference protections
relating to extension of the band edge from 3650 MHz to 3700 MHz. The
OOBE limits later proposed in the FNPRM were clearly intended to apply
to the upper and lower bounds of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service
and the Commission made it clear that those bounds could extend to 3700
MHz. Indeed, the Commission originally sought comment on extending the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service to 3700 MHz in the original NPRM
released in December of 2012. Thus, the extension of the 3.5 GHz Band--
and with it the OOBE rules applicable at and beyond the band edge--was
wholly foreseeable and a clear logical outgrowth of the Commission's
proposals. In addition, the 3.5 GHz R&O itself provided parties with
yet a further opportunity to comment on the
[[Page 49035]]
approaches that the Commission could utilize to protect C-Band FSS
earth stations.
2. Emission Power Measurements and Testing Methodology
99. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we adopted a rule that requires
that emission power measurements be performed with a peak detector in
maximum hold. CTIA objects to this testing methodology and asks the
Commission to adopt a different measurement technique. Qualcomm, T-
Mobile, WinnForum, and WISPA support CTIA's request. CTIA contends that
the use of an RMS detector to measure emissions would be wholly
consistent with the Commission's rules governing most other commercial
licensed and unlicensed services. In addition, CTIA states that the
peak to average ratio for emissions from LTE signals can easily exceed
10 dB and compelling Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to operate
with that much less power would effectively cripple the band's ability
to support mobile broadband operations. WISPA agrees and adds that, not
only would measuring at peak power require mobile operations to operate
at significantly less power, but this would similarly impinge upon the
ability of fixed providers to operate at the maximum authorized power.
100. In addition, WinnForum argues that 10+ dB signal strengths
over average captured by the current rule would exist for less than
0.01% of the time for any one signal. WinnForum also contends that
requiring devices to be tested using a peak detector at maximum hold
effectively requires that devices be certified at the maximum possible
signal strength at any given time and is a very poor representation of
actual interference impact. According to WinnForum, the part 96
emission limits are already stringent, and become simply unattainable
when adding over 10dB penalty through the peak detector/max hold
requirement. WinnForum also claims that the effects would likely be
similar for other wideband systems (Wi-Fi, WiMAX, etc.).
101. SIA disagrees with WinnForum and argues that the Commission
should retain the peak measurement test for OOBE. SIA states that
ignoring peak emission levels in favor of reliance on average
measurements would undermine the prophylactic objectives of the OOBE
limits. SIA contends that, by CTIA's own admission, the change would
allow power increases of 10 dB or more. According to SIA, because peak
emissions can have significant interference effects, the Commission
must continue to require use of a peak detector to determine OOBE limit
compliance.
102. Google supports WinnForum's filing and argues that SIA's
claims should be rejected. Google asserts that all signals, including
LTE, Wi-Fi, WiMAX, and even Gaussian thermal noise will have
statistical variations in the instantaneous amplitude of the waveform
and argues that, for this reason neither cellular, AWS, PCS, or 700 MHz
emission are measured using peak hold. Google also asserts that, since
the PAPR and signal statistics of LTE and Gaussian thermal noise are
similar, the measurement of their interference potential should be
treated in the same way. Accordingly, Google argues that if SIA insists
on measuring CBSD emissions using peak values, the system noise of FSS
receivers should be characterized in the same manner.
103. Discussion. After careful review of the record, we conclude
that emission power measurements may be performed using either RMS-
detection or peak-detection. We agree with petitioners that requiring
the use of a peak detector operating at maximum hold to test emission
limits does not serve the public interest. As WinnForum argues,
requiring the use of peak measurements may effectively prevent the
development and deployment of equipment in the band. Moreover, the
decision to allow the use of RMS measurements is consistent with
existing Commission rules for several other licensed services in the
past, including the AWS bands 47 CFR 27.50(b)(11), (c)(11), (d)(6),
(h)(4)(i), 24.132(d)-(f). In other services, the Commission has adopted
the emission power measurement by giving the option of detecting peak
value or average value 47 CFR 27.53(a)(7), (h)(3)(iii). This decision
will provide the measurement lab with a great deal of flexibility to
select the appropriate detection type during the certification process.
104. RF power measurement is a function of the receiver bandwidth
and detection method whether the signal is detected using a peak or
average technique. LTE signals are using OFDM based modulation in
downlink which are known to have large PAPRs which may be beyond the 10
dB margin. Google also points out that the PAPRs and signal statistics
of LTE and Gaussian thermal noise are generally similar, and thermal
noise is typically evaluated using mean measurements. Recent NTIA lab
measurements of emission spectrum for a commercial LTE hot spot device
operating in the 3.5 GHz Band has shown PAPRs of up to about 12-13 dB.
The PAPR for an LTE signal is a random value that fluctuates over a
wide range and depends on modulation type and number of sub-carriers
used.
105. We reject SIA's argument that retaining the peak detector at
maximum hold measurement requirement is necessary to prevent harmful
interference into C-Band FSS earth stations. SIA contends that this
measurement approach is necessary because ``peak emissions may have
significant interference effects.'' However, the issue is not what is
commonly referred to as ``peak power'' but rather extremely short
duration transient signals that typically have little energy and,
therefore, generally do not reflect interference potential. In effect,
requiring devices to be tested using a peak detector at max hold
requires devices to be certified at their ``worst case'' configuration
which would present an unrealistic view of the actual interference
potential of any given device. This approach is inconsistent with our
oft stated rejection of worst case approaches to measurements and
interference protection analysis. Moreover, as Google notes, SIA's
assertion that CBSD emission levels should be measured using a peak
detector, while their own system noise levels are exempt from such a
requirement, is logically inconsistent and mathematically unsound.
106. In addition, WinnForum argues that, since incumbent
protections in the 3.5 GHz Band will be calculated using aggregate
interference from multiple CBSDs, certifying CBSDs using a peak
detector at max hold will compound the effects of these worst case
certifications, yielding an unrealistic picture of the RF environment.
On the other hand, calculating aggregate interference effects based on
average measurements will present a more realistic picture of the
actual RF environment for the purpose of determining protection of
incumbent systems, including FSS earth stations. We agree with CTIA,
Google, and WinnForum that maintaining the peak detector at maximum
hold requirement would be unnecessary, particularly in light of the cap
on peak-to-average emissions we adopt below. Maintaining this approach
would also be inconsistent with the Commission's goals for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service and would not promote spectral efficiency and
co-existence among various users in the 3.5 GHz Band and adjacent
bands.
107. It is also typically easier to measure emissions using the
peak detected signal as part of standard
[[Page 49036]]
measurements. Accordingly, under our revised rules, if the device
passes the peak detection requirements, no further RMS-detection is
needed to meet the OOBE conditions; otherwise, the RMS-detection method
can be applied. However, in order to circumvent any effect of peak
power spikes, as indicated in the CBSD power requirement section, we
will also require that the PAPR of the transmitter output power not
exceed 13 dB consistent with the Commission's previous rules in other
licensed mobile broadband services 47 CFR 24.32(d), 27.50(a)(1)(B) and
(d)(5). NTIA lab measurements on LTE hot spot devices also support our
finding that a 13 dB margin is reasonable for industry to achieve.
108. We believe the combination of changing the requirement to
include the use of RMS detection for emission measurement, along with
setting the PAPR limitation, will diminish the potential for
interference between and among Citizens Broadband Radio Service users
and Incumbent Users while promoting efficient use of the band. We
disagree with SIA's assertions and note that RMS measurement is
commonly used by the Commission and, in fact, is commonly used in other
bands. Indeed, allowing such flexible measurement techniques here will
help promote the next generation of shared spectrum technologies, and
will drive greater productivity and efficiency in spectrum usage.
F. Device Geo-Location
1. Location Accuracy and Alternative Measurement Approaches
109. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O we required that all CBSDs must
accurately report the location coordinates (referenced to the North
American Datum of 1983, NAD83) of each of their antennas to within
50 meters (horizontal) and 3 meters (vertical)
(47 CFR 96.39(a)). We found that, for the SAS to accurately predict and
evaluate interference and channel availability, it must receive and
store accurate location information for all CBSDs.
110. Motorola Solutions, Nokia Solutions, and WinnForum filed
petitions for reconsideration requesting that Commission relax the
existing accuracy requirements and suggest, alternatively, that the
Commission allow the SAS to play a role in estimating CBSD location.
Google and Federated Wireless also support alternative approaches to
ascertaining the location of CBSDs. Specifically, Federated Wireless
explains that there are a variety of methods the SAS could use to
verify location, such as coordinating with downstream infrastructure or
reference to its power levels and other measurements. Google suggests
that even if devices cannot meet the specific requirements established
by the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission should permit an SAS to calculate
spectrum availability based on the geolocation reported by the device,
making appropriate adjustments for differences in specificity. Google
argues this would incentivize manufacturers to improve location
accuracy.
111. WinnForum proposes that the SAS should estimate CBSD elevation
and ground level using detailed terrain databases based on the device's
reported operating location. Further, WinnForum states that while the
ability to meet the horizontal accuracy requirement is readily
achievable, the elevation accuracy requirement significantly exceeds
the capability of standard GPS equipment, which will be utilized by
both CBSDs and professional installers. WinnForum suggests that, in
lieu of the vertical location accuracy requirements, for Category A
CBSD's, professional installation reports should include the highest
floor from which the device will operate and, for Category B CBSDs, the
reports should include the antenna height above ground level.
112. Nokia Solutions also recommends that the Commission establish
separate vertical location accuracy requirements for outdoor and indoor
installations. Nokia Solutions states that, since the primary method
used by many equipment vendors for outdoor location is GPS-based, the
vertical location accuracy requirement should be aligned to the US
Government Position Accuracy standard for worst site conditions as
stated in the Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service
Performance Standard. Nokia Solutions argues that, since GPS does not
work well or at all indoors, the Commission should eliminate the
elevation reporting requirement for indoor installations, allowing the
SAS to estimate the CBSD elevation, and require only the GPS location
of the building for the horizontal location.
113. SIA and NAB both stress the importance of reliable location
accuracy necessary to protect incumbent operations. SIA recognizes that
complying with the current requirements may be challenging,
particularly with respect to indoor devices where GPS data may not be
readily available and both SIA and NAB would support looser
requirements so long as ``worst case'' assumptions are built into the
calculations to account for the reduced accuracy. However, in regard to
vertical location, simply relaxing the accuracy requirements and
allowing the SAS to ``estimate'' or ``compute'' a device's elevation is
not an acceptable solution, given the importance of a device's vertical
position in calculating the potential for harmful interference.
Therefore, NAB and SIA argue, the Commission must implement a larger
separation distance to account for this uncertainty, if a device cannot
meet the requirements or the SAS cannot independently verify a device's
elevation.
114. WISPA opposes the petitions that propose to relax or eliminate
the existing vertical location accuracy requirements and argues that
there is no current mechanism for CBSDs or an SAS to determine the
antenna height above ground within the required accuracy. WISPA states
the elevation of the CBSD becomes irrelevant for CBSDs installed using
external antenna systems and that only the elevation of the actual
antenna is relevant for interference mitigation purposes. According to
WISPA, the only way for the SAS to ascertain the CBSD antenna system
elevation is by using location information provided by a professional
installer.
115. Discussion. We maintain the location accuracy requirements
established in the 3.5 GHz R&O and decline the Nokia Solutions and
WinnForum Petitions insofar as they request that we modify these rules.
We recognize that there are technological challenges to achieving
indoor location accuracy. However, as we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O,
CBSD location is essential for coordinating interactions between and
among users in the band and for protecting Incumbent Access users from
harmful interference. Without accurate location data, SASs cannot
fulfill their core functions in effectively instructing CBSDs to
discontinue their operations or change frequencies to protect Incumbent
Users.
116. Further, we believe that the location accuracy requirements in
the rules are achievable. First, CBSDs are fixed devices, simplifying
the reporting of accurate geo-location information, either
automatically or with the input of a professional installer. Second,
automated reporting of geo-location to our location accuracy
requirements may already be achievable in some conditions (e.g.,
outdoors with clear line of sight to GPS). In addition, at least one
party has stated on the record that it has developed technology that
can meet the indoor location accuracy rules set forth in the existing
rules. Finally, as discussed in section III(F)(2),
[[Page 49037]]
professional installation will play an important role in ensuring the
SAS can accurately locate devices while automatic location technologies
that meet our requirements are tested and developed.
117. Some commenters also suggest that location accuracy
requirements could be met alternatively via SAS calculations. We
anticipate that SASs will play a key role in verifying the geographic
locations of CBSDs and, as technology continues to develop, we
encourage SAS Administrators to offer functions to supplement and
reinforce CBSD geo-location functions. However, the CBSD is the best
source of its own location information, and such features will not
discharge the CBSD from complying with our rules.
118. Finally, regarding Nokia Solutions' suggestion that we allow
operators to meet vertical location accuracy requirements at a certain
confidence level, we decline to make changes to the existing rules. For
the aforementioned reasons, the current rules ensure that the SAS can
properly locate CBSDs in order to perform its core functions, and we
believe them to be achievable over time.
2. Automated Geo-Location and Professional Installation for CBSDs
119. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we concluded that Category A
CBSDs may utilize either a technical geo-location capability or be
professionally installed while Category B CBSDs must be professionally
installed (47 CFR 96.39(a), 96.45(a)). We noted that, since CBSDs will
be fixed installations, the professional installation option should
allow for network deployment in the near term while automatic geo-
location technologies for this band are tested and developed that meet
our accuracy requirements. We also strongly encouraged the SAS and user
community, through multi-stakeholder fora or industry associations, to
develop programs for accrediting professional installers who receive
training in the relevant part 96 rules and associated technical best
practices.
120. NAB and SIA argue that the Commission should eliminate the
option for professional installers to report the locations of CBSDs
and, instead, require all CBSDs to include a geo-location capability.
NAB contends that the Commission's rule is analogous to a similar
professional installation requirement adopted in the White Spaces
proceeding. NAB argues that, in that proceeding, it identified several
errors in device registrations made by professional installers and that
such errors prove that the professional installation option is not
acceptable in either the White Spaces or the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service. NAB contends that professional installation is not necessary
for indoor deployments, citing both technological advances and a
compromise approach that it submitted in the White Spaces proceeding.
NAB also claims that the professional installation is inherently flawed
and cannot be rehabilitated by a certification process. SIA agrees with
NAB and contends that, regardless of the safeguards adopted, it will be
impossible to remove the risk of human error from installations. In
addition, on February 26, 2016, the Commission adopted a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Order (81 FR 15210, March 22, 2016) that
proposed to require automated geo-location capabilities in White Spaces
devices, consistent with an agreement between NAB and several White
Spaces device manufacturers.
121. Federated Wireless, Google, T-Mobile, and WISPA disagree with
NAB and SIA and argue that the Commission should permit professional
installation of CBSDs in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Google
contends that: (1) Discussions of individual records in the White
Spaces proceeding are not relevant to this proceeding and that, in any
case, the White Spaces entries may have been good faith test cases; (2)
the record demonstrates that professional installers can protect
Incumbent Access users; and (3) the industry is working collaboratively
to develop an effective framework for certifying professional
installers in the band. Federated Wireless agrees and argues that,
given the requirements of the band, SAS Administrators and Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users will be incentivized to ensure that all
geo-location information provided to the SAS is accurate. Federated
Wireless also notes that professional installation has been used
successfully in a number of other licensed services--including two-way
satellite broadband.
122. Discussion. We deny NAB and SIA's petitions for
reconsideration of the professional installation rule. We also decline
to mandate automated geo-location capabilities for CBSDs. As described
in the 3.5 GHz R&O, accurate CBSD location information is essential for
coordinating interactions between and among users in the band and for
protecting federal and non-federal Incumbent Users from harmful
interference. However, we also noted that, while we expect location
accuracy technology to continue to develop, in many circumstances,
automated reporting of geo-location information that complies with our
accuracy requirements will be challenging in this band given currently
available technology. Professional installation is intended to fill
that gap and facilitate deployment of CBSDs with accurately reported
geo-location information while the next generation of automatic geo-
location technology is developed.
123. Based on the record, we are not convinced that the
capabilities of today's equipment and technology are sufficiently
developed to ensure that CBSDs will be able to perform automated geo-
location functions in order to reliably meet the location accuracy
requirements for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. As a result,
limiting CBSDs to automated geo-location as the only way to meet these
requirements would deter near-term deployment on any reasonable scale
in the 3.5 GHz Band. As discussed in detail above, several petitioners
highlighted the difficulties associated with attaining an accurate
vertical reading within +/- 3 meters. Federated Wireless also argues
that, while current technology may be sufficient to provide the SAS
with a CBSD's location at the requisite degree of accuracy in some
outdoor situations, such readings may not be currently possible for a
variety of indoor deployments in this band. Since we expect much of the
deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band to be indoors, the inability of a CBSD
to provide its location indoors would be fatal to many potential use
cases for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. While we are encouraged
by iPosi's claim that its technology can provide indoor accuracy
readings that meet or exceed or requirements, it has not yet been used
commercially in the 3.5 GHz Band, so it is yet to be determined if this
technology is appropriate--or economically viable--for all use cases at
this time. Thus, while the accuracy of geo-location technology is
improving, integrated geo-location technology may not be a viable
option for all potential network deployments in the 3.5 GHz Band at
this time.
124. We also find unconvincing NAB and SIA's reliance on NAB's
claims regarding inaccurately entered location information in the White
Spaces databases. NAB and SIA assert that, since professional
installers allegedly entered inaccurate locations of devices in White
Spaces databases, the entire notion of a professional installation
regime is inherently flawed. Indeed, NAB claims that professional
installation has proven to be inherently unreliable and that it cannot
be rehabilitated through any kind of certification regime. NAB and SIA
reach
[[Page 49038]]
these conclusions despite the fact that no SASs have been approved or
CBSDs deployed in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service and, as such,
there is no evidence of actual harm or impropriety in the band to
support their claims. Moreover, these parties have provided no
convincing evidence that a professional installation option in this
band presents any significant potential for such harm. The alleged
failures of a dissimilar, uncertified professional installation regime
in another service do not warrant eliminating the professional
installation option for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
125. The Commission noted that the recent changes proposed in the
White Spaces NPRM, which included a proposal to eliminate the
professional installer option for fixed White Space devices, were
``based upon the circumstances specific to fixed white space devices
and white spaces databases.'' In the White Spaces service, the
Commission determined not to ``define the qualifications of a
professional installer in the rules.'' Here, in contrast, as explained
in the 3.5 GHz R&O and detailed below, the Commission will require
professional installers to be trained and certified using an
established industry-led process.
126. NAB and SIA unfairly dismiss the importance of a robust
industry certification process for professional installers. By relying
on such a certification process here, as the Commission has in a
variety of other contexts, the rules provide an important protection
against the prospect that ``any purchaser of a device'' could serve as
a professional installer. We reiterate that industry-led professional
accreditation processes have been used by the Commission and have, in
fact, proven successful in other similar situations. In the 3.5 GHz
R&O, we recognized the importance of accurate geo-location information
and we strongly encouraged prospective SAS Administrators and Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users to develop programs for accrediting
professional installers and associated technical best practices.
WinnForum announced that, consistent with the Commission's wishes, its
members are developing a set of professional installation standards to
be implemented by SAS Administrators. Any certification regime
developed by WinnForum--or any other entity or organization--must
ensure that registered CBSDs comply with the Commission's geo-location
rules. WTB and OET will review the SAS's ability to implement and
verify the information submitted by professional installers as part of
the SAS approval process.
127. Most importantly, the White Spaces service itself is not
directly analogous to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. While both
White Spaces devices and CBSDs rely on the White Space databases and
SASs, respectively, to protect incumbent services, White Space devices
are unlicensed and have no expectation of interference protection. On
the other hand, the Citizens Broadband Radio Service is a licensed
service in which SASs must be able to effectively coordinate CBSD
interactions (both PAL and GAA) to prevent interference between and
among the three tiers of users and ensure a stable spectral environment
for commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz Band. In other words, in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service the accuracy of the information is
important both to protect incumbent services and to protect and enable
every other user. This licensed nature of the service coupled with
industry certification requirements for professional installers
provides a higher degree of accountability for Citizens Broadband Radio
Service users and SAS Administrators, ensuring that CBSD locations are
accurately reported and verified. In addition, all Citizens Broadband
Radio Service users have the rights and obligations incumbent on all
Commission licensees, which include serious consequences for violation
of Commission rules, including potential revocation and license
qualification issues. The Commission has extensive mechanisms available
to it to ensure that licensees comply with its rules.
128. In addition, as the Commission has stated on several
occasions, approved SASs will have capabilities and responsibilities
that exceed those of White Spaces database administrators. Drawing on
the lessons learned from the White Spaces proceeding, the Commission
will expect SAS Administrators to take appropriate steps to
authenticate and verify information that is submitted by professional
installers and to immediately correct any inaccurate information in
their databases (47 CFR 96.53(d), 96.57(a), 96.63(f)). Our rules
require authentication of CBSDs with an SAS and require that SAS
Administrators maintain the accuracy of stored data, including CBSD
records. The latter requirement places a duty on SAS Administrators to
take reasonable steps to validate newly entered data and to purge
obsolete data (47 CFR 95.55). Federated Wireless also notes that there
are a variety of ``quality control methods'' that an SAS Administrator
may employ--including IP validation, Wi-Fi assistance, and downstream
infrastructure coordination--to help verify a CBSD's location. We
expect SAS Administrators to develop and implement technological
safeguards appropriate to ensure the integrity and accuracy of location
data submitted by CBSDs, and we will carefully review proposals from
prospective SAS Administrators to determine whether they have
demonstrated the capability to do so.
129. While we believe that professional installation is necessary
and appropriate for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service at this time,
future technological developments may obviate the need to rely on
professional installation to ensure the accuracy of CBSDs' location
information in some circumstances. Accordingly, we direct WTB and OET
to seek input on developments in geo-location technology for CBSDs and
the status of the professional installation regime in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service no later than April 28, 2020.
3. End User Device Requirements
130. Background. In its petition, SIA seeks reconsideration of the
Commission decision not to mandate that End User Devices include geo-
location capabilities. SIA argues that such a mandate is necessary so
that an SAS is aware of the location of End User Devices and without
such a requirement, the SAS calculations to protect FSS earth stations
must be based on worst-case assumptions about location. SIA states
these assumptions would include the maximum operational distance
between the End User Device and CBSD and the maximum number of End User
Devices that could be served by the CBSD. In the alternative, the
Commission could define a maximum deployment radius. However, SIA
argues, ``the use of such worst-case assumptions would result in fewer
End User Devices being authorized--and therefore less efficient
utilization of the spectrum--than if the SAS had actual location data
for each device.''
131. Google and WISPA expressly oppose mandating End User Devices
to include geo-location technology. Google argues that a geo-location
requirement would unnecessarily limit the types of devices available to
consumers, as Wi-Fi dongles and other miniature broadband devices are
so small that adding geo-location technology would fundamentally alter
the form of the device. Both WISPA and Google claim that such a
requirement is not needed to protect users from interference, as the
[[Page 49039]]
SAS can take into account the ``cloud'' of End User Devices associated
with a particular CBSD when calculating interference protection and the
Commission requires End User Devices to positively receive and decode
authorization signals from CBSDs.
132. Rajant states that while it is not opposed to requiring geo-
location in End User Devices, it would add additional costs to
operation in the band. Further, Rajant states that it plans to deploy
in places such as enclosed stadiums and underground mass transit
tunnels where it would be difficult to obtain GPS location data and
while GPS simulators are available, they would be burdensome and hinder
flexibility. Therefore, Rajant argues that the Commission should not
require geo-location for consumer devices and limit such a requirement
to devices intended for industrial, public safety, or commercial use in
confined, managed sites.
133. Discussion. We deny SIA's request to mandate geo-location
technology in all End User Devices and find that such a requirement is
not necessary to ensure compliance with our location accuracy rules or
to effectively mitigate interference into incumbent systems. We
recognize that FSS earth station licensees are concerned about
interference from End User Devices and, indeed we sought comment on how
to address these issues in the Second FNPRM. However, we agree with
Google and WISPA that it is not necessary to mandate that End User
Devices include automatic geo-location capabilities to effectively
protect Incumbent Users from interference. In addition, such a
requirement would unnecessarily limit the types of consumer devices
that may be deployed and utilized in the 3.5 GHz Band.
134. Indeed, the rationale we articulated in section III(F)(2) for
not requiring automatic geo-location reporting by CBSDs is even more
compelling in the case of End User Devices. End User Devices operate at
a much lower power than even Category A CBSDs, lowering their potential
interference effects and reducing their range of operation. End User
Devices are also inherently limited in their area of operation by the
coverage of a given CBSD or network of CBSDs. Moreover, since End User
Devices will likely include mobile devices--as opposed to fixed CBSDs--
reporting their location to the level of accuracy required by our rules
would likely exceed the limits of current technology in many locations.
135. Further, the SAS is responsible for managing CBSDs, not End
User Devices. Requiring End User Devices to report their locations to
the SAS and requiring the SAS to track and manage these devices would
greatly exceed the limits of the SAS's responsibilities. As such, it is
not appropriate to include End User Devices in our location accuracy
rules. However, as noted by WISPA, the rules do require End User
Devices to ``positively receive and decode an authorization signal
transmitted by a CBSD, including the frequencies and power limits for
their operation,'' (47 CFR 96.47(a)) and any device to be certified by
the Commission must meet these requirements. Both Google and WISPA also
state that WinnForum is reviewing how to treat End User Devices in
interference calculations, which will further supplement the SAS's
ability to account for End User Device locations. WTB and OET will
review any such approaches submitted during the SAS approval process.
G. PAL Protection Criteria
136. Background. To ensure that Priority Access operations are
protected from harmful interference, we adopted an aggregate received
signal level at PAL license boundaries to be at or below an average
power level of -80 dBm when integrated over a 10 MHz reference
bandwidth with the measurement antenna placed at a height of 1.5 meters
above ground level (47 CFR 96.41(f)). We also permitted Priority Access
Licensees to agree to an alternative limit other than -80 dBm/10 MHz at
their Service Area boundaries and communicate it to an SAS. In
addition, we noted that these signal level requirements would not apply
to adjacent census tracts held by the same Priority Access Licensee.
137. WinnForum asks that the Commission modify its PAL protection
criteria to more effectively reflect real world interference concerns
and protect Priority Access Licensees. WinnForum contends that the PAL
protection rule creates several problems that the Commission did not
consider in developing the 3.5 GHz R&O. According to WinnForum, these
problems include: (1) The requirement would place a significant burden
on the SAS by requiring it to calculate point-to-line interference
along a lengthy border; (2) border protections may not effectively
protect interior portions of a Priority Access Licensee's Service Area;
(3) high elevation census tracts will have a disproportionate effect on
CBSD deployments; and (4) the requirement will unnecessarily block co-
channel devices. WinnForum suggests that the SAS implement an alternate
protection scheme whereby the SAS would protect an operator-defined
contour around Priority Access CBSDs to a protection level of -80 dBm/
10 MHz anywhere within the contour. WinnForum claims that this revised
approach addresses all of the concerns raised in its Petition.
Federated Wireless, Google, and Motorola Solutions support WinnForum's
Petition. WISPA also agrees that the -80 dBm criterion is inadequate
for the reasons described by WinnForum.
138. Discussion. We agree with WinnForum's Petition in part and,
accordingly, we revise the rule. Under the revised rule, allowable
interference will be calculated for the area within the PAL Protection
Area (47 CFR 96.3) described in detail in section IV(A) below rather
than along the borders of a Priority Access Licensee's Service Area (47
CFR 96.3). To protect CBSDs authorized to provide service on a Priority
Access basis, the SAS must not authorize other CBSDs--whether Priority
Access or GAA--on the same channel in geographic areas and at maximum
power levels that will cause aggregate interference in excess of -80
dBm/10 MHz channel within a PAL Protection Area. Consistent with our
approach elsewhere in this Order, the aggregate co-channel interference
level will be defined by a common models utilizing common inputs and
assumptions. These models, inputs, and assumptions--including the
propagation model and any clutter or terrain assumptions--will be
determined during the SAS approval process. This approach is also
consistent with the methods that will be used to model and measure the
aggregate interference to protect incumbent FSS earth stations and
incumbent federal radar systems.
139. Several commenters, including Federated Wireless, Google,
Motorola Solutions, and WinnForum support a protection methodology
based on modeled aggregate interference protections within the area
served by a Priority Access Licensee rather than along the border of a
given Service Area or census tract. Notably, Google and WinnForum
contend that a protection methodology that utilizes point-to-area
interference models to calculate aggregate interference into a Priority
Access Licensee's service area will be relatively simple and
inexpensive for SASs to implement. Motorola Solutions, WinnForum, and
Google also highlight several negative unintended consequences of the
Commission's rule requiring CBSDs to meet an aggregate interference
threshold along the border of a Service Area.
[[Page 49040]]
140. We find the evidence presented by Petitioners compelling and
modify section 96.41(d) (47 CFR 96.41(d)) to address the concerns
raised in their filings. We note that there were no objections to the
protection level of -80 dBm/10 MHz and, indeed, several petitioners
supported this interference protection level. Therefore, under the
revised rule, the SAS must assign CBSDs such that the modeled aggregate
power of co-channel CBSDs is no greater than -80 dBm/10 MHz within the
PAL Protection Area. Consistent with our approach to geographic guard
bands, described in section IV(A), we conclude that the SAS may not
consider adjacent channel interference when calculating these
protections and assigning CBSDs. We believe that the stringent out-of-
channel emission limits set forth in section 96.41 (47 CFR 96.41) are
sufficient to make adjacent channel interference unlikely, particularly
for synchronized systems and Category A CBSDs.
H. FSS Protection
141. In its petition, SIA asked the Commission to reconsider or
clarify several of its rules regarding the protection of in-band and
out-of-band FSS earth stations. These issues included: (1) The status
of new FSS earth stations in the band; (2) interference notification
procedures; (3) protections for international FSS earth stations; (4)
FSS registration requirements; and (5) clarification of protections
afforded to in-band and out-of-band earth stations. Specific protection
methods for in-band and out-of-band FSS earth stations were raised by
the Commission in the Second FNPRM and, as such, are addressed in
section IV(C) below. SIA's other requests are addressed in this
section.
1. Status of New In-band FSS Earth Stations
142. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission adopted a
change to the Table of Allocations limiting co-primary FSS earth
stations in the 3600-3650 MHz band to those authorized prior to, or
granted as a result of an application filed prior to the effective date
of the 3.5 GHz R&O, and constructed within 12 months of the initial
authorization (47 CFR 2.106, note US107). This rule is consistent with
proposals made in the NPRM and FNPRM as well as the licensing freeze
imposed concurrently with the NPRM and sunsetted in the 3.5 GHz R&O.
143. SIA contends that new in-band FSS earth stations should be
authorized on a co-primary basis like grandfathered earth stations.
They assert that existing limits on FSS operations in the 3600-3650 MHz
band and the relatively limited number of recent applications
demonstrate that allowing new stations to operate on a co-primary basis
will not have a negative effect on the spectrum ecosystem. SIA also
argues that restoring the co-primary authorization will further the
public interest by allowing FSS licensees to meet the evolving needs of
new customers. SIA requests that, at a minimum, the Commission make it
clear that existing licensees can replace their equipment while
maintaining their current co-primary authorization.
144. Discussion. We reject SIA's petition for reconsideration of
the status of new 3600-3650 MHz earth stations. SIA's arguments echo
the arguments made by the organization in response to the NPRM,
Licensing PN, and FNPRM. The Commission took these arguments into
consideration when it adopted the changes to the Table of Allocations
and found that the changes were necessary to ensure the ongoing
stability of the band and facilitate widespread access to the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. SIA has not presented any new evidence that
would compel us to change our conclusions.
145. However, we agree with SIA's assertion that existing FSS earth
station licensees should be permitted to replace antennas and other
equipment associated with their licensed earth stations. Such changes
may be necessary to ensure continuity of service for existing
licensees. Therefore, we find that it is in the public interest to
amend our rules to explicitly permit equipment replacement that is
otherwise compliant with the Commission's rules (47 CFR 2.106, note
US107). Licensees must update their registrations submitted pursuant to
section 96.17 if such replacements change any of the parameters
included in the registration to continue receiving accurate
interference protection under section 96.17 (47 CFR 96.17(d)).
2. Notification of Interference
146. Background. SIA contends that, while the SAS may be able to
resolve interference disputes under the rules, the Commission does not
establish specific procedures to address interference complaints from
FSS licensees. SIA argues that the Commission ``must determine to whom
interference complaints should be addressed, and should put in place
procedures that require immediate suspension of CBSD operations pending
investigation. In addition, the Commission should set strict time
deadlines for ultimate resolution of an interference complaint.''
147. Discussion. We agree with SIA that SASs should be capable of
receiving and responding to interference complaints from FSS earth
station licensees and we amend our rules to require SASs to accommodate
such complaints. One of the core functions of the SAS is to ensure that
all registered users operate according to the Commission's rules,
including the rules protecting non-federal Incumbent Users (47 CFR
96.17, 96.21, 96.53(h)). This includes enforcing the protection
criteria set forth in sections 96.17 and 96.21 (47 CFR 96.17, 96.21)
and, under the modified rule, processing and responding to reports of
harmful interference or special coordination requests from non-federal
FSS licensees (47 CFR 96.17(f)). As with all coordination and
interference mitigation efforts in the 3.5 GHz Band, we encourage the
parties to work collaboratively to resolve any interference issues that
may arise. Although we expect the parties and the SAS to resolve most
interference issues among themselves, the Commission retains ultimate
authority over the licensees in the band (and the SAS Administrators),
as well as the responsibility for enforcing the rules to resolve
interference issues in the band.
148. However, we do not believe that it is in the public interest
to establish fixed timeframes for investigation and resolution of such
issues or to require immediate suspension of CBSDs pending
investigation. Rather, each SAS will have to demonstrate the ability to
promptly respond to reports of interference during the SAS approval
process. We also recognize that different interference cases may be
more complex than others and SAS response times may differ depending on
the unique circumstances of any given case. In addition, requiring
immediate shutdown of CBSDs after any complaint from an FSS licensee
would establish an unfair presumption that the complaint is true prior
to any investigation. We encourage SAS Administrators and incumbent FSS
earth station licensees to work together to establish effective
protocols for receiving and responding to complaints of interference.
3. Protection for International FSS Earth Stations
149. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we adopted a rule that
explains that operations in the 3.5 GHz Band are subject to current and
future agreements with the governments of Canada and Mexico and
requires SAS Administrators to implement the terms
[[Page 49041]]
of any such agreements. As we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, this is
approach is consistent with our usual practice for new services.
150. SIA argues that the Commission should impose more strict
restrictions on deployments near the Canadian and Mexican borders
absent agreements between the countries. Specifically, SIA suggests
that the Commission impose similar restrictions to those included in
section 90.1337 for 3650-3700 MHz licensees authorized under part 90 of
the Commission's rules (47 CFR 90.1337).
151. Discussion. We reject SIA's petition for reconsideration of
the Commission's rules governing Citizens Broadband Radio Service
operations near international borders. SIA raised similar objections
when the Commission proposed this approach in the FNPRM and the
Commission considered those arguments in reaching its decision. As
noted above, this approach is consistent with our usual practice for
new services. SAS Administrators will be required to comply with
existing agreements and also to demonstrate that their systems can and
will enforce agreements between the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican
governments regarding commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz Band once
such agreements are completed. We continue to believe that this
approach will ensure that CBSD deployments near international borders
comply with all applicable international agreements as those agreements
are finalized with respect to this band.
4. FSS Registration
152. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission adopted
measures designed to protect incumbent in-band and adjacent C-Band FSS
earth stations from interference. We sought further comment on
additional protection measures for both in-band and out-of-band sites,
addressed in detail below. In order to adequately implement these
measures, the Commission required FSS earth station licensees in the
3600-3650 MHz band and the neighboring C-Band seeking protection under
the rules to submit an annual registration that includes certain
technical information that will be made available to SAS Administrators
(47 CFR 96.17(d) and (e)).
153. SIA requests that the Commission eliminate the requirement
that FSS earth station operators must register their stations annually,
and if the Commission retains the registration rules, that we revise
and clarify these rules. SIA suggests that the SAS obtain the
registration information from the publicly available International
Bureau Filing System (IBFS) and argues that an annual registration is
an unwarranted administrative burden. However, if the Commission does
not eliminate the registration requirement, SIA argues for the
following changes to the rules: (1) Clarify that earth station
operators can register a range of antenna azimuth and elevation angles;
(2) explicitly state that new licensees will be protected; and (3)
clarify the deadline for registration (47 CFR 96.17(d)). SIA also
requests that the Commission revise its rule to clarify that the
interference protection rights extend to unlicensed receive-only C-Band
earth stations and replace the annual registration requirement with a
one-time registration requirement.
154. WISPA opposes SIA's request to eliminate or change the
registration requirements, arguing that reporting information on a
regular basis and after critical technical changes is necessary to
ensure that the SAS can protect FSS earth stations from harmful
interference. However, WISPA agrees with SIA that the Commission should
harmonize registration requirements for C-Band earth stations so that
the SAS can gather all of the information from one source and that the
Commission should clarify that the protected area around an earth
station to refers to the existing 150 km circular zone as specified in
section 90.1331(a) (47 CFR 90.1331(a)).
155. Google states that the registration requirements are
reasonable and asks that the Commission reject SIA's request to
eliminate this requirement. Google notes that the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service rules are designed to protect actual users and that the
annual registration requirement achieves this objective. Google
contends that SIA concedes that the basic technical information
required by the registration is necessary to calculate interference
protection, and argues that the earth station operators themselves are
in the best position to provide such information. Google also requests
that the Commission clarify that the registration requirement applies
to grandfathered earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band.
156. Discussion. We deny SIA's request to eliminate the annual FSS
earth station registration requirement. However, we do make minor
modifications to the existing rules governing earth station
registrations. Specifically, we adopt changes to effectively implement
the FSS earth station protection rules described in section IV(C) and
further clarify that the registration rules apply to FSS earth stations
in the 3650-3700 band after the transition period for Grandfathered
Wireless Broadband Licensees. Management of sharing in a dynamic
environment between three tiers of users requires as much accurate
information as possible about the operation in each tier. In addition,
as detailed in section IV(C), to provide additional protection for
licensed C-Band FSS earth stations with TT&C responsibilities, we will
allow these licensees to register for additional protection around
these sites (47 CFR 96.17). Operators of these sites must provide the
same registration information as in-band FSS earth station licensees
seeking protection (47 CFR 96.17(d)) and, additionally, must affirm
that each site is being used for TT&C.
157. We decline SIA's requested changes and reaffirm our findings
in the 3.5 GHz R&O. As stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, we adopted
registration rules in order to ensure that the Commission and SAS
Administrators have the accurate, up to date information necessary to
protect incumbent licensed FSS earth stations (47 CFR 96.17(d)). In
order for the SAS to adequately protect FSS incumbents, it must be able
to access detailed information on the technical and operational
characteristics of each FSS earth station seeking protection. If these
characteristics change, the operator must update the relevant
registration.
158. Several parties indicated that the rules were unclear
regarding how they apply to existing FSS earth stations in the 3650-
3700 MHz band. Section 96.21 (47 CFR 96.21) of the Commission's rules
states that the existing protection criteria or in-band FSS earth
stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band in part 90 of the Commission's rules
(i.e., 150 km coordination zones around each earth station) (47 CFR
90.1331(a)) would remain in place ``until the last Grandfathered
Wireless Broadband Licensee's license expires within the protection
area defined for a particular grandfathered FSS earth station'' (47 CFR
96.21(c)). Thereafter, such earth stations would be protected under
section 96.17 (47 CFR 96.17) using the same criteria applicable to
``similarly situated earth stations in the 3600-3650 MHz band'' (47 CFR
96.21(c)). We hereby modify the rules to clearly state that, after the
expiration of the part 90 protection criteria, as set forth in section
96.21 (47 CFR 96.21), grandfathered FSS earth station licensees
operating in the 3650-3700 MHz band will be permitted to register for
protection under the same terms applicable to FSS earth station
licensees in the 3600-3650 MHz band (section 96.17(a)(1)).
159. We agree with Google and WISPA that the SAS must have access
[[Page 49042]]
to accurate and up-to-date technical information in order to adequately
protect licensed FSS earth stations. Operators must update the
registration if this information changes so that the SAS is able to
consistently verify this information to provide ongoing protection to
individual sites. As we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, and noted by Google,
the annual registration requirement allows us to balance the protection
of incumbent FSS earth stations and greater Citizens Broadband Radio
Service spectrum utilization instead of relying on a one-size-fits-all
approach using worst-case interference assumptions. This aligns with
the over-arching goal of protecting actual use in the 3.5 GHz Band to
maximize capacity and coexistence of all users for the most efficient
use of the band.
160. We disagree with SIA's assertion that the registration
requirement is overly burdensome and imposes unnecessary obligations on
satellite providers. First, we agree with Google that operators are in
the best position to supply accurate information to the Commission.
Second, as SIA itself notes, earth station operators already provide
much of this information to IBFS. As such, providing that information
along with additional necessary information on the operational
characteristics of FSS earth stations not included in IBFS, should not
present a significant burden to FSS licensees but is critical for SAS
Administrators to effectively perform their duties. We also note that
registration requirements are not unique to earth station operators.
Registration of operational features is a key means of managing
interference in a shared use regime. Indeed, all Citizens Broadband
Radio Service user must register the operational characteristics of
their CBSDs prior to commencing operation and upon making changes to
any operational parameters of their base stations (47 CFR 96.23(b),
96.33(b), 96.39(c)).
161. We also confirm that FSS earth station registration--and the
protections it confers--do not extend to unlicensed in-band or out-of-
band FSS earth stations. SIA presents no argument that would compel the
Commission to take the extraordinary step of protecting unlicensed
sites from interference from licensed services.
162. Finally, in regard to SIA's request that we clarify the
registration deadline, we note that the Commission directed WTB to
release a public notice describing the registration process. In a June
2015 public notice, WTB announced that it would release this public
notice in ``early 2016.'' We direct WTB to include the annual filing
deadline in this public notice.
IV. Second Report and Order
163. With this Second R&O, we address the three issue areas raised
in the Second FNPRM. The Second FNPRM sought comment on how to: (1)
Define ``use'' by Priority Access Licensees; (2) effectively facilitate
secondary market transactions in the band; and (3) effectively protect
in-band FSS earth stations and C-Band FSS earth stations.
A. Defining ``Use'' of PAL Frequencies
1. Background
164. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we determined that allowing opportunistic
access to channels not being used by Priority Access Licensees would
serve the public interest by maximizing the flexibility and utility of
the 3.5 GHz Band for the widest range of potential users. When PALs
have not been issued (e.g., due to lack of demand) or the spectrum is
not actually in use by a Priority Access Licensee, the SAS will
automatically make that spectrum available for GAA use on a local and
granular basis (47 CFR 96.25(c)). On multiple occasions prior to the
3.5 GHz R&O, we sought comment on this ``use-it-or-share-it'' concept.
While there was broad support in the record for some form of
opportunistic GAA use, the record diverged greatly as to the proper
methodology for defining and implementing a ``use-it-or-share-it''
framework. Therefore, in the Second FNPRM, we sought focused comment on
particular options for defining ``use'' by Priority Access Licensees.
Specifically, we sought comment on whether we should adopt an
engineering definition, an economic definition, or a hybrid definition
and how any such approach should be implemented.
165. Several commenters advocated approaches that would rely on an
engineering-based definition of ``use'' to allow GAA access when
frequencies are not being used by Priority Access Licensees while
protecting the areas actually utilized by such licensees. We asked
proponents of an engineering definition of ``use'' to submit a detailed
description of their methodology along with technical criteria and
metrics that could be readily implemented by multiple SASs. We also
asked them to address potential issues with the engineering approach,
including: (1) Whether utilizing a vacant PAL channel as a guard band
should constitute ``use;'' (2) how to prevent gaming the ``use-or-
share'' rules; and (3) whether an equitable approach to calculating
aggregate interference can be implemented across multiple SASs.
166. An alternative approach is to define ``use'' from an economic
perspective for the purposes of determining GAA access to unused
spectrum. William Lehr, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, argued that the Commission should ``view the PAL as an
option to exclude GAA usage. PAL licensees would acquire the right to
exclude GAA access.'' Under this approach, actual operation as a
Priority Access Licensee would not be the trigger for excluding GAA
use. Rather, the price paid by a Priority Access Licensee at auction
would be divided into two parts. The first payment would be made after
the licensee acquires its PAL at auction. After that, the licensee
would have the right, but not the obligation, to exercise its option to
exclude GAA access from the PAL by making a second payment. We sought
comment on this approach and asked commenters to address potential
issues with the economic approach, including: (1) Whether the framework
would encourage hoarding of PALs; (2) how payments should be
apportioned between the initial payment and the option ``strike''
price; and (3) how the economic approach would fit in with the
Commission's auction authority and its prior experience conducting
auctions. We also sought comment on whether a hybrid approach
incorporating elements of the engineering and economic models would be
preferable.
167. Most commenters argue that the Commission should not adopt an
economic definition of use and should, instead, implement some form of
engineering-based approach. Commenters, including the Dynamic Spectrum
Alliance, Federated Wireless, Google, the Information Technology
Industry Council, Microsoft, Sony and WISPA specifically argue against
the adoption of the economic approach. Google argues that, because an
economic definition places no obligation on the Priority Access
Licensee to actually deploy equipment or provide service in an area
where it exercises its option to exclude GAA users, it would encourage
licensees to bid on spectrum that they have no intention of using and
increase the risk of warehousing. Federated Wireless and Microsoft
argue that an economic definition of use will allow Priority Access
Licensees to hoard spectrum and exclude legitimate GAA users. Sony
contends that the economic approach would be inefficient and difficult
to implement and would increase
[[Page 49043]]
uncertainty for GAA users. On the other hand, Key Bridge expresses
enthusiasm for the economic approach and argues that the Commission
should pursue a hybrid model that incorporates some of the ideas put
forth by William Lehr.
168. AT&T, CTIA, and Qualcomm argue for a definition of ``use''
that is not, strictly speaking, an economic or engineering approach.
According to AT&T and Qualcomm, GAA use should only be allowed on
channels assigned to a Priority Access Licensee until that Priority
Access Licensee begins providing service or informs an SAS that it will
be using the channel(s) in its Service Area. AT&T contends that a
``bright line rule'', whereby GAA users are foreclosed from accessing
spectrum once a Priority Access Licensee begins to offer service in a
census tract is necessary to provide certainty to potential licensees
and encourage investment in the band. CTIA agrees, arguing that both
economic and engineering models would create uncertainty in the PAL
marketplace, burden investment, and delay efficient use of the 3.5 GHz
Band.
169. Verizon and WinnForum argue that the best way to ensure
quality of service and promote investment is for Priority Access
Licensees to directly input their coverage contours into an SAS.
According to Verizon, it is impossible for third parties to divine--and
to design interference protections that respect--each Priority Access
Licensee's specific uses and network configuration. Verizon also
asserts that Commission oversight could prevent operators from seeking
protection for overlarge areas and that legitimate operator-defined
``use'' should include guard bands and reserve channels. According to
Verizon, the Commission should accord Priority Access Licensees a
rebuttable presumption that their coverage area showings are
appropriate. WinnForum agrees with the proposal to allow operators to
self-define their protected coverage areas.
170. Google argues that the Commission should adopt an engineering-
based definition of use based on actual deployment conditions that
would be implemented and enforced by the SAS. Google contends that
Priority Access Licensees should be permitted to register their own
protected coverage areas within their Service Areas and that Priority
Access Licensees should be permitted to agree to alternative protection
limits and communicate such agreements to the SAS. According to Google,
PAL protection areas should be supported by engineering analysis of
actual operations and that documentation of such analysis should be
submitted by the Priority Access Licensee at the time that the
protection is requested.
171. Google elaborated on its arguments and provided examples of a
proposed methodology in a February 2016 ex parte letter. In that
letter, Google argues that, to confirm that the protection requested by
Priority Access Licenses is based on reasonable technical
considerations, the Commission should require all Priority Access
Licensee coverage area claims to be measured against maximum service
areas calculated by an SAS. Google also asserts that, to ensure that
reasonable assumptions are used, SASs should be required to demonstrate
that the methodology used in calculating claimed coverage areas is
consistent with the methodology used to calculate protection areas for
Incumbent Access users and other Priority Access Licensees in the band.
172. Federated Wireless contends that utilizing an engineering
definition is consistent with the goals set forth by the Commission and
is technologically feasible. Under Federated Wireless's proposal, SASs,
using data provided by Priority Access Licensees, would define a
protection boundary, or protected service contour, around active CBSDs
authorized to operate on a Priority Access basis. The SAS, in turn,
would prohibit GAA user access to channels used by Priority Access
Licensees where the corresponding interference threshold to the CBSDs
in the protected boundary is exceeded. While Federated Wireless agrees
with Google and Verizon that Priority Access Licensees are in the best
position to determine where their operations are, they do not state a
preference between the methodologies proposed by those two entities.
173. Others, including Interdigital OTI/PK, the Wi-Fi Alliance, and
WISPA argue for an engineering definition that incorporates both
geographic and temporal elements to ensure that GAA use is only
foreclosed when CBSDs are in active use. WISPA and OTI/PK argue that
the Commission should require SAS administrators to calculate service
contours using the reported technical parameters and geo-location of
registered CBSDs. WISPA contends that the Commission should consider a
PAL channel to be in use whenever it has received 300 or more end-user
data packets within a five-minute interval. Wi-Fi Alliance argues that
the definition of ``use'' should be based on actual transmission or
reception of radio signals and, specifically, that ``[u]nless there is
a current report that radiofrequency (RF) energy is being actively
transmitted or received on PAL channels, those channels should be
available for GAA use.'' OTI/PK agrees that the that the Commission
should incorporate a temporal element of use that would prevent
licenses from permanently foreclosing GAA access in a given geographic
area for temporary or transient Priority Access uses such as pre-
deployment network testing and notes that it believes that WISPA's
methodology is technologically feasible.
2. Discussion
174. We find that a consistent, SAS-based engineering approach to
determining when channels assigned to Priority Access Licensees are
``in use'' will maximize the flexibility and utility of the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service and promote widespread deployment of broadband
services in the 3.5 GHz Band. Specifically, we adopt a two pronged
approach to determining ``use'' by Priority Access Licensees. First,
Priority Access Licensees may report their PAL Protection Areas on the
basis of their actual network deployments. Second, to establish an
objective maximum PAL Protection Area, the SASs will use a consistent
model to define a default -96 dBm/10 MHz protection contour (47 CFR
96.25). We find that the two pronged approach provides licensees with
the flexibility to self-report their protection areas while also
providing an objective maximum. Further, we find that utilizing SASs to
determine default protection contours around registered CBSDs that are
authorized to operate on a Priority Access basis will provide an
effective baseline protection criteria for Priority Access Licensees
while allowing GAA users reasonable opportunities for additional access
to the band. Default protection contours must be based on common inputs
and engineering assumptions to ensure consistent results across SASs.
175. In addition, we encourage Priority Access Licensees, working
with SAS Administrators, to restrict their PAL Protection Areas to less
than the -96 dBm/10 MHz default protection contour to reflect the
actual needs and capabilities of their particular networks (within the
boundaries defined by the default protection contours) to increase
spectrum availability and further promote flexible use of the band and
to self-report these contours to an SAS. We expect that, through
ongoing technological innovation and industry collaboration, the
default protection contours will be further refined in the future. As
described in section III(G), SASs will also protect the PAL Protection
Areas from aggregate interference from Priority Access and
[[Page 49044]]
GAA CBSDs using common assumptions and modeling that we will review
during the SAS approval process. The PAL Protection Areas will be
enforced by the SAS for registered CBSDs authorized to operate pursuant
to a PAL.
a. Importance of Opportunistic Spectrum Access
176. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we found that permitting opportunistic
access to unused Priority Access channels would maximize the
flexibility and utility of the 3.5 GHz Band. We also found that, by
allowing GAA users to access bandwidth that is not actually in use by
Priority Access Licensees, we would ensure that the band will be in
consistent and productive use. We hereby reaffirm these findings and
confirm that promoting flexible access to the 3.5 GHz Band for a
diverse group of users is in the public interest.
177. Consistent with these findings, we conclude that the proposals
made by AT&T, CTIA, and Qualcomm regarding the definition of ``use''
are inconsistent with the Commission's goals for the band. AT&T, CTIA,
and Qualcomm argue that the Commission should define a geographic area
as ``in use'' whenever a Priority Access Licensee notifies an SAS of
its intent to operate in a given area. They argue that this approach is
needed to provide potential Priority Access Licensees with the
regulatory certainty needed to invest in PALs and provide service in
the band. As Federated Wireless and WISPA correctly note, these
approaches are not actually engineering definitions of use and are
directly contrary to the purpose of the Commission's rules. As we
stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O and reiterated in sections I and III(A)
above, the Citizens Broadband Radio Service rules are designed to
facilitate shared--rather than exclusive--access to the 3.5 GHz Band.
Adopting rules that would allow a Priority Access Licensee to foreclose
access to its entire Service Area (or even a single census tract) with
nothing but a notification of its intent to provide service--or
transmission of an initial signal--would over-protect Priority Access
Licensees, facilitate spectrum warehousing, and encourage inefficient
use of spectrum resources. We believe that the ``use it or share it''
approach of our rules for this unique band also thus more reasonably
accommodates the goals of section 309(j) of the Act, including ``to
prevent stockpiling or warehousing of spectrum'' (47 U.S.C.
309(j)(4)(B)).
178. Moreover, contrary to the assertions made by AT&T, Qualcomm,
and CTIA, we believe that adopting a true shared access model based on
sound engineering principles will encourage investment in the band. A
diverse group of commenters, including Google, WinnForum, Federated
Wireless, WISPA, Microsoft, OTI/PK, and Verizon have submitted filings
indicating support for some variation of a true ``use or share'' model
based on engineering principles.
179. We also agree with the diverse group of commenters that
contend that an economic approach to defining ``use'' would not promote
the most efficient use of the 3.5 GHz Band. We believe that shared
access to the 3.5 GHz Band should be grounded in sound engineering
principles to ensure that spectrum resources are equitably assigned
between and among various users. However, we note that economic
approaches may warrant further study and we encourage interested
parties to continue to examine how such economic models may be applied
towards spectrum sharing in the future.
b. Contour-Based Engineering Model
180. Many commenters support some form of engineering-based
methodology for determining whether channels assigned to Priority
Access Licensees are actually ``in use'' in a given geographic area. We
agree and find that a methodology based on sound, commonly applied,
engineering principles will best ensure appropriate protection for
Priority Access Licensees and equitable access to spectrum for GAA
users while discouraging warehousing of spectrum resources. Several
commenters also argue that Priority Access Licensees should have the
flexibility to build and design their networks and to report the
contours they need protected to the SAS. The approach we adopt
incorporates both concepts by allowing Priority Access Licensees to
report their network contours on the basis of their actual network
deployments while also defining an objective default protection contour
around CBSDs operating on a Priority Access basis.
181. Self-Reporting by Priority Access Licensees. While we agree
with Federated Wireless, Verizon, and WinnForum that Priority Access
Licensees are uniquely positioned to determine their own network needs
and communicate those needs to the SAS, we also believe that it is in
the public interest to encourage stability and predictability in
determining protections for CBSDs operating on a Priority Access basis
and to maximize spectral efficiency by ensuring that all unused
spectrum is available for GAA. Therefore, we will allow Priority Access
Licensees to report their protection contours on the basis of the
network deployment, so long as they are within the boundaries
established by the objective default protection contour. A predictable
and consistent approach to defining the maximum reach of PAL Protection
Areas is important for network planning purposes and to ensure that all
SASs protect Priority Access Licensees consistently and allow GAA users
equitable access to unused channels. Priority Access Licensees are
encouraged to work with SAS Administrators to tailor their self-
reported PAL Protection Areas to their particular needs within the
boundaries defined by the default protection contours. This approach
will provide flexibility to Priority Access Licensees while also
creating an objective means of determining a maximum protection contour
and minimizing the risk that Priority Access Licensees might claim
protections beyond the extent of their actual network deployments.
182. Under a system relying on pure self-reporting, we are
concerned that Priority Access Licensees would be effectively
encouraged to deploy their networks inefficiently and seek protection
for extremely low signal levels or in areas without facilities that are
in actual use. We agree with Public Knowledge, OTI/PK, and WISPA that
allowing Priority Access Licensees to self-define their network
parameters without reference to a common set of engineering assumptions
is likely to encourage warehousing and disincentivize efficient
spectrum use. Under such a system, Priority Access Licensees would have
no reason to deploy facilities or define their network parameters in a
manner that would encourage sharing with GAA users.
183. On the other hand, it is our hope that the approach we adopt
herein will encourage Priority Access Licensees to use their unique
knowledge of their own networks--in collaboration with SAS
Administrators--to craft more tailored protection contours within the
bounds of the default protection contours defined in section 96.25 that
will encourage more spectral reuse by both Priority Access Licensees
and GAA users (47 CFR 96.25). For example, we believe that a variety of
economic factors will incentivize Priority Access Licensees to self-
report their protection contours so as to limit them to areas of actual
use (i.e., to contours smaller than default contours). Specifically, it
would be in the interest of the licensee not to overstate its PAL
Protection Area to the extent that it plans to take advantage of the
newly established secondary markets rules for this band. Claiming a
[[Page 49045]]
smaller protection area would make more area available to lease on the
secondary market, as described in section IV(B). Our rules do not
permit a PAL licensee to lease its spectrum in areas where it asserts
actual use of the spectrum, i.e., within its PAL Protection Area (47
CFR 96.32). Thus, by reducing the size of its PAL Protection Area, the
licensee could signal to potential lessees that a significant portion
of its Service Area is available for lease, on a short or long term
basis, which could provide a greater financial benefit to this licensee
than would be possible with a larger PAL Protection Area. In addition,
a Priority Access Licensee that accepts a protection contour that is
larger than needed to protect its operations could limit the ability of
GAA users to access what is essentially an unused portion of the
Service Area and, in turn, contribute to a collective action problem in
which Priority Access Licensees and GAA users have little incentive to
cooperate with each other. To the extent that a Priority Access
Licensee also intends to make use of spectrum on a GAA basis, either
within its Service Area or elsewhere, it is in the interest of that
Priority Access Licensee not to seek to establish larger protection
areas than needed, because establishing such protection where it is not
needed may well encourage other Priority Access Licensees to do
likewise. Nevertheless, we plan to monitor the operation of our rules
in this novel sharing environment, to ensure that spectrum is utilized
efficiently.
184. We also note that Priority Access Licensees may alter their
reported PAL Protection Areas freely throughout their license term. As
set forth herein, PAL Protection Areas are reported or calculated based
on the registered characteristics of a Priority Access Licensee's
active CBSDs and, as such, they may change depending on the licensee's
network deployments or business decisions.
185. Default Protection Contour Boundaries. The default protection
contour will be defined and modeled by the SAS as a -96 dBm/10 MHz
contour around each CBSD operating on a Priority Access basis. If the
contours modeled around each individual CBSD overlap, the SAS will
combine them into a single contour boundary. The precise shape of the
contour will be modeled by the SAS using the characteristics of CBSDs
provided pursuant to sections 96.41, 96.43, and 96.45 of the
Commission's rules and commonly applied technical assumptions as
determined during the SAS Approval Process (47 CFR 96.41, 96.43,
96.45). The default protection contour is the outer limit of the
maximum area that any Priority Access Licensee may claim as its PAL
Protection Area. Any area within the PAL Protection Area will be
protected from interference from other CBSDs, consistent with section
96.41(d) (47 CFR 96.41(d)). To ensure consistent protection, the
default protection contours and, by extension, the maximum PAL
Protection Areas, must be consistent across all SASs.
186. While the Commission's rules are technologically neutral, we
believe that, given the likely uses of the 3.5 GHz Band, it is
appropriate to use a reasonable reference sensitivity for LTE
technologies as the basis for the modeled default protection contours.
For example, 3GPP has defined two LTE bands that overlap the 3.5 GHz
band, Band 42 from 3400 MHz to 3600 MHz, and Band 43 from 3600 MHz to
3800 MHz. For both of these bands, the reference sensitivity in a 10
MHz bandwidth is -96 dBm indicating that below this value the signal
becomes too weak relative to the noise floor for adequate reception.
Thus, we find that defining the default protection contour by reference
to a signal strength of -96 dBm/10 MHz is appropriate for existing and
expected use cases, technologies, and network deployments in the band.
187. We believe that this level of protection is appropriate for
the types of dense, relatively low power deployments that we expect in
the band. Equipment in such deployments typically operate at levels
above those defined in the standard and we expect that to hold true
here too. Thus, using a default protection contour referenced to -96
dBm/10 MHz offers a degree of protection sufficient to protect the most
common likely use cases in the band without over-protecting Priority
Access licensees to an unreasonably low signal level and thereby
precluding GAA use of the spectrum. Moreover, we believe that a contour
referenced to -96 dBm/10 MHz is technologically neutral and will
provide appropriate protection for a variety of current and future
technologies. Given the unique licensing model used for PALs (e.g.,
short term licenses, no renewal expectancy, census tract license areas,
no specific build out requirements) and the technical
interchangeability of GAA and Priority Access authorizations, we
believe that this approach to determining Priority Access use will
effectively discourage warehousing and ensure that Priority Access
Licensees receive protection only in areas that are in active use.
188. Calculation of Default Protection Contours. While we do not
mandate a specific propagation model to determine the default
protection contour, we do believe that it is in the public interest to
ensure that all SASs operate from a common set of assumptions and
methodologies for determining the default protection contours.
Operating from a common set of assumptions and a common propagation
model will provide a predictable interference landscape for potential
licensees, encouraging rapid deployment of network elements and
promoting investment in the band. Moreover, we believe that, at this
time, these assumptions should be as simple and easily implementable as
possible to promote rapid deployment in the band. These assumptions and
methodologies will be reviewed--and common models and assumptions will
be approved--by WTB and OET as part of the SAS approval process. We
expect that the assumptions and the implementation within SASs will
evolve over time to build off of the collective learned experience and
expertise of SAS Administrators and Priority Access Licensees. WTB and
OET will review revised approaches and assumptions as they are
developed.
189. WTB and OET will consider the consistency and ease of
implementation of proposed methodologies when reviewing proposals from
prospective SAS Administrators. As such, we encourage prospective SAS
Administrators to consider proposing a simple, easily implementable
model (e.g., Cost-231, NTIA model, extended HATA). The end-result of
any model should be a simple contour that is more realistic than models
that rely on worst case assumptions (such as free space path loss) or
worst case parameters (such as assuming all CBSDs are at the maximum
allowed height and power). The model may be updated or modified in the
future--after review by WTB and OET--as new data is collected from
actual deployments in the band.
190. This approach to propagation, terrain, and clutter modeling is
consistent with the approach adopted in section IV(C)(1)(d) for
protection of FSS earth stations and general propagation
determinations. At this time, we believe that allowing SAS
Administrators to adopt proprietary approaches to propagation, clutter,
and terrain modeling for purposes of determining default protection
contours would be overly complex and would lead to inconsistent--and
possible contradictory--results. A simple, easily implementable model
applied across all approved SASs is in the public interest as it is
more likely to promote robust, rapid investment in the band.
[[Page 49046]]
191. It is important to note that the assumptions and modeling
methodologies that are approved as part of the SAS approval process are
only the first step of an iterative process. We expect to further
refine these models based on the real-world experiences of SAS
Administrators and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. We encourage
Priority Access Licensees, GAA users, SAS Administrators, and other
interested stakeholders to work collaboratively to improve the initial
default protection contours and leverage their technological
capabilities to develop revised sharing models over time. Such
improvements may be implemented at a later date.
c. Temporal Criteria
192. We will require the SAS to enforce the PAL Protection Areas,
consistent with section 96.25 and 96.41(d). We believe that the public
interest will be best served by ensuring that all such CBSDs are
protected so long as they continue to operate under a PAL but that the
SAS should not be responsible for ensuring that CBSDs are actually
transmitting at any specific time. Thus, we require that, if a CBSD
ceases to operate on a Priority Access basis--or discontinues service
for more than seven days--it must inform the SAS of this change in
status and the SAS must alter the PAL Protection Area accordingly. If a
CBSD discontinues service and is later reactivated on a Priority Access
basis, the SAS must expeditiously re-establish the PAL Protection Area
around that CBSD (47 CFR 96.39(c)(2)).
193. Pursuant to section 96.39(c) of the Commission's rules, a CBSD
must register with and be authorized by an SAS prior to its initial
service transmission and must update the SAS if any registration
information changes (47 CFR 96.39(c)(2)). Registration information must
include the requested authorization status (GAA or Priority Access) for
each CBSD (47 CFR 96.39(c)(2)). We also require all CBSDs to inform the
SAS of any changes in operational parameters or registration
information, including requested authorization status (47 CFR
96.39(c)(2)). In addition, to ensure that only operational Priority
Access authorized CBSDs are protected, we adopt a new rule that
requires each CBSD to inform the SAS if it will cease providing service
on a permanent basis and requires the SAS to discontinue the PAL
Protection Area for any CBSD that does not contact the SAS for more
than seven days (47 CFR 96.25(c)(1)(ii)). As OTI/PK correctly argues,
without some requirement limiting protections for registered Priority
Access CBSDs to periods of actual use, Priority Access Licensees may be
incentivized to deploy CBSDs as ``license savers'' to foreclose GAA use
in areas without active service. We agree with OTI/PK that CBSDs
``regularly contact the SAS and provide (or could provide) basic
information on whether they are actively transmitting.'' Thus, the
notification requirement is wholly consistent with our stated goal of
protecting the actual service contours of Priority Access Licensees and
making unused spectrum available for GAA use.
194. While we agree with OTI/PK, Wi-Fi Alliance, and WISPA that it
is important to ensure that CBSDs are only protected from interference
when they are in actual use, we do not believe that implementing a
technical methodology to measure active use is necessary or
appropriate. The proposals put forth by Wi-Fi Alliance and WISPA--and
supported by OTI/PK--would require the SAS to affirmatively track data
packets or active RF transmissions on individual CBSDs and allow GAA
access whenever the benchmarks for active transmission are not met. If
implemented, such a requirement would place a significant new burden on
SAS Administrators, increasing the technological complexity of the SAS,
and complicating enforcement and oversight for the Commission. Even if
the level of oversight envisioned by WISPA and Wi-Fi Alliance is
technologically viable, we believe that providing SAS Administrators
with a higher level of granular oversight over individual CBSDs would
hinder investment in PALs and disincentivize widespread deployment in
the band. Moreover, WISPA and Wi-Fi Alliance's proposals would not
actually prevent warehousing or the deployment of ``license-saver''
CBSDs since any CBSD could simply be directed to transmit null data
packets at intervals sufficient to satisfy the proposed requirements.
195. We also disagree with those commenters that argue that
Priority Access Licensees should be permitted to reserve portions of
the band (by time, frequency, or geography) as ``guard bands.'' While
we acknowledge that such guard bands could offer additional protection
for Priority Access Licensees, we do not believe they are necessary in
light of the technological and regulatory features implemented in this
band. Moreover, allowing guard bands would run counter to the
Commission's goals for equitable shared use of the 3.5 GHz Band. As we
stated above, the three-tier authorization framework is designed to
facilitate true, shared access to the band between and among a wide
variety of users. Foreclosing access to an unused portion of the band
as a protective measure does not advance these goals and, indeed, would
be likely to encourage warehousing and inefficient spectrum utilization
by Priority Access Licensees.
196. Our approach to temporal sharing appropriately balances the
need to provide a degree of certainty for prospective Priority Access
Licensees and the need to ensure that portions of the 3.5 GHz Band are
made available for GAA users whenever frequencies are not actually
utilized by higher tier users. In addition, consistent with our usual
policies, the rules place the responsibility for accurately reporting
use--and the associated penalties for non-compliance--on Priority
Access Licensees. We believe that this approach will encourage
investment in both the Priority Access and GAA tiers, facilitate
efficient and widespread spectrum use, and promote innovation in the
3.5 GHz Band.
d. Congestion Metric and Advanced Planning
197. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we noted that, as technology develops,
advanced techniques such contention-based protocols, ``congestion
metrics,'' and other advanced techniques could be used by the SAS to
coordinate power levels in high-density areas among GAA users. We noted
that we intend to continue an informal dialog with stakeholders on
these topics and suggested that such approaches might be appropriate
areas of work for a multi-stakeholder group. Federated Wireless
contends that such a ``congestion metric'' could ``be used to define
the conditions to which the SAS will manage GAA uses to ensure a
consistent level of service can be achieved as congestion occurs.''
Federated Wireless suggests that such techniques could be used to
ensure that a definition of use based on aggregate interference
criteria does not cause unfair treatment to GAA users and that specific
techniques should be developed by a multi-stakeholder group. Federated
also suggests that technologies that employ contention-based protocols
or other mechanisms to enable coexistence could help to facilitate
equitable use of the band by GAA users.
198. The Commission has consistently emphasized the importance of
ensuring that GAA users have consistent, equitable access to the 3.5
GHz Band. We are pleased that industry stakeholders continue to work
towards the development of innovative approaches to the issue of GAA
co-existence. We encourage these efforts--by both independent actors
and multi-
[[Page 49047]]
stakeholder groups--and encourage interested parties to continue to
inform us of new developments. We also direct WTB and OET to review any
approaches to GAA coexistence submitted as part of the SAS approval
process.
B. Secondary Markets
1. Background
199. In the FNPRM we sought comment on appropriate secondary market
rules for the 3.5 GHz Band. Many commenters addressed secondary markets
issues and generally supported a framework that would allow secondary
market transactions involving PALs.
200. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on specific aspects of
the secondary markets rules and requested detailed proposals for
implementing any required rule changes. In particular, we requested
comment on any necessary changes to our Part 1 rules to facilitate the
development of a secondary market for PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band.
Notably, we asked whether partitioning and disaggregation of PALs
should be permitted and sought comment on the costs and benefits of
allowing such transactions. We also sought comment on the potential use
of spectrum exchanges to facilitate the transfer of PALs in the
secondary market and whether such exchanges should be mandatory or
could be allowed to develop voluntarily under current rules. Finally,
we sought comment on the legal, technical, and logistical issues that
should be considered, particularly in regard to modifications to our
rules that could reduce transaction costs and allow increased
automation of transfer and lease applications.
201. We also sought comment on the application of our spectrum
aggregation limits for Priority Access Licensees, both in the context
of secondary markets and in the context of initial licensing of PALs,
and we inquired as to how the unique characteristics of PAL auctions
should be taken into account. Further, we asked whether we should apply
the attribution standard used in our existing rules to transactions
involving mobile wireless licenses for commercial use, and we inquired
how this standard could reflect the need for a streamlined process,
potentially through a database administrator, for transactions
involving PALs (47 CFR 20.22).
202. Several commenters responded to these questions with a variety
of suggested approaches to secondary markets rules for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. There is near uniform support in the record
for allowing access to the 3.5 GHz Band through secondary markets.
Commenters including AT&T, CTIA, Federated Wireless, Google,
Information Technology Industry Council, PCIA, Rajant, Verizon,
WinnForum, and WISPA agree that permitting access to PAL spectrum
through secondary markets will increase flexibility and encourage
efficient use of spectrum in the 3.5 GHz Band. AT&T further argues that
flexible secondary markets will promote investment and innovation in
this band. Most commenters urge the Commission to apply its secondary
markets rules to the 3.5 GHz Band, and some go further, recommending
that the Commission apply a more streamlined and flexible system to
allow secondary use of PAL spectrum, instead of its traditional
secondary market rules. Verizon, for example, advocates forbearance
from prior approval of PAL leases (and also license transfers) under
section 310(d) of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 310(d)). Similarly,
Federated Wireless argues that permitting access to PAL spectrum on the
secondary market ``does not warrant formal Commission approval any more
than does opportunistic GAA use of PAL spectrum.'' Rajant points out
that there is inherent liquidity due to the nature of the PALs, in
particular due to their short license terms and small geographic areas,
and that establishing a streamlined process to allow access to
secondary markets will bolster this liquidity.
203. Only Microsoft and the Wi-Fi Alliance state that a secondary
market is unnecessary and potentially contrary to the public interest.
They both state that the SAS will enable GAA access to PAL spectrum
that is not in use, obviating the need for secondary markets in this
band. Microsoft further argues that allowing a secondary market will
encourage companies to speculate on PALs, profiting by obtaining more
PALs than they need in order to make this spectrum available in the
secondary market. Both Key Bridge and Cantor Telecom address this
concern, stating that given the short license terms, small geographic
coverage areas and ample availability of GAA spectrum, it would be
nearly impossible for licensees to speculatively warehouse spectrum.
2. Light-Touch Leasing for Priority Access Licensees
a. Background
204. Key Bridge and Federated Wireless both state that the existing
spectrum leasing procedure is designed for traditional wireless service
in traditionally licensed bands, which does not apply to the 3.5 GHz
Band, particularly since any number of GAA users can access and share
unused PAL spectrum. Federated Wireless and Rajant both state that
certain entities need the assured use of protected PAL spectrum for
only a short period of time, such as for a special event, to provide
service to targeted areas, such as transit rail lines and venues.
Spectrum Bridge argues that the time and expense associated with the
Commission's traditional approach to transaction review in other
licensed bands would make it difficult or impossible for a secondary
market to develop in the 3.5 GHz Band.
205. A number of commenters endorse a spectrum leasing procedure
similar to the one suggested by Federated Wireless whereby the
Commission would first formally certify lessees to use PAL spectrum and
then upon entering a leasing arrangement with a PAL, the licensee would
notify the SAS, rather than obtaining prior approval by the Commission
for each PAL secondary market transaction. Federated Wireless suggests
a standardized electronic certification process could be established so
that PAL licensees can provide users with electronic consent, perhaps
with a secure verification key or certificate, and the user can then
submit the electronic consent and verification key to the SAS. Cantor
Telecom states that a precertification process permitting rapid trades
in the secondary market will result in significant efficiency, which is
especially beneficial given the tremendous number of potential PALs
available over more than 74,000 census tracts.
206. Both Google and Federated Wireless state that the SAS can
easily manage secondary use of PAL spectrum without extra complexity,
as SASs will be designed and scaled to manage many thousands of PAL and
GAA assignments and deployments. Key Bridge suggests that the SAS can
help ensure transactions do not raise public interest risks.
207. Rajant and WISPA support a notice-only process. Rajant
describes how certain entities need the assured use of PAL spectrum and
argues that a notice-only process will most effectively allow such
service to emerge in a secondary market. WISPA states that by requiring
notification to the SAS and not the Commission, the agency would have
very few administrative burdens.
208. Key Bridge and Cantor Telecom suggest that the Commission
assign all unsold PALs to the secondary market for resale. Key Bridge
argues that reverting unsold PALs to GAA use creates artificial
scarcity and starves the
[[Page 49048]]
secondary market. Instead, Key Bridge states, the Commission could
foster economic innovation through a single auction that will enable
commercial operators of all size and type to innovate at their own
pace. Cantor Telecom supports a similar approach but suggests that the
PAL remain available for GAA use until acquired on the secondary
market.
b. Discussion
209. We believe there are significant benefits to a robust
secondary market for PAL spectrum. While our existing part 1 rules
already provide for substantial flexibility in this regard, we amend
those rules to include a streamlined spectrum manager leasing process,
based on the current spectrum manager leasing rules, tailored for the
PAL leasing context. We expect there will be a demand for Priority
Access rights for a wide variety of use cases. We believe that a
robust, flexible, and lightly regulated secondary market through these
band-specific spectrum manager leasing rules will incentivize efficient
spectrum use, promote innovation, and encourage the rapid deployment of
broadband networks in the 3.5 GHz Band. We will also permit de facto
transfer leasing under the existing part 1 rules.
210. The focus of our secondary markets policy for the 3.5 GHz Band
will be to permit Priority Access Licensees to enter into a spectrum
manager lease under the ``light-touch leasing'' regime we establish
herein for any portion of their licensed geographic area for any
bandwidth or period of time within the scope of the PAL but outside of
its PAL Protection Area. We also believe that the principles underlying
the streamlining of our rules for assignments and transfers of control,
as well as for de facto transfer leasing, for licenses of other
Wireless Radio Services (WRS), including our section 310(d) (47 U.S.C.
310(d)) forbearance determinations that enabled us to introduce
significant streamlining into the approval process for such
transactions involving WRS common carrier licensees, apply with even
greater force here, given the relatively short license terms and small
License Areas of PALs. We believe that further changes in our rules
governing these types of transactions are not warranted at this time.
Moreover, as noted below, in order to achieve a balance between
promoting a significant amount of flexibility for PALs and enabling the
Commission to adequately enforce its rules related to ownership and
control, we decline to permit PAL licensees to engage in assignments,
transfers of control, or de facto transfer leasing agreements that
result in partitioning or disaggregation of their licenses in this
band.
211. The light-touch leasing framework for PAL spectrum manager
leases builds off the Commission's existing spectrum manager leasing
rules and will provide Priority Access Licensees the ability to lease
certain spectrum usage rights pursuant to a highly streamlined process,
while also preserving the Commission's ability to fulfill its oversight
and enforcement responsibilities. With respect to the Commission's
ability to fulfill these responsibilities, we conclude that the
immediate processing procedures under the existing spectrum manager
leasing rules (set forth in section 1.9020(e)(2)) (47 CFR 1.9020(e)(2))
would present certain challenges due to the high numbers--often for
very short-term durations--of spectrum manager leases that we expect to
see in this service. Given the diverse range of deployments and
services that the Citizens Broadband Radio Service is expected to
support--coupled with the large number of PALs that we expect to issue
and their relatively small License Areas--we see the potential for many
thousands of leases in the 3.5 GHz Band. We expect that a significant
percentage of these leases will cover a short period of time or even a
single event. Under the existing immediate processing procedures, such
transient lease terms would render any reasonable degree of Commission
oversight exceedingly difficult to maintain during the lifetime of the
lease. Therefore, to facilitate development of a robust secondary
market, we believe that it is critical to employ a highly streamlined
regulatory approach for handling the spectrum manager leasing process.
In particular, given that PALs are limited to three-year, non-renewable
license terms, it is clear that any sort of prolonged leasing process
would be especially inefficient.
212. To address both the need for a streamlined process and the
Commission's obligation to maintain its ability to fulfill its
oversight and enforcement responsibilities, we are modifying the
existing spectrum manager lease rules--which are designed for
traditionally licensed, exclusive use bands--to create a process
tailored to this band. Specifically, we are establishing a procedure,
based on the immediate processing procedures in the Part 1 spectrum
manager leasing rules, to permit parties contemplating spectrum manager
lease agreements with Priority Access Licensees to submit the required,
non-lease specific certifications to the Commission at any time prior
to reaching a spectrum manager lease agreement with a Priority Access
Licensee. Potential lessees must update their certification if any of
the required information changes, including ownership information, and
the Commission may request verification of any information contained in
the certifications at any time. The Commission will process these
certifications expeditiously in order to provide the SASs with
confirmation that the future lessee meets the corresponding eligibility
criteria for a spectrum manager lease. With this confirmation in hand,
the SAS will be positioned to expeditiously complete a notification
process for any spectrum manager lease involving that lessee and a
Priority Access Licensee, once the licensee notifies the SAS of the
leasing agreement. The SAS can then rapidly: (1) Confirm that the
lessee meets the non-lease-specific basic qualifications criteria (as
evidenced by the Commission's prior verification of this fact) and that
the parties meet the lease-specific eligibility requirements; and (2)
notify the Commission that the parties to the spectrum leasing
agreement have satisfied the requirements for invoking the immediate
processing procedures. Once the SAS provides that confirmation to the
licensee and lessee, the lessee may immediately begin exercising leased
spectrum usage rights under the lease agreement.
213. In sum, the lessee's ability to provide the required non-lease
specific certifications to the Commission in advance for its future
spectrum manager leases in this service, enables the lessee to take
advantage of a similar form of expedited processing and use procedures
offered under the section 1.9020(e)(2) (47 CFR 1.9020(e)(2)) spectrum
manager leasing rules for other Wireless Radio Services, while ensuring
that the lessee makes the necessary certifications with the Commission
regarding its qualifications to enable the Commission to fulfill its
oversight and enforcement obligations.
214. The following bullets highlight the essential elements of this
light-touch process for Priority Access spectrum manager leases, and
the discussion that follows provides additional details:
The lessee must certify with the Commission that it meets
the basic qualifications for holding a license authorization.
The licensee must notify the SAS of the leasing
arrangement.
The SAS must be able to confirm that: (1) The lessee has
provided the required certification to the Commission; (2) the lease
will not
[[Page 49049]]
violate the 40 megahertz Priority Access spectrum aggregation limit for
the given geographic area; and (3) the lease area is within the
lessor's Service Area but outside of its PAL Protection Area.
On a daily basis, the SAS will provide the Commission with
an electronic report of the leasing notifications received from
Priority Access Licensees.
The Commission will release a weekly Public Notice listing
the leasing arrangements.
215. Applicability of Existing Spectrum Leasing Rules to Priority
Access Licensees. Priority Access Licensees may enter into spectrum
manager leases in accordance with section 1.9020 (47 CFR 1.9020(e)(2))
of the Commission's rules, as amended in this order, and pursuant to
the rules adopted herein. As required by section 1.9020 (47 CFR
1.9020(e)(2)), Priority Access Licensees must retain de facto and de
jure control of the license. Under the de facto control standard, both
Priority Access Licensees and their lessees must comply with all
applicable Commission service and technical rules, and the Priority
Access Licensee is ``directly and primarily responsible for ensuring
the spectrum lessee's compliance.'' The Priority Access Licensee
remains responsible for all interactions with the Commission and must
be the sole point of contact for such interactions.
216. Consistent with these requirements for retaining de facto
control, the licensee will notify the SAS of any spectrum manager
leasing arrangement and continue to be directly and primarily
responsible for maintaining its own eligibility to hold a Commission
license and for ensuring the lessee's compliance with Commission rules,
including operation in conformance with applicable technical and use
rules as well as the lessee's own eligibility. The SAS will function
and communicate with CBSDs in the same manner it would in the absence
of a lease. Thus, consistent with the rules governing CBSD
authorization and coordination, the SAS will communicate directly with
all CBSDs, regardless of whether they are operated by a licensee or
lessee, thereby facilitating a lessee's compliance with technical and
service rules and safeguarding other users. For example, if the SAS
determines that a lessee's CBSD is causing interference, the SAS will
relocate the CBSD to an unencumbered channel or deauthorize its
operation without the need for licensee involvement.
217. As stated above, we will permit parties that contemplate
becoming lessees in the 3.5 GHz Band to certify with the Commission in
advance of entering into a leasing arrangement that they meet the basic
qualifications for holding a license authorization (other than those
qualifications that can only be determined on a license-specific
basis), similar to the suggestions of Cantor Telecom and Federated
Wireless. Basic qualifications that can be certified through this
advance processing include, for example, the applicable foreign
ownership eligibility criteria, character and other qualification
requirements criteria applicable to the licensee, and eligibility under
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Would-be lessees that already hold
PALs will automatically be deemed to meet this requirement, as they
have already demonstrated that they are qualified to be a Commission
licensee. WTB will establish a process for entities that do not hold
PALs to provide such certification to the Commission electronically and
issue a Public Notice detailing this process. The Commission will
maintain a publicly available list of all entities that have made the
requisite advance certifications, and those listed parties may enter
into leasing arrangements with Priority Access licensees and commence
leased operations when the SAS provides the required confirmation. The
foregoing approach balances the Commission's oversight obligations
while still permitting an efficient leasing process that places lessees
in a position to offer service upon confirmation from the SAS. This is
particularly important given that multiple parties have expressed an
interest in using secondary market transactions to acquire Priority
Access spectrum rights for specific, time-limited events.
218. SAS Notification Procedure. Separate from the lessee's
certification with the Commission, Priority Access Licensees will be
required to submit the following information about each spectrum lease
to any SAS that accepts leasing notifications: (1) Necessary
information on the identity of the spectrum lessee (including necessary
contact information) and its eligibility to lease spectrum as
demonstrated by appearing on the certification list; (2) the specific
spectrum leased (in terms of amount of bandwidth and geographic area
involved), including the call sign affected by the lease; and (3) the
length of the lease. The licensee must also certify that its ownership
information is current and update its ownership information, if
necessary. After the licensee has provided this information and the SAS
has provided confirmation that the notification has been received and
the lease meets the qualifications set forth in section 96.66 (47 CFR
96.66), the lessee may commence operations. This is consistent with our
current practice of allowing immediate processing for certain spectrum
manager leasing arrangements, while ensuring that the Commission has
adequate time in advance of what may be very short-term event leasing
to confirm that potential lessees are qualified under our rules.
Leasing parties may extend the leasing arrangement beyond the initial
term, by providing advance notification to the SAS, and they may
terminate the arrangement early by providing notification to the SAS no
later than ten days after the early termination.
219. The SAS Administrators must provide an electronic report of
these notifications to the Commission on a daily basis. The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau will then issue a weekly informational Public
Notice listing the leasing arrangements. As with all spectrum manager
leases, the leasing notifications are subject to post-notification
review by interested parties or the Bureau within 30 days, and by the
Commission within 40 days. As under our existing spectrum manager
leasing rules, the Commission retains the right to investigate and
terminate any such leasing arrangement if it determines, post-
notification, that the arrangement constitutes an unauthorized transfer
of de facto control, is otherwise in violation of the Commission's
rules, or raises foreign ownership, competitive, or other public
interest concerns.
220. SAS Responsibilities Regarding 3.5 GHz Band Spectrum Manager
Leasing Arrangements. An SAS Administrator may choose whether it will
accept leasing notifications and support leasing arrangements. However,
regardless of whether an SAS accepts leasing notifications, it is
responsible for meeting the core functions established in the 3.5 GHz
R&O and in the Commission's rules, including obtaining and storing
sufficient information to recognize and protect lessees CBSDs
authorized by other SASs. SASs that do choose to accept and support
leasing arrangements must, at a minimum: (1) Accept and store the
information required in a licensee's notification; (2) verify whether
the lessee has made the required certification with the Commission; (3)
verify that the lease will not result in the lessee holding more than
the 40 megahertz of Priority Access spectrum in a given License Area,
and that lessee operation will not extend beyond the licensee's Service
Area or within its PAL Protection Area;
[[Page 49050]]
(4) inform the licensee as to whether the notification has been
received and verified; and (5) provide the Commission with electronic
reports of the leasing notifications it received on a daily basis. Upon
receipt of confirmation from the SAS, the lessee may commence operation
consistent with the rules governing Priority Access Licensees set forth
in section 96.25 (47 CFR 96.25).
221. Assigning Unsold PALs for Resale. In response to Key Bridge
and Cantor Telecom's suggestion that the Commission automatically
assign all unsold PALs from the auction for resale on the secondary
market, we believe this runs contrary to the three-tier system which
already permits access to this spectrum through GAA use. Key Bridge and
Cantor argue that resale of PALs will foster innovation, but operators
of all types can still innovate through GAA use. Further, if there is
market demand, we will hold another auction before three-year license
expiration, creating another opportunity to access PAL spectrum.
222. Filings. The licensee retains the responsibility to engage in
all interactions with the SAS and Commission, including the submission
of requisite filings that are directly related to the use of spectrum
by the licensee or lessee.
223. Regulatory Status. Priority Access lessees are free to select
their regulatory status, regardless of the licensee's status. In the
3.5 GHz R&O we allowed both Priority Access Licensees and GAA users to
choose whether to provide service on a common carrier or non-common
carrier basis and for the same reasons, we allow lessees to do the
same. As noted in the 3.5 GHz R&O, this will encourage the ability of
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users' ability to use the same
equipment interchangeably and avoid hindering a potential lessee's
ability to use spectrum based on a Priority Access Licensee's
regulatory status.
3. Partitioning and Disaggregation
a. Background
224. The Commission has permitted partitioning and disaggregation
on a service-by-service basis, in order to allow licensees to transfer
the right to use a portion of the spectrum (disaggregation) or a
portion of the geographic license area for that spectrum (partitioning)
to parties that value it more highly. In so doing, the Commission is
able to promote such goals as more efficient use of and greater access
to spectrum, fewer barriers to entry, greater competition, and
increased services to consumers. The Commission has allowed
partitioning and disaggregation for many services, including Multipoint
Distribution Service (MDS), General Wireless Communications Services
(GWCS), 800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR), 39 GHz
fixed point-to-point microwave, the Wireless Communications Service
(WCS), PCS, the 700 MHz Band, and the AWS-3 Band.
225. As these examples make clear, the Commission has permitted
partitioning and disaggregation in services with license areas that
range in size from CMAs and BTAs (with 734 units and 496 units,
respectively) to the much-larger EAs and REAGs (with 176 units and 12
units, respectively). In so doing, the Commission has provided greater
flexibility for licensees to meet market demand. For example, when the
Commission proposed partitioning and disaggregation for PCS, it stated
such a policy would speed service to rural areas and allow market entry
by entities that only have the ability to serve a limited population.
When the Commission later established rules to allow AWS-3 Band and 700
MHz Band licensees to partition and disaggregate their spectrum, it
reiterated that this would allow market entry by new entrants and
provide flexibility. In each of these services, the Commission also
adopted specific construction requirements to ensure the spectrum was
put to use. However, the Commission has also limited or prohibited
partitioning and disaggregation in bands that permit different services
to share the spectrum in order to prevent interference and promote
shared use.
226. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether
to allow partitioning and disaggregation of PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band
and stated that its initial view was ``to prohibit such further
segmentation of PALs given their relatively small size (census tracts)
and short license terms (three years) as well as the availability of
significant GAA spectrum.'' Many commenters, including AT&T, Cantor
Telecom, CTIA, Information Technology Industry Council, Qualcomm,
WinnForum, and WISPA, support partitioning and disaggregation in the
3.5 GHz Band and argue it will increase liquidity in the secondary
market. In response to concerns regarding license size, WISPA states
that while census tracts in non-rural areas may be small, that is not
always the case for rural areas. Further, AT&T notes that there are
numerous scenarios where smaller areas benefit from partitioning and
disaggregation, such as when a licensee wants to make its spectrum
available in a specific portion of its license area (e.g., a hospital
or university) while maintaining use for the rest of this area, and it
observes that such arrangements are easy to administer. Cantor Telecom
and WISPA both state there are business cases that cannot be achieved
only through GAA use, as it does not provide the same level of
protection, but WISPA recognizes that leasing can be used to achieve
the same results. The Information Technology Industry Council suggests
that concerns regarding administrative burdens can be alleviated by
permitting secondary markets without requiring prior Commission
approval.
227. Other commenters, however, do not agree that partitioning and
disaggregation are needed for successful spectrum utilization in this
band, or argue that it should be handled through significantly
different administrative procedures. Key Bridge argues that secondary
market transactions involving transfers (as opposed to leases) should
be promoted by the Commission. In particular, Key Bridge contends that
traditional rules for transactions do not apply well to the 3.5 GHz
Band and it therefore recommends that the Commission minimize
transaction costs by allowing for immediate processing of certain
transactions, including transactions that would normally fall under
rules specified in section 1.913 (47 CFR 1.913). Although CTIA states
that to the extent that Priority Access Licensees find value in
partitioning and disaggregation, it should be permitted, CTIA notes the
already splintered nature of census tract licensing raises questions
about the utility of partitioning and disaggregation. In its initial
comments, Federated Wireless states that partitioning and
disaggregation of PALs would prove both administratively burdensome and
unnecessary due to the relatively small size of PALs and their limited
three-year licenses terms. In its reply comments, Federated Wireless
clarifies that this opposition was based on the fact that ``pursuant to
Commission rules [partitioning and disaggregation] processes would
entail applying for, and obtaining, Commission approval to formally
segment PALs into smaller service areas or blocks of spectrum smaller
than 10 MHz.'' Federated Wireless further clarifies that it objects to
the administrative burden and not the ability to move spectrum to
parties that value it more highly, as summarized in its reply comments:
``[I]f commenters merely are advocating for secondary
[[Page 49051]]
uses of PAL spectrum for less than a full census tract (partitioning)
or less than the full 10 MHz of PAL spectrum (disaggregation), by using
a certification or notice procedure rather than submission of formal
Commission applications for partitioning or disaggregation, then
Federal Wireless agrees.''
b. Discussion
228. The light-touch leasing process adopted herein can achieve the
objectives sought by the majority of commenters to make the spectrum
use rights held by Priority Access Licensees available in secondary
markets without need for the Commission oversight required of
partitioning and disaggregation. Under the light-touch leasing rules,
Priority Access Licensees are free to lease any portion of their
spectrum or license outside of their PAL Protection Area. This has the
same effect--lessees can provide targeted access to geographic areas or
quantities of spectrum--without additional administrative burden.
Coupled with the availability of 80 MHz or more of GAA spectrum in each
License Area, these rules will provide the necessary flexibility to
service specific or targeted markets. In response to WISPA's concern
that census tracts are larger in rural areas, making targeted service
more difficult without holding multiple PALs, we expect GAA spectrum to
be particularly abundant in those rural areas, making such services
achievable through GAA use.
229. In addition, we note that he reasons for permitting
partitioning and disaggregation in more traditionally licensed bands
are not prevalent or are absent in the 3.5 GHz Band, which has much
different characteristics. The Commission's primary reason for allowing
partitioning and disaggregation in other bands was to promote key
policy goals such as access to spectrum and flexibility of use, which
in turn can result in greater service to consumers. In contrast to more
traditional licensing governing other bands, the existing 3.5 GHz Band
rules inherently provide this flexibility. As such, the Commission
allowed partitioning and disaggregation to increase competition and
expedite the provision of service in the near term. For example, the
rules governing 700 MHz band licenses, which service rules do allow
partitioning and disaggregation (47 CFR 27.15), include a ten-year
license term and larger license areas. However, in the 3.5 GHz Band,
relatively short license terms and small license areas should
facilitate faster deployment of service and allow providers to target
smaller populations, meeting the same goals. Further, lower power
limits, the ability to dynamically share spectrum, and the absence of
construction obligations offer licensees the ability to experiment with
different business models and serve niche markets, another basis for
allowing partitioning and disaggregation in other services. This
flexibility is further bolstered by the rules adopted herein to permit
secondary market transactions.
230. Finally, the Commission cannot easily address administrative
burdens associated with partitioning and disaggregation through a pre-
approval process, as Information Technology Industry Council suggests.
Unlike leases, parties seeking approval for partitioning and
disaggregation must file an application for partial assignment or
transfer of control of a license, even if the transaction does not
require prior Commission approval (47 CFR 1.948). While certain
assignments and transfers of control do not require prior Commission
approval, the assignor must file an application for Commission approval
regardless (47 CFR 1.948(c)).
4. Spectrum Exchanges
a. Background
231. The majority of commenters advocate that Commission should
permit spectrum exchanges for PALs. Cantor Telecom states that a
spectrum exchange would permit qualified participants to gain immediate
access to PAL usage rights along with additional benefits, including
enhanced price discovery, transparency, and paperwork and cost
efficiencies, thereby improving access to available bandwidth and
significantly increasing the liquidity of the spectrum. AT&T, Verizon,
and WISPA, also support voluntary spectrum exchanges. Alternatively,
Federated Wireless states that spectrum exchanges would add complexity
and are unnecessary because they serve functions already authorized to
be performed by the SAS. Further, Federated Wireless claims that only a
fully functional SAS will have sufficient knowledge to confirm whether
a secondary transaction meets the conditions necessary to operate.
However, Cantor Telecom responds that an SAS's main purpose is to
function as a geolocation database, while a spectrum exchange focuses
on facilitating secondary market access to PALs.
232. Other commenters address whether the SAS should act as a
spectrum exchange. Verizon asks that the Commission not only permit,
but encourage SAS Administrators to establish spectrum exchanges. AT&T,
Google, and WISPA state that the Commission should neither prohibit not
require an SAS to operate as a spectrum exchange. AT&T also states that
if an SAS does act as a spectrum exchange, these functions should be
separable from the core functions of the SAS.
b. Discussion
233. The rules that govern the 3.5 GHz Band do not explicitly
address spectrum exchanges, and we take no action to establish or
prohibit spectrum exchanges, nor do we take action to favor any
particular type of private market exchange mechanism. In keeping with
the operational flexibility we have created for the 3.5 GHz Band, we
agree with WISPA that market mechanisms should drive the creation of
spectrum exchanges, instead of Commission rules. This approach is
consistent with the Commission's general approach of relying on market
processes where possible in regard to secondary markets. If a market
demand develops for spectrum exchanges in the 3.5 GHz Band, it is in
the public interest to allow such exchanges to respond to this demand
consistent with the requirements of the Communications Act and our
rules.
234. In regard to whether an SAS should be permitted to also act as
a spectrum exchange, again we will let market forces determine the role
of the SAS, and as such, stand-alone exchanges or SAS-managed exchanges
are permitted. As suggested by Google, there may be SAS Administrators
who decide that it is economical to operate a spectrum exchange as a
function of the SAS. We also acknowledge Federated Wireless' concern
that spectrum exchanges will add unnecessary complexity to band
management. However, the Citizens Broadband Radio Service rules already
require an SAS to track Priority Access, GAA and Incumbent Access
operations and, as such, we do not believe tracking PAL ownership or
coordinating with an independent spectrum exchange would be overly-
burdensome. Moreover, our rules do not require individual SAS
Administrators to act as spectrum exchanges or to work with any third-
party spectrum exchanges that may develop. Rather, they provide the
flexibility for SAS Administrators to provide these services at their
option to meet market demand. Similar to offering leasing, the option
to operate a spectrum exchange is voluntary and so long as SAS
Administrators can fulfill their core duties and comply with Commission
rules, an SAS may also operate a spectrum exchange.
[[Page 49052]]
5. Spectrum Aggregation and Attribution in the 3.5 GHz Band
a. Background
235. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission adopted a spectrum
aggregation limit that would allow licensees to hold no more than four
PALs in one census tract at any given time (or no more than 40
megahertz out of the 70 megahertz allocated to PALs). The Commission
concluded that this limit of 40 megahertz would facilitate competition,
innovation, and efficient use of the 3.5 GHz Band, ensuring that it
would be allocated in a manner that serves the public interest,
convenience, and necessity. However, for a variety of reasons, the
Commission decided it would not include the 3.5 GHz Band in the
spectrum screen. The Second FNPRM sought comment on the application of
our spectrum aggregation limits in the context of the initial licensing
of PALs, whether to use the Commission's existing attribution standard
for these purposes, and how any unique characteristics of PAL auctions,
such as the need for streamlined processing, should be taken into
account.
236. The majority of commenters do not directly address spectrum
aggregation limits but those that do urge the Commission to refrain
from adopting spectrum aggregation rules. AT&T believes that the
Commission should not stifle secondary markets by adopting spectrum
aggregation rules for this band, as the 3.5 GHz Band is nascent and no
competitive issues have arisen that suggest a need for regulation. For
the same reasons, AT&T opposes applying the attribution standard in
existing rules to PALs, and no other commenters address the application
of our attribution standard. Federated Wireless also urges the
Commission not to count PALs toward spectrum aggregation limits,
stating this would not be equitable since by its nature, PALs will
likely not be in use full time by the licensee. The Information
Technology Industry Council requests that the Commission consider
allowing a Priority Access Licensee to hold more than four PALs (i.e.,
40 megahertz) of spectrum in one census tract, even for a limited
duration or geography.
b. Discussion
237. As noted above, we do not include 3.5 GHz Band in the
Commission's spectrum screen, as PALs are not suitable and available
for the provision of mobile telephony and broadband services in the
same manner as other bands that are currently included in the
Commission's spectrum screen applied to secondary market transactions.
This finding was based on the unique characteristics of the band,
including multiple tiers of many users and short license terms. We do
not revisit this finding here and there is no support on the record for
doing so.
238. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission also addressed a spectrum
aggregation limit within the Priority Access tier and concluded that
one licensee many not hold more than 40 megahertz of the maximum of the
70 megahertz of Priority Access spectrum in each License Area. As the
Commission decided in the order, this spectrum aggregation limit will
promote diversity by ensuring the availability of PALs to at least two
users in those geographic areas where there is the greatest likelihood
of demand, and will incentivize innovation and competition that will
likely lead to more choices for the consumer, while still allowing for
applications that require larger blocks of spectrum. The Information
Technology Industry Council presents no additional arguments and we
also decline to revisit the 40 megahertz spectrum aggregation limit.
239. In light of the spectrum aggregation limit in our rules, these
secondary markets rules must make clear to whom the limit should apply.
Given the lack of record on attribution issues in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service context, we apply the attribution threshold as
set forth in section 20.22 of the Commission's rules and referred to in
the Second FNPRM (47 CFR 20.22). These controlling and non-controlling
interests delineated in section 20.22 (47 CFR 20.22) shall be
attributable to applicants for licenses and parties to leasing
arrangements in the 3.5 GHz Band.
C. FSS Protection
1. In-Band Protection of FSS in the 3600-3700 MHz Band
a. Background
240. The Commission has licensed FSS earth stations to receive on
frequencies in the 3600-3650 MHz and 3650-3700 MHz bands. FSS use of
the 3600-3650 MHz band is limited to non-federal international
intercontinental systems (47 CFR 2.106). In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we adopted
rules that require CBSDs to protect existing in-band FSS earth stations
from interference (47 CFR 96.17). As described in section III(H), we
also require FSS earth stations seeking protection under the rules to
register with the Commission annually, or upon making changes to any of
the parameters listed in Sec. 96.17(d) (47 CFR 96.17). The information
included in these registrations will be used by the SASs to protect
licensed FSS earth stations. We found that, while there were technical
implementation details to be worked out, an SAS-based system should be
an effective means of protecting licensed FSS earth stations and
promoting broadband deployment in the band. We also noted that specific
technical details and requirements may be developed as part of the SAS
approval process and may be informed by the work of an industry-led
multi-stakeholder group. Therefore, in the Second FNPRM, we sought
comment on specific approaches to calculating and implementing FSS
protections.
241. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on: (1) Interference
protection criteria appropriate for establishing FSS interference
limits; (2) the methodology for calculating exclusion distances for
CBSDs, and in particular, the applicability of the Commission's example
methodology in the 3650-3700 MHz proceeding; (3) whether or not to
establish default protection areas around FSS earth stations; (4) the
RF propagation model(s) best suited for SAS protections of FSS; (5)
policy and methods for adjudicating demands for increased spectrum use
at a location that would result in the protection criteria for an FSS
earth station receiver being exceeded; and (6) methods for ensuring
that End User Devices do not interfere with FSS earth stations while
avoiding a mandate for geo-location requirements on end user devices.
242. Numerous commenters responded to the Second FNPRM, presenting
a range of proposed approaches to the issues presented. Those comments
are addressed in detail on a subject-by-subject basis below, including
calculation of FSS protection areas; interference protection criteria;
RF propagation models; and other issues. As with our efforts to address
other sharing issues in the 3.5 GHz Band, the rules we have developed
are designed to enable use of the band for new wireless services, while
maintaining protection for the in-band FSS operations. We adopt
specific in-band FSS protections below based on the characteristics of
the FSS sites and modeled to a conservative level, and provide
unprecedented protections for certain C-Band FSS sites.
b. Calculation of FSS Protection Areas
(i) Background
243. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment as to whether we should
establish default earth station protection areas based on assumed FSS
earth station receiver characteristics, such
[[Page 49053]]
that CBSD operation outside of this area would be assumed not to cause
interference to earth stations, and whether the geographic area could
be adjusted by an SAS to accommodate actual FSS operating
characteristics. We also noted that the Commission's example
methodology set forth in Appendix D in the 3650-3700 MHz Band R&O could
be a useful starting point for co-existence analysis, and we sought
comment on the use of this methodology by an SAS to calculate exclusion
distances for CBSDs with respect to individual FSS earth stations in
the 3.5 GHz Band.
244. Many commenters support protection of incumbent FSS earth
stations from aggregate interference but assert that default protection
areas are inefficient and utilizing worst case assumptions may lead to
overprotection of FSS earth stations. Specifically, Dynamic Spectrum
Alliance, Federated Wireless, Google, Information Technology Industry
Council, Microsoft, Wi-Fi Alliance, and WinnForum argue against the
imposition of default protection areas based on worst case assumptions.
WinnForum claims that default areas are inherently inefficient, and
almost inevitably, provide either too little protection to the
incumbent, or overly restrict other operations. In addition, default
protection zones may not account for aggregation effects and would have
to be quite large to account for worst case aggregate interference. The
Information Technology Industry Council also argues that for FSS, the
Commission should not adopt default or generalized protection zones for
all FSS earth stations. The Wi-Fi Alliance argues that the Commission
should not over-protect FSS earth stations and SASs should be permitted
to calculate protection areas based on terrain characteristics and FSS
earth station operational parameters. Microsoft claims that it is
possible to protect FSS earth stations without imposing large
protection zones and that the size and shape of each protected area
should be limited to that which is technically necessary to protect
licensed satellite operations. Rajant argues for a fact-based approach
to sharing spectrum with incumbent FSS and, from their deployments in
the 3650-3700 MHz band, contends that much smaller coordination zones
than 150 km are possible.
245. Google also argues that the Commission should tailor FSS
protections to actual conditions, rather than establishing a default
protection zone for all FSS earth stations. According to Google, these
protection zones should account for real world factors such as
propagation, terrain, earth station pointing angles, and transmitter
characteristics. They argue that utilizing worst case or near worst
case assumptions for these elements would result in over protection of
FSS earth stations, inefficient spectrum use, and diminished investment
in the band. Google claims that an SAS can dynamically calculate an
appropriate default protection area for each site, based upon local
terrain, pointing directions for the FSS antenna, and other site-
specific considerations. Such protection areas could be based upon the
antenna gain and receiving system noise temperature of the particular
antenna for which the protection area is being calculated. However, a
default protection area would only demarcate a region beyond which all
CBSDs will be considered non-interfering. Within the protection area,
CBSDs would be permitted to operate, provided that an SAS determines
that aggregate interference does not exceed the interference
thresholds.
246. In its reply comments, Google proposes a seven step
methodology for calculating interference protection for FSS earth
stations. Google's approach, which accounts for individual FSS site
characteristics and interference from individual, as well as aggregate,
CBSD operations, includes calculations of FSS antenna gain in the
direction of a CBSD requesting authorization to operate, CBSD power
spectral density in the direction of the FSS antenna, path loss between
the CBSD and FSS earth station antenna, the received interference power
at the FSS antenna from the CBSD seeking authorization and the
aggregate interference power from all CBSDs within a default protection
area, and a comparison of the aggregate calculated power to an
interference threshold. Under Google's proposal, SASs would only allow
CBSDs to operate if the aggregate power of all CBSDs in the area falls
below the permissible interference threshold.
247. Regarding the applicability of the example methodology in
Appendix D of the 3650-3700 MHz Band R&O, Google asserts that the
Commission should not adopt the separation distance methodology in
Appendix D because it contains latent assumptions that are not
discernible from the information provided. Examples include assumptions
regarding propagation models and interference objectives that are built
into the equations. Electrodynamics states that their testing proves
that the Appendix D methodology is insufficient because there is not an
adequate basis for microclimate analysis to justify the methodology.
248. WinnForum also recommends that the Commission adopt
calculation methods to protect FSS earth stations that are based on
actual deployment characteristics and public, scientifically reviewed
propagation models. WinnForum believes that the geometric approach in
Appendix D is an appropriate method for the SAS to use in calculating
protections for FSS earth stations. Specifically, WinnForum contends
that the operating parameters laid out in Table 1 of Appendix D--
including antenna gain parameters, system noise temperature, and
bandwidth--are appropriate parameters for the SAS to use in protection
calculations. These operating parameters also include the antenna
reference pattern in section 25.209(a) (47 CFR 25.209(a)), system noise
temperature of 142.8 K, polarization (linear or circular), and receive
bandwidth (40 kHz-36 MHz).
249. SIA argues that while some aspects of the Appendix D
methodology such as the geometric analysis are useful elements for
conducting co-existence analyses and calculating exclusion distances
for CBSDs with respect to individual FSS earth stations, the Appendix D
methodology is not sufficient to adequately protect FSS operations from
interference from CBSDs. SIA claims that Appendix D has two major
flaws. First, it does not provide a means to calculate separation
distances required when there are multiple small cell interfering
transmitters and therefore cannot be used to consider aggregate
interference. Second, the separation distance formula does not consider
critically important variable parameters such as the power of the in-
band interfering signal, the elevation profile from the earth station
to the small cell location of the interfering in-band signal, the
terrain profile for the specific location, the time variability of
propagation path loss, and the earth station receiver noise
temperature. Further, SIA states that, since Appendix D does not
discuss the origin of the formula or the constants it uses, SIA lacks
the information necessary to suggest appropriate modifications and
additional data for adapting the formula for application to the 3.5 GHz
Band.
250. SIA supports the adoption of protection criteria that use
worst-case assumptions rather than real-world deployment conditions.
SIA claims that an approach based on a real-world interference
protection system is misguided because it would be difficult to
achieve, unduly burden FSS
[[Page 49054]]
operators, and raise significant confidentiality concerns. SIA argues
that a real-world interference protection system would be challenging
to implement because it would require design, development,
installation, testing, and maintenance of carrier monitoring hardware,
software, and communications links among the FSS earth stations and the
SAS. According to SIA, such a system would impose unreasonable burdens
on FSS operators who would have to report changes every time they
occur. Moreover, the system would need to include highly commercially
sensitive information such as frequencies, bandwidths, and carrier-to-
noise ratios.
251. Federated Wireless contends that SIA's approach is far too
conservative and, by stacking worst case assumptions atop one another,
presents an unrealistic view of the interference environment in the 3.5
GHz Band. Federated Wireless supports an approach based in real-world
deployment characteristics and measured data. Federated Wireless notes
that the Spectrum and Receiver Performance Working Group of the
Commission's Technological Advisory Council (TAC) has endorsed a
similar approach. Federated Wireless also proposes that active sensing
of the radio environment in the vicinity of FSS earth station
receivers, is technically feasible and could enhance the protection
provided to incumbents. According to Federated Wireless, such an
approach could be based on propagation models and providing real-time
measurement of aggregate interference to the SAS as part of a closed
loop system that ensures I/N levels do not exceed protection criteria,
even during anomalous propagation conditions. It encourages field
trials with the satellite community to demonstrate the effectiveness of
SAS protections.
(ii) Discussion
252. As we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, we believe that protections
for FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band should be flexible and
customized to the specific parameters of each earth station and the
interference environment in the vicinity of each earth station. We
agree with commenters that argue that the information submitted by
registered CBSDs and FSS earth stations should be used to customize the
protections afforded to FSS earth stations on temporal, spectral, and
geographic bases and should not be based on worst case assumptions. In
addition, as discussed below, while we do not mandate a specific
methodology for determining such protection areas, certain assumptions
used in Appendix D of the 3650-3700 MHz Band R&O are appropriate for
determining FSS protections in the 3.5 GHz Band as well.
253. We disagree with SIA's proposal to adopt static default
protection zones based on worst case assumptions. As Google and
Federated Wireless argue, such static protection zones are not
reflective of the actual interference protection needs of individual
FSS earth stations and will not promote efficient use of the band. The
approach advocated by Google and Federated Wireless is consistent with
the TAC's recommendation to the Commission, that ``. . . worst case
analyses, when applicable, [should be used] only to determine the
consequences of harmful interference, and tested statistical techniques
to assess risk [should be used] to perform a thorough assessment of the
impact of mixing different services in the same or nearby bands.''
254. We agree that the adoption of static protection zones based on
worst case assumptions would overprotect FSS earth stations at the
expense of new Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and would
effectively prohibit new deployment in some geographic areas without
any demonstration that such deployments would actually cause
interference to individual FSS earth stations. Such an approach would
be inconsistent with the Commission's goals as it would be likely to
impede innovation and erect barriers to efficient use of the band.
255. We also disagree with SIA's assertion that an interference
protection methodology based on real-world deployment factors would be
difficult to achieve, unduly burden FSS operators, and raise
confidentiality concerns. We address--and reject--SIA's arguments with
regard to the potential burdens of registering and updating earth
station criteria in section III(H) above. Moreover, we do not believe
that the information that FSS earth stations are required to register
with the Commission is likely to be commercially sensitive or
confidential (47 CFR 0.459). Indeed, SIA itself notes that much of the
information that FSS earth station licensees must register under
section 96.17 (47 CFR 96.17) is already registered with the Commission
in IBFS. We agree with those commenters, including Federated Wireless,
Google, and WinnForum that state that, by using the information from
FSS earth station registrations and CBSD registrations in the
surrounding area, SASs will be able to enforce customized protection
areas tailored to the specifications of each FSS earth station in the
3.5 GHz Band. We believe that such an approach will effectively protect
FSS earth stations, maximize spectral efficiency, and promote
deployment in the band.
256. We also believe that it is appropriate to establish an area
around FSS earth stations over which SASs will calculate potential
interference power levels from all CBSDs in that area to reduce the
burden on SASs and narrow the field for interference calculations.
CBSDs outside of this area are deemed to be too far away to cause
interference. Reasonably defined areas will limit the number of CBSDs
that SASs would have to account for in calculating protection areas
without increasing the risk of interference to FSS earth stations. As
such, we find that SASs should account for in-band, co-frequency
interference from all CBSDs within 150 km of an FSS earth station when
calculating protection distances. This distance is consistent with the
150 km FSS protection distance established in the 3650-3700 MHz Band
R&O. We also adopt 40 km as the distance for adjacent emission and
blocking interference calculations based on the analysis presented in
this proceeding by Alion. We emphasize that these are not default
protection areas but merely the areas within which SASs must account
for aggregate interference from CBSDs when calculating protections for
individual FSS earth stations.
257. Regarding the methodology used to calculate protection areas
for FSS earth stations the 3.5 GHz R&O concluded that an analytic
framework similar to the one detailed in the 3650-3700 MHz Band R&O
would be applicable to the 3.5 GHz Band. We sought comment on the
applicability and use of this methodology in the Second FNPRM. While
some commenters agree with aspects of the Appendix D methodology, most
encouraged us not to adopt the approach in its entirety for the 3.5 GHz
Band. After review of the record, we agree that the Appendix D
methodology includes some relevant components but it is not wholly
suitable for an SAS-based protection system. For instance, in the
Second FNPRM, we proposed that FSS earth station protection criteria be
based on the FSS earth station off-axis antenna gain performance
standard that was in section 25.209(a) of our rules at that time (47
CFR 25.209(a)). Those rules specified an envelope of maximum FSS
antenna gain as a function of the angle (in degrees) from the main lobe
(47 CFR 25.209(a)(1) and (4)). The SAS can use this standard for the
calculation of aggregate interference from CBSDs located at different
angles and distances from the FSS antenna main beam. We agree with
WinnForum that the
[[Page 49055]]
Commission's rules that allow earth stations to register pointing
information along with its operating parameters would enable such
geometric calculations. Specifically, we adopt the use of section
25.209(a)(1) and (4) (47 CFR 25.209(a)(1) and (4)) FSS antenna gain
envelopes in the methodology for calculating exclusion distances. We
also agree with Google's suggestion that we adopt the FSS system noise
floor value in Appendix D (142.8 K). This value was originally derived
from SIA's filings in the 3650-3700 MHz proceeding. Since its adoption,
we are unaware of any complaints related to the use of this system
noise floor value in the 3650-3700 MHz Wireless Broadband Service.
258. We are encouraged by the efforts of commenters to address the
development and implementation of protection methodologies for FSS
earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band. We believe that these approaches--
or elements thereof--may be used to establish consistent, flexible, and
effective protections for FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band.
However, in the interest of promoting technological and operational
flexibility, we do not believe that the specific calculation approach
in all aspects should be codified beyond the rules adopted in this
section. We direct WTB and OET to address whether and how to do so
during the SAS approval process, consistent with the approach adopted
in this order.
259. We encourage industry to further develop improvements to
protection criteria standards and incumbent reliability requirements
that are more transparent and reproducible, based on measurements and
operational experience, using realistic deployment scenarios that are
representative of real risk. We also encourage industry to continue to
develop novel technological approaches to interference protection,
including sensing techniques, which may be used to improve protection
criteria in the future.
c. Interference Protection Criteria
(i) Background
260. In the Second FNPRM, we agreed with commenters that responded
to the FNPRM that FSS earth stations could be effectively protected by
establishing a maximum aggregate power limit at each FSS earth station.
We stated that an aggregate threshold level should be based on a
theoretical thermal noise floor (Interference-to-Noise ratio; I/N) and
account for earth station receiver performance degradation as a result
of both desired and undesired signals (Carrier-to-Interference-plus-
Noise ratio; C/(I+N)). We proposed that signals from CBSDs at the
output of the FSS antenna system be permitted up to this aggregate
threshold 47 CFR 25.209(a). We also proposed that each SAS calculate
the permissible separation distance for a CBSD requesting activation,
using an appropriate calculation methodology and propagation model, and
taking into account the registered parameters of the CBSD and FSS earth
station. We sought comment on appropriate interference protection
criteria and requested technical analyses and field studies to support
any such submissions. We instructed commenters to assume the use of
appropriate, commercially available earth station receiver input
filters in compiling their analyses.
261. SIA, Google, and the WinnForum propose to protect in-band FSS
earth stations from aggregate interference using a protection criterion
equal to an I/N of -12 dB. This value is derived from ITU-R S.1432-1.
Google proposes that interference into FSS earth stations should not
exceed 6% of the system noise temperature, corresponding to I/N of -12
dB. WinnForum agrees and contends that in-band FSS earth stations
should be required to accept no more than 6% of the noise floor (I/N =
-12 dB) in aggregate interference. SIA also argues that interference
protection criteria should be based on limiting the increase of an
earth station receiver's noise floor to 6%, equal to I/N of -12 dB.
262. Federated Wireless claims that I/N of -12 dB is overly
conservative and that the real characteristics of FSS systems and
potential interferers should be used for interference analysis.
Federated Wireless goes on to say that at a minimum, the proper
application of ITU-R S.1432 would result in the use of I/N of -12 dB
criterion for long term effects, which suggests support for I/N of -12
dB as an initial long term median value for protection, subject to
future change and improvement as more evidence of the real
characteristics of FSS systems and potential interferers becomes known.
In a separate filing, Federated Wireless asked the Commission to take
note of the approach to managing interference from End User Devices
that was suggested in the final report of the Commerce Spectrum
Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) Working Group 1(CSMAC Report).
Federated Wireless argues that the CSMAC Report supports the use of a
protection criterion equal to I/N of -10 dB as proposed in various ITU
documents. iPosi also disagrees with SIA regarding the level of
protection that should be afforded, and proposes an aggregate source I/
N of -6 dB, stating that while FSS link margins are small, the
allowable aggregate interference must be measurable.
263. Radio Soft & LS Telecom contend that interference criteria
should be based on C/(I+N) because, as described in the FNPRM, noise
floor itself is too pessimistic, considering that signals even a few dB
above noise will allow dramatically improved access to CBSDs without
any reliability degradation to an incumbent FSS. While proposing an I/N
value of -12 dB, Google asserts that this value represents only 0.25 dB
in noise floor degradation, and represents an even smaller portion of
the carrier-to-interference plus noise (C/(I+N)) ratio. SIA argues that
interference protection criteria should not be based on C/(I+N),
explaining that the desired signal level at the FSS should not be a
part of the calculation. SIA states that this would require the FSS to
report signal level changes every time they occur, which would be
unduly burdensome and has not been proposed in this proceeding.
(ii) Discussion
264. Many commenters argue that protection of FSS earth station
receivers from aggregate interference should be based on a received
interference power limit at the FSS receiver. We agree that allowing
the SAS to calculate protections based on an aggregate interference
limit would be the most flexible and efficient means of protecting FSS
earth stations and facilitating widespread deployment in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. Accordingly, we require the SASs to utilize
the received interference power to determine appropriate and consistent
protections tailored to the actual deployment and operational
parameters of FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band consistent with
the approach described above.
265. Commenters representing both satellite interests and new-
entrants contend that protection for FSS earth stations should be based
on an I/N of -12 dB, as set forth in ITU-R S.1432-1 at the FSS earth
station's receiver. As noted above, there are also some commenters that
believe this criterion is overly conservative. Consistent with the
majority of commenters on this issue, we find that using I/N of -12 dB
as a long term median threshold will provide sufficient protection for
in-band FSS earth stations. While we are basing our approach to FSS
protection on this value, we note that some commenters believe that it
may be more conservative than is necessary to protect FSS earth
stations. We agree that this threshold may be conservative but we do
not
[[Page 49056]]
believe that commenters provide sufficient evidence for us to adopt a
less conservative I/N value for protection of FSS earth stations at
this time. Nonetheless, we will monitor industry efforts to study the
real world protection needs of FSS earth stations in the band as well
as the effects of Citizens Broadband Radio Service equipment on such
earth stations. We may revisit the interference threshold in the future
if justified by future technical studies and real world observations.
266. Consistent with these findings, we adopt a long term
interference threshold for protecting FSS from in-band co-channel
interference from CBSD fundamental emissions. We adopt a long term
median aggregate protection limit based on I/N of -12 dB at the output
of the FSS antenna system, with the FSS system noise, N, based on T =
142.8 K as noted above. Thus, the long term median threshold is the
thermal system noise floor of the FSS receiver raised by the acceptable
added interference (-12 dB) relative to that system noise level, which
equates to: I = -129 dBm/MHz (this is calculated using the equation in
dBm/MHz; I = N + I/N = (k+T+B) + I/N = -198.6 dBm/Hz/K + 21.5 dB-K + 60
dB-Hz/MHz + (-12 dB); where 21.5 dB-K is equivalent to 142.8 K; 21.5 =
10log10(142.8)).
267. We also reject SIA's proposal to apply the interference
protection methodology described in ITU-R S.1432-1 in the 3.5 GHz Band.
We note that SIA has argued in favor of utilizing ITU-R S.1432-1 in
other proceedings and we have consistently refused to adopt all of its
methods and assumptions. Notably, in the 3650-3700 MHz Band R&O, we
found that the specifications in ITU-R S.1432-1 are design criteria for
FSS earth stations, not interference protection criteria and,
accordingly, rejected its specifications as suitable interference
criteria in that proceeding. While ITU-R S.1432-1 utilizes the long-
term I/N of -12 that commenters support and we adopt, it also includes
assumptions and approaches that are inapplicable to terrestrial mobile
services. Indeed, ITU-R S.1432-1 specifically addresses degradations to
FSS signals from time invariant interference and notes that there are
currently no recommendations dealing with interference from co-primary
allocated mobile systems into FSS systems, while the 3.5 GHz Band will
likely be used for terrestrial mobile service. As a result, the
assumptions and methods used in ITU-R S.1432-1 are not necessarily
applicable to this band. The assumptions are based on an arbitrary
allotment of time invariant interference and do not clearly define the
time allowance corresponding to other sources of interference.
Moreover, the assumptions are unsupported by either performance
measurements or operational experience. Therefore, consistent with
established Commission precedent, we find that the ITU approach is
inappropriate for use with terrestrial mobile service and decline to
adopt the methodology described in ITU-R S.1432-1 for this band.
268. We believe that the long-term median interference limit
adopted herein will effectively protect in-band FSS earth stations from
interference. However, we encourage prospective SAS Administrators to
consider the possibility of short-term interference while developing
their protection models for submission during the SAS approval process
and to work with FSS earth station licensees to resolve any reports of
actual interference, consistent with section 96.17(f) (47 CFR
96.17(f)).
269. Reference FSS RF Filter. In the NPRM, we sought comment on
methods of mitigating out-of-band interference from CBSDs. In the
FNPRM, we specifically sought comment on the use of filters to reduce
or eliminate interference from out-of-band sources. In the Second
FNPRM, we instructed commenters to assume the use of appropriate,
commercially available earth station receiver input filters when
performing interference analyses. A diverse array of commenters
addressed the efficacy of filters throughout this proceeding and
utilized filtering assumptions in analyzing interference effects on FSS
earth stations. After review of the record and consistent with the
Commission's instructions in the Second FNPRM, we require that the SAS
must utilize assumptions consistent with the capabilities of
commercially available filters in determining interference protections
for FSS earth stations.
270. The Content Interests sponsored analyses by Alion have
referenced a commonly available RF filter from Microwave Filter Co
(Model 13961W) in their coexistence studies. The Content Interests
sponsored analysis by Comsearch uses an FSS RF filter mask for a
commercially available C-Band interference elimination filter that has
similar characteristics. While these references are for commercial
filters applied to the C-Band, we believe that these RF filter masks
represent state-of-the art filter performance that would also be
commonly found for protecting FSS earth stations in the 3600-3700 MHz
band. As evidence of this, we find two examples of C-Band RF filters
from Microwave Filter Co. with passband lower edges at 3600 MHz and
3625 MHz, and a filter from Eagle Comtronics Inc. with a passband lower
edge at 3600 MHz, all with similar rejection characteristics and low
insertion loss.
271. We expect that FSS licensees will take reasonable steps to
protect their licensed band of operation with applicable RF
interference rejection filters, and we therefore adopt a reference FSS
RF filter mask with similar characteristics as those referenced here.
Specifically, we adopt a reference RF filter to be considered for in-
band FSS protection with 0.5 dB insertion loss in the passband, 0.6 dB/
MHz attenuation to 30.5 dB at 50 MHz offset below the lower edge of the
FSS earth station's authorized passband and 0.25 dB/MHz attenuation to
55.5 dB at greater than or equal to 150 MHz offset below the lower edge
of the FSS earth station's authorized passband. Based on the filings in
the record regarding filter performance, we believe that these
specifications represent common capabilities of filters that are
commercially available in the band and should not be construed as an
endorsement of any particular technology, filter type, or product.
272. Blocking. As detailed above, throughout this proceeding, we
have sought comment on the effects of aggregate interference on FSS
earth station receivers (47 CFR 96.17). While much of the record has
been focused on the effects of co-channel interference and OOBE on FSS
earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band, some commenters have argued that
receiver blocking effects due to strong signal effects from adjacent
channel CBSD transmissions may also cause significant interference to
FSS earth stations by overloading or blocking the RF front end of these
receivers. Indeed, the Commission specifically sought comment on the
point at which even significantly reduced OOBE limits would cease to
provide additional protection benefits due to these blocking effects.
Specifically, commenters have filed analyses with calculations of the
maximum RF input power that can be fed to an FSS earth station's low
noise block downconverter (LNB) from neighboring non-FSS transmitters
operating outside of the FSS earth station's authorized passband, while
still maintaining reasonable linear performance. They contend that RF
input power from fundamental emissions outside of the FSS earth
station's authorized passband that exceed this FSS input power limit
can cause serious distortion and interference, called LNA/LNB
overdrive, LNB saturation, or blocking. After
[[Page 49057]]
review of this information, we find that it is appropriate to limit
fundamental CBSD emissions outside of the FSS earth station's
authorized passband so that the aggregate RF power at the output of a
reference FSS RF filter and antenna system would not exceed a median
adjacent blocking interference threshold.
273. SIA has filed a study of sharing considerations between small
cells and geostationary satellite networks in the 3.4-4.2 GHz band. SIA
references ITU-R M.2109 that analyzes the possibility of FSS LNA/LNB
overdrive into non-linear operation at input power of -60 dBm. SIA
states, ``There is a large variance between devices of this power
level, with input power levels typically ranging anywhere from -44 dBm
to -60 dBm. However, a median value of -55 dBm can be used as a
representative number.'' Furthermore, SIA states ``The maximum input
power that can be fed into the LNA/LNB and still maintain linear
operation is unique to each device but is approximately 10 dB below the
input power level associated with the 1 dB gain compression point (see
Section 8.1.1 and Annex E of ITU-R M.2109). Accordingly, the maximum
power that can be fed into the LNA/LNB and have the device remain in
the linear mode of operation is approximately -65 dBm'' The large
variance in input power limits and the median value of -55 dBm cited by
SIA above are all represented without reference to specific
manufacturer products or specifications. We have analyzed a specific
product that we believe has typical performance characteristics. That
filter, on which we base the blocking limit, has an input power limit
of -54 dBm, which differs from the median value cited by SIA by only 1
dB. Because we are basing the requirement on a typical filter and there
is variance among filters that are commercially available, we believe
that a more conservative 6 dB back-off from this input power limit,
rather than the 3 dB recommended by SIA is appropriate. We therefore
adopt -60 dBm RMS as the median blocking limit from aggregate adjacent
CBSDs, at the output of a reference RF filter and antenna. We believe
this results in a reasonable threshold that would effectively protect
many devices but not necessarily the worst case weakest device with the
lowest input power limit. Finally, we note that these specifications
represent common capabilities of filters that are commercially
available in the band and should not be construed as an endorsement of
any particular technology, filter type, or product.
d. RF Propagation Models
(i) Background
274. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on what propagation
model(s) are best suited for SAS-based protections of FSS. We also
requested measurement results to validate model parameters for short
range and long range propagation scenarios involving urban clutter,
environmental factors, and indoor-to-outdoor propagation. We
tentatively concluded that each SAS must use the same propagation
model.
275. Commenters including AT&T and SIA recommend the use of a
single propagation model or a uniform set of models to promote fairness
and consistency. AT&T advocates the use of uniform models across SASs,
vetted and validated by an expert international body. AT&T asserts that
such models would produce the same results, simplify SAS administration
by reducing the frequency in which SASs need to communicate with each
other, and would prevent conflicting spectrum assignments between users
served by different SASs. SIA urges the Commission to mandate the use
of ITU propagation model ITU-R P.452-15. SIA argues that this model is
well suited for point-to-point interference predictions and able to
account for actual terrain variations between transmitter and receiver.
SIA asserts that, to adequately protect FSS incumbents, the prescribed
level of interference cannot be exceeded, and that any propagation
model must measure how high the interference is, rather than how often
some level is exceeded. SIA also argues that it is crucial that the
propagation model be vetted by ITU Study Group 3 or an appropriate
scientific body such as NTIA's Boulder ITS.
276. Other commenters argue that the Commission should allow SAS
Administrators to adopt varying propagation models to promote
investment, innovation, and more intensive spectrum use in the 3.5 GHz
Band. Google argues that variation in interference determination
capabilities does not cause disparate protection requirements or
operational inconsistencies because the inability to determine non-
interference is not the same as a determination of interference.
According to Google, both results adequately protect incumbents, and
they are not inconsistent--one simply employs methods that determine
non-interference in a particular location with a higher degree of
certainty. Moreover, Google argues that results of these interference
determinations will be shared with other SAS Administrators, so all
providers can make use of the most precise determination, without any
additional operational complexity. Google also argues that while ITU-R
P.452-15 can serve as a suitable baseline or safe-harbor propagation
model, the Commission's certification process provides a means for
vetting modified approaches followed by public testing. Dynamic
Spectrum Alliance and OTI/PK also argue that the Commission should
establish a baseline propagation model and allow SAS providers to
differentiate themselves by offering more sophisticated modeling
techniques.
277. WinnForum members recommend that while such models are in
development, the Commission should require SASs to use an existing
public and reviewed interference prediction propagation model, such as
ITU P.452-15, or the ITM model developed by NTIA. There is agreement
among WinnForum members to use an interference prediction propagation
model, however, there is no agreement as to whether different SAS
implementations should be permitted to make use of different
propagation models. As another alternative, iPosi proposes a
conservative deterministic approach to FSS protection by using measured
building loss coupled with free space path loss, arguing that clutter
models are statistical and require a leap of faith as to their accuracy
for the specific scenario.
(ii) Discussion
278. After review of the record, we continue to believe that it is
in the public interest for each SAS to utilize the same propagation
model for FSS earth station protection. However, we also decline to
impose a specific propagation model at this time and encourage industry
to work collaboratively to develop a simple, easily implementable model
(e.g., the ITM/Extended Hata model used to determine the coastal
Exclusion Zones). This model may account for terrain and clutter, must
be implementable by any SAS, and must not rely on proprietary
information unavailable to all SAS Administrators. We direct WTB and
OET, in coordination with NTIA and DoD, to review any such models
submitted as part of the SAS approval process and to select an
appropriate model prior to final approval of any SASs.
279. We disagree with commenters that contend that each SAS
Administrator should be permitted to
[[Page 49058]]
use its own propagation model to determine protection for FSS earth
stations. Such an approach could result in inconsistent and, in some
cases, incompatible protection determination between different SASs.
While Google asserts that allowing for differentiated propagation
models would not lead to inconsistent results between SAS
Administrators, it has not presented sufficient evidence that would
lead us to support such a counter intuitive conclusion. Moreover, even
if Google's assertions are plausible, we believe that, especially at
the outset, simplicity and consistency will serve the public interest
more than additional flexibility for SAS Administrators. To effectively
promote investment and ensure that FSS earth stations are protected, it
is important for all users in the band--incumbents and Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users alike--to have confidence that protection
criteria will be applied uniformly by all SASs. This approach is
consistent with our policies regarding federal incumbent protection and
determinations of Priority Access use as set forth in section IV(A)(2).
Consistency among SASs will promote predictable and stable spectrum
assignments, assure uniform protection of FSS earth stations, and
encourage robust deployment in the band. We therefore find that it is
in the public interest for SASs to make use of the same propagation
model for determining FSS protections.
280. While we decline to impose a particular propagation model at
this time, we disagree with SIA's assertions that the Commission should
use a propagation model that protects against worst case interference
scenarios. Utilizing a free space model or another model that does not
account for real world propagation effects and conditions would
unnecessarily overprotect FSS earth stations and impede deployment in
the band. The Commission's goal is to ensure that Incumbent Users are
protected consistent with real world applications and conditions and
the propagation model used to protect Incumbent Users must reflect and
further those goals.
281. Finally, we recognize certain limitations of the models that
have been suggested in the record, such as ITU-R P.452 and Longley-Rice
ITM. We agree, for example, with the statement in ITU-R M.2109 that, in
using the propagation model in ITU-R P.452, a smooth earth model that
is representative of coastal areas and flat inland plain regions, is
not representative of areas that have different physical
characteristics and the use of such a model may result in the
overestimation of the interference into a receiving FSS earth station.
This is an example of the fact that one propagation model may not be
suitable for all RF environments, and that multiple models (either in
combination or applied individually in the circumstances for which they
are best suited) may be appropriate in covering diverse environments
with multiple characteristics (e.g., urban clutter, over sea and land,
long distance rural paths, etc.). We also note that the Extended-Hata
model was creatively used in conjunction with ITM by NTIA for analyzing
interference protection zones to protect incumbent DoD Navy radar
systems in this band. We believe that the limitations of any single
model in covering diverse RF environments (including indoor and outdoor
environments) and the need for accurate modeling to help determine
protections, require more industry model development prior to selecting
a default propagation modeling method for use in the 3.5 GHz Band. We
encourage the industry to continue to pursue creative approaches to
propagation modeling that accurately account for real world effects
across a variety of terrains and deployment scenarios.
e. Other Issues
(i) Background
282. Policy and Methods for Adjudicating Demands for Increased
Spectrum Use. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on fair and non-
discriminatory methods of adjudicating requests for increased spectrum
use at a location that would exceed the protection threshold for an FSS
earth station receiver. We also sought comment on solutions that avoid
caps on CBSD service deployment, while protecting FSS earth stations
from harmful interference.
283. WinnForum continues to study the issue of aggregate
interference margin allotment and did not propose a specific
methodology for addressing requests that could exceed the aggregate
interference threshold for a particular FSS earth station. WinnForum
members agree that aggregate interference protection for FSS earth
stations is independent of the mechanism of application of those
limits.
284. SIA argues that protection of incumbent FSS is not possible
with unconstrained interference growth and, as such, some maximum
aggregate interference limit must be enforced. According to SIA,
enforcement of such aggregate interference caps may result in a cap on
CBSD deployment in a given geographic area or frequency range. Google
argues that a variety of approaches to managing aggregate interference
from multiple CBSDs may be suitable, and it is neither necessary nor
beneficial to impose one particular method in the Commission's rules.
According to Google, it may be appropriate to impose some level of
power adjustment in cases of extreme congestion, but the methodology
for doing so need not be universal and can be better addressed by the
Commission through the SAS approval process. Google states that
regardless of how the Commission chooses to protect aggregate effects,
it is important for the Commission to do so.
285. Methods for Ensuring That End User Devices Do Not Interfere
with FSS. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on reasonable methods
for ensuring that the mobility, location, and orientation of End User
Devices are managed effectively to avoid excessive interference to in-
band FSS earth stations, while avoiding a mandate for geo-location
requirements on End User Devices. As discussed in detail in section
III(E), commenters were sharply divided on the issue of mandatory geo-
location for End User Devices.
286. Federated Wireless also submitted a comment asking the
Commission to take note of the approach to managing interference from
End User Devices that was suggested in the CSMAC Report. According to
Federated Wireless, ``[i]n the CSMAC Report, the EIRP of each UE used
to compute the aggregate interference level is randomly selected in
accordance with the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) curves,
generated through Monte-Carlo simulations based on realistic UE
operating conditions.'' Federated Wireless asserts that this is a
useful corollary to the methods that the SAS will use to calculate
potential interference from End User Devices in the 3.5 GHz Band.
(ii) Discussion
287. Policy and Methods for Adjudicating Requests for Increased
Spectrum Use. We decline to adopt a specific policy for adjudicating
demands for increased spectrum use. We agree with Google that that
there are multiple methods and tools at the disposal of SAS
Administrators (e.g., power control, GAA frequency reassignment, etc.)
to ensure that the FSS protection criteria established in our rules are
not exceeded. We believe that SAS Administrators should be permitted
flexibility in addressing these issues within the framework established
by the Commission's rules. We direct WTB and OET to carefully review
any
[[Page 49059]]
such approaches submitted as part of the SAS approval process.
288. Methods for Ensuring That End User Devices Do Not Interfere
with FSS. As discussed in detail in section III(F), we will not adopt a
mandate for geo-location of End User Devices. We believe that CBSDs--
which operate at significantly higher power levels than End User
Devices--will be the primary sources of potential interference in the
band and, therefore, they are the devices that should be monitored for
interference protection purposes. However, we recognize that some
commenters have raised concerns about potential interference from End
User Devices. In light of the low power permitted for these devices, we
do not believe that it is necessary at this time to adopt rules to
directly address potential interference from End User Devices. However,
we encourage the industry to develop standards for analyzing and
modeling interference from End User Devices. Similarly, we encourage
SAS administrators to take such models into account when developing
interference protection strategies. We direct WTB and OET to review
such approaches during and after the SAS approval process and take
appropriate steps to address any such interference if it arises.
2. C-Band FSS Protection
a. Background
289. As described in detail in section III(E) above, in the 3.5 GHz
R&O, we adopted stringent out-of-band emission limits for protection of
adjacent C-band FSS earth stations. In the Second FNPRM, we sought
further comment on whether any measures in addition to the OOBE limits
are needed to protect C-Band FSS earth stations from out-of-band
interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and, if so,
what those measures should be. We also sought comment as to whether the
protection criteria for out-of-band FSS earth stations should be the
same or different than for in-band FSS earth stations.
290. SIA argues that C-Band earth stations should be protected from
OOBE from CBSDs and End User Devices based on limiting any increase in
the noise floor to no more than 1%, equivalent to I/N of -20 dB,
consistent with ITU-R S.1432-1. GCI supports this position and argues
that this strict protection criteria is necessary to protect critical
services provided by C-Band users. As described in section III(C)
above, SIA also argued in its petition for reconsideration that
significant separation distances would be needed to protect FSS earth
stations. As part of its petition, SIA submitted a technical analysis
by RKF Engineering using an out-of-band interference criterion of I/N =
-23 dB. In addition, SIA notes that C-Band satellites are required to
locate their TT&C operations close to the 3700 MHz band-edge.
291. Google argues that the Commission should reject SIA's
suggestion that C-Band FSS earth stations be protected at a level
equivalent to an I/N of -20 dB. Google argues that this approach would
limit noise floor degradation to a virtually unmeasurable 0.04 dB and
limit interference temperature to an amount equivalent to about ``half
of the cosmic microwave background left over from the Big Bang.'' Put
another way, Google claims that, using SIA's criterion, ``satellite
earth stations will experience harmful interference if exposed to the
amount of radiated emissions received by an omnidirectional antenna
placed approximately 10 cm from a cup of coffee.'' According to Google,
such grossly conservative interference thresholds would needlessly
constrain deployment of CBSDs in the 3.5 GHz Band by restricting
harmless emissions.
292. The Content Interests also filed in support of expansive
protections for C-Band FSS earth stations, in addition to the OOBE
limits adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O. They contend that, since C-Band
operations play a critical role in delivering television content to
hundreds of millions of people, any parameters the Commission adopts
for operations in the 3.5 GHz Band must be carefully analyzed to ensure
C-Band operations do not experience interference. The Content Interests
also submitted a study by Alion to update two previous studies
submitted in this proceeding on the effects of Citizens Broadband Radio
Service operations on C-Band FSS earth stations, to account for the
technical rules adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O, including the OOBE limits
adopted in that order. The new Alion study asserts that: Protecting a
C-Band earth station from a single CBSD would require a protection
distance of up to 9.63 km for Category A devices and up to 16.4 km for
Category B devices (rural or non-rural). Alion contends that, in one
scenario which looked at potential anomalous propagation effects, the
required protection distance could be more than 125 km for Category B
rural and non-rural devices. Thus, Alion concludes that future Citizens
Broadband Radio Service operations must be coordinated with C-Band FSS
earth stations to prevent harmful interference to C-Band operations.
Alion also claims that the protection distances for multiple CBSDs
could be significantly larger than for single-entry cases and that the
addition of a few dozen CBSDs could double or triple the required
protection distance. Alion asserts that SAS(s) must be sophisticated
enough to know how many CBSDs are deployed in an area and appropriately
extend the protection zone such that aggregated emissions do not
violate the interference threshold.
293. Federated Wireless agrees with the Content Interests on the
importance of protecting incumbent C-Band operations from any harmful
interference that may be generated by CBSDs. It states that both
knowledge of specific propagation conditions and providing accurate
CBSD and incumbent earth station radio configuration information to the
SAS is vital for spectrum sharing and incumbent protection. However,
Federated Wireless notes that the aggregate interference calculations
will not be overly complex, because they need only to be focused on a
discrete site. As such, Federated Wireless argues that the calculations
needed to determine FSS earth station protections are simpler than the
mechanisms that will be implemented to protect PALs which require
protection around an entire contour. Federated Wireless also disagrees
with the assumptions and engineering inputs applied in the Alion
analysis. Federated Wireless contends that these assumptions and inputs
are overly conservative and, while theoretically possible, in no way
reflect expected operating conditions for either C-Band FSS earth
stations or Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. Federated Wireless
argues that the Alion analysis compounds worst-case assumptions that do
not accurately reflect the likely interference environment in the 3.5
GHz Band, leading to wholly unrealistic interference computations.
According to Federated Wireless, these worst-case assumptions include:
(1) Unclear application of the propagation model; (2) misleading
application of I/N thresholds; (3) unrealistic FSS elevation angle
assumptions; (4) excessive CBSD installation height; (5) flawed
application of device emission masks; (6) worst-case CBSD operating
frequencies; and (7) overly conservative interference thresholds.
Federated also cites a warning recently expressed by the Commission's
Technological Advisory Council of the pitfalls of employing worst-case
assumption in interference analysis (i.e., ``Selecting single values,
often extreme `worst case'
[[Page 49060]]
values, is not representative of actual risk'').
294. Google also takes issue with the assumptions and methodologies
put forth by the Content Interests and Alion. Google contends that the
Content Interests and Alion's analysis depends on two mistaken
presumptions: (1) That C-Band FSS earth stations are entitled to
geographic protection in addition to the stringent OOBE limits
established in the 3.5 GHz Order; and (2) that worst-case assumptions
should be used to establish such protections. Google also questions the
validity of the Alion report's conclusions based on the fact that C-
Band FSS earth stations are frequently deployed in close proximity to
active 3650-3700 MHz band transmitters. Google argues that C-Band FSS
earth stations are not necessarily entitled to geographic protection of
their sites in addition to the OOBE limits adopted by the Commission
and, if such protections are adopted, they should be based on known
characteristics of FSS earth stations and CBSDs, not worst-case
assumptions.
295. There is no agreement among the members of the WinnForum on an
appropriate protection level for C-Band FSS earth stations. However,
consistent with its approach to the protection of in-band FSS earth
stations, WinnForum opposes the imposition of default protection areas
and supports a coordination approach based on terrain, clutter, and
other real-world considerations.
b. Discussion
296. As discussed in detail in section III(E), we continue to
believe that our stringent OOBE limits will act as the primary means of
protecting C-Band FSS earth station operations. Moreover, for reasons
discussed below, we are not persuaded by the commenters who assert that
measures in addition to those OOBE limits are needed to provide
adequate protection from interference to C-Band FSS earth station
operations, in most cases. However, we recognize that, in some
situations, additional measures may be appropriate for earth stations
performing critical TT&C functions. These protections will be
determined consistent with the processes and protection levels used to
determine protection areas for FSS earth stations in the 3600-3700 MHz
band. In addition, as described in section III(H)(2), we adopt measures
to facilitate communication and coordination among Citizens Broadband
Radio Service users, C-Band FSS licensees, and SAS Administrators to
effectively prevent and address any interference issues that may arise.
Finally, we emphasize that any C-Band FSS earth station licensees
seeking protection must submit an annual registration consistent with
section 96.17 of the Commission's rules or upon making changes to any
of the operational parameters listed in that section (47 CFR 96.17).
297. We disagree with assertions made by SIA, GCI, and the Content
Interests that all C-band FSS earth stations must be protected by
geographic protection zones to prevent interference to the services
provided by the operators of these earth stations. We address the
concerns raised by these commenters about the potential for harmful
interference into C-Band FSS earth stations with the stringent OOBE
limits adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O and affirmed in section III(E) above
and with new rules protecting TT&C earth stations and facilitating
coordination between Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and C-Band
FSS licensees. We also note that creating mandatory geographic
protection zones to protect FSS earth station licensees from co-primary
commercial operations in an adjacent band would be unprecedented.
Indeed, the Commission declined to extend such protections to licensees
in the C-Band when it adopted rules governing the 3650-3700 MHz Band
Wireless Broadband Service (47 CFR 90.1301 through 90.1338).
Accordingly, consistent with Commission precedent, we will not require
SAS Administrators to establish geographic protection areas for C-Band
FSS earth station licensees.
298. While we do not believe that geographic protections should be
mandatory for all C-Band FSS earth stations, we do agree that it would
be appropriate to extend additional protections to FSS earth stations
used for TT&C using the same methods used to protect FSS earth stations
in the 3.5 GHz Band. As SIA correctly notes, the Commission requires
FSS operators to perform TT&C operations in band edge spectrum (47 CFR
25.202(g)). As a result, according to SIA, C-Band satellites frequently
rely on a telemetry carrier near 3700 MHz. We recognize the critical
importance of these TT&C functions to ensuring the safe operation and
control of C-Band satellite systems and, accordingly, we will require
SAS Administrators to implement and enforce additional protection
criteria for these earth stations. Consistent with our approach to
protecting in-band FSS earth stations, SAS Administrators will be
required to model protection areas based on a median I/N of -12 dB at
earth stations with TT&C earth stations operating in accordance with
section 25.202(g) (47 CFR 25.202(g)). We find that utilizing the same
protection criteria for in-band FSS earth stations and C-Band TT&C
earth stations is in the public interest and consistent with the
Commission's goals for this band. In addition, because these TT&C
functions are performed from relatively few C-Band earth stations, the
additional protection we are providing should not present a significant
impediment to deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band or a significant
additional burden for SAS Administrators. C-Band earth stations used
for TT&C functions will be protected using the same processes and
technological assumptions used to protect earth stations in the 3600-
3700 MHz band, as described in section IV(C)(1). In light of our
conclusions below on the potential for interference, we believe this
approach strikes the appropriate balance between the concerns of C-Band
licensees and the need to create an environment conducive to robust
deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band.
299. Though we find that C-Band earth stations used for TT&C should
be afforded protection based on a maximum I/N at their receivers, we do
not agree with the methodology or results of the Alion report. As
Federated Wireless argues, the Alion report submitted by the Content
Interests relies on a series of worst case assumptions and overly
conservative protection thresholds in reaching its conclusions about
the requisite protection distances for C-Band FSS earth stations. We
also take note of the TAC's recent assertion, cited by Federated
Wireless, that ``selecting single values, often extreme `worst case'
values, is not representative of actual risk.'' We agree and believe
that Alion's worst case assumptions combine to predict unrealistic and
overly restrictive protection areas which would stifle investment and
disincentivize new deployments. Protecting C-Band earth stations in the
manner suggested by Alion would be inconsistent with our approach to
in-band FSS protection and would lead to inefficient spectrum use. As
such--just as with protection of in-band FSS earth stations--we are
basing protection of C-Band FSS earth stations used for TT&C on real
world deployment scenarios and operational conditions.
300. As evidenced by our adoption of an interference limit equal to
an I/N of -12 dB, we also find that SIA and GCI's request to protect
adjacent band FSS based on an I/N of -20 dB would lead to
overprotection of C-Band FSS earth stations and is not reflective of
the actual, real world protection requirements of C-Band earth
stations. Similarly, we reject SIA's modelling
[[Page 49061]]
approach which is based on an even more stringent I/N of -23 dB. We
agree with Google that this level of protection is unnecessary and
would likely overprotect C-Band FSS earth stations to a significant
degree. Indeed, Google contends that limiting emissions at the earth
station receiver to an I/N of -20 dB would limit noise floor
degradation to a virtually unmeasurable 0.04 dB and limit interference
temperature to an amount equivalent to about ``half of the cosmic
microwave background left over from the Big Bang.'' From the record, it
is unclear why adjacent band receivers should be protected to such a
stringent degree. Indeed, we can see no compelling public interest
reason to provide a greater degree of protection to services in an
adjacent band than we provide to co-primary services in the same band.
Accordingly, we find that the I/N limits advocated by SIA, GCI, and the
Content Interests are excessive and would lead to over-protection of
FSS earth stations in the C-Band. Such excessive protection would be
inconsistent with the Commission's desire to promote sharing and
encourage the robust development of innovative services in the 3.5 GHz
Band. Rather, we find that earth stations eligible for additional
protections under the rules (i.e., those with TT&C operations just
above 3700 MHz) should be protected using the same I/N limit and
methodology used to protect FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band.
301. While we do not believe that the public interest would be
served by requiring geographic protection of all C-Band FSS earth
stations, elsewhere in this order we adopt additional measures that
will help to address and mitigate the interference concerns raised by
commenters. Specifically, as described in section III(H), we adopt a
rule requiring SAS Administrators to accept and respond promptly to
reports of interference or requests for additional protection from C-
Band licensees (47 CFR 96.17(f)). We encourage SAS Administrators to
take appropriate steps to address any requests or complaints that they
receive, and direct WTB and OET to review complaint receipt and
resolution procedures during the SAS approval process. We emphasize
that the Commission retains ultimate authority over and responsibility
for addressing interference issues and conflicts between licensees. If
interference issues are not addressed in a satisfactory matter, the
Commission may impose additional requirements to ensure timely
mitigation and resolution.
302. Finally, we note that, consistent with the approach used to
protect in band FSS earth stations described in section IV(C)(1), the
Commission's rules assume the use of commercially available filters to
mitigate interference from OOBE. C-Band FSS earth stations seeking
protection under section 96.17 (47 CFR 96.17) of the Commission's rules
should employ appropriate filters to mitigate interference issues. Any
protections developed and implemented by SASs--whether mandatory
protections of earth stations used for TT&C or protections developed by
an SAS in response to a coordination request under section 96.17(f)--
will assume that such filters are in use (47 CFR 96.17(f)). While we
acknowledge that filters may not address all interference issues, there
is significant evidence in the record that filters are readily
available at a reasonable price and can help alleviate interference
concerns in many cases. We expect that, in an environment with multiple
co-primary services in adjacent bands, the responsibility for
interference mitigation and avoidance will be shared among the parties.
3. Device Authorization
a. Background
303. In the Second FNPRM we sought comment on Google's suggestion
that market incentives may be feasible to encourage industry to deploy
radios with improved (lower) adjacent emissions. We sought comment on
how such protection could be practically implemented without burdensome
equipment authorization requirements, necessitating changes to our part
2 rules (47 CFR 2.1, et seq.), and whether it could be achieved by
defining a small number of classes of devices that are distinguished by
increasingly stringent OOBE limits.
304. In response, Google reiterated its argument that by allowing
devices with better emissions performance to operate in closer
proximity to FSS operations the Commission would foster investment in
devices with improved OOBE characteristics. Google stresses that CBSDs
would not be required to meet OOBE requirements that are more stringent
than the ones set forth in part 96 but manufacturers should be given
the option to build devices that outperform the baseline requirements.
In turn, these devices could access spectrum in geographic areas not
accessible to devices with standard OOBE performance.
305. Google claims that adopting such an approach to OOBE will
require only minor adjustments to the Commission's equipment
certification framework and proposes specific changes to this process.
According to Google, certification reports should: (1) Specify actual
levels of OOBE; and (2) state the minimum level, in dB, by which the
device is lower than the regulatory limits (47 CFR 96.41(e)). The test
lab should also categorize the device within a class based on how much
it reduces OOBE beyond what is required and the device's class should
be included as a field in the FCC's certification database.
306. Federated Wireless states that it notionally supports Google's
proposal but urges the Commission to carefully review the proposed
modifications to our equipment authorization rules before making
changes that could hinder commercial development in the 3.5 GHz Band.
However, Federated Wireless also contends that it is possible that
Google's proposal for a process to categorize better performing devices
could be achieved by modifying the part 96 rules to state that when
equipment makers demonstrate conformance of CBSDs and end user devices
pursuant to other rule parts, they should provide the supporting data
to demonstrate conformance rather than just a pass/fail result.
307. SIA and Qualcomm both address this issue, as well. SIA
cautions that that ``relying on market incentives could undermine
device quality, since competitive pricing can eliminate the price
premium needed to achieve and maintain high quality in device
production.'' Further, SIA states that regardless of whether
manufacturers choose to market devices that perform better than is
required by OOBE limits, the devices would still need to be certified
to provide consumers with adequate assurances about a given device's
performance. Qualcomm expressly asks the Commission to reject Google's
proposal, arguing that since the OOBE limit ``just 20 MHz outside the
band edges will force 3.5 GHz equipment, at least mobile devices, to
implement power back-off, the FCC should not implement even tighter
OOBE limits at the upper edge of the band for certain classes of
devices to protect C-band FSS earth stations as described in the Second
FNPRM.'' Qualcomm argues that developing multiple classes of devices
would challenge equipment designs and likely force mobile devices to
use significantly less power and/or operate well within the 3.5 GHz
band edge to comply. Moreover, Qualcomm argues that should the
Commission consider implementing classes of devices with tighter OOBE
limits, it should first ``verify that satellite receiver blocking is
`not' the actual limiting factor, in which case more stringent OOBE
limits would not help and would be an unnecessary
[[Page 49062]]
regulatory burden.'' Google counters Qualcomm's arguments claiming that
Qualcomm appears to misunderstand Google's proposal, because no CBSD
would be required to meet more stringent OOBE requirements than set
forth in part 96. Instead, manufacturers would have the option to build
devices that outperform baseline requirements.
b. Discussion
308. We decline to make changes to our existing equipment
certification process or the rules governing OOBE power levels for
CBSDs and End User Devices. We must balance our over-arching goal of
encouraging innovation with the fact that the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service and the devices that will operate in the band are in the
nascent stages of development. As such, the rules that govern them must
not be overly complicated and must adequately protect incumbents. At
this stage, we believe that Google's proposal would add unnecessary
complication to our device authorization process, particularly in the
early stages of testing equipment that will operate in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. Further, there is no specific data that shows
this approach would not create a risk to incumbent operations and, as
noted by Qualcomm, it may not be effective at all if satellite receiver
blocking is more limiting than OOBE.
309. We disagree with Google that its proposal would only require
minor changes to our equipment authorization process or that such
changes would be easily implementable. As noted by Federated Wireless,
the suggested modifications could require the Commission to conduct an
additional rulemaking. Such a rulemaking--and any new certification
procedures adopted therein--could delay commercial deployment in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Therefore, on balance, we find that
it is in the public interest to proceed using the current device
certification rules to ensure that service is made available quickly
and without unintended consequences. However, we remain open to the
possibility of variable device certifications for different OOBE
capabilities and we may revisit this issue in the future.
V. Procedural Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
310. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended, the Commission included a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis in the Report and Order (see https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001755029.pdf).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
311. This Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order
contains new information collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal
agencies are invited to comment on the new information collection
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment
on how we might ``further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
312. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5
U.S.C. 603-604), as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
adopted in this Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration
(Second Order and Order on Reconsideration), as applicable. The
Commission will send a copy of this Second Order including this FRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the Second Order and Order on Reconsideration and
FRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
313. As required by the RFA, the Commission incorporated an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order (NPRM), Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM)
and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in the R&O. The
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM
and FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed
addressing the IRFA. This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.
C. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
314. In this Second Order and Order on Reconsideration we finalize
the rules governing the innovative Citizens Broadband Radio Service in
the 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band). In the R&O, the Commission
adopted rules for commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band, including
technical and use rules and interference protection measures, which was
used for Department of Defense Radar services and commercial fixed
Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations (space-to-earth) prior creation
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
315. Facing ever-increasing demands of wireless innovation and
constrained availability of clear sources of spectrum, the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service is an opportunity to add much-needed capacity
through innovative sharing. The R&O represented a major contribution
toward the Commission's goal of making 500 megahertz newly available
for broadband use and will help to unleash broadband opportunities for
consumers throughout the country, particularly in areas with
overburdened spectrum resources. Through this Second Order, we finalize
the regulatory scheme we created in 2015, putting in place the last
rules necessary for this service to become commercially available.
These rules address the definition of ``use'' by Priority Access
Licensees, access to the 3.5 GHz Band via secondary markets, and FSS
protection criteria.
316. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service takes advantage of
advances in technology and spectrum policy to dissolve age-old
regulatory divisions between commercial and federal users, exclusive
and non-exclusive authorizations, and private and carrier networks. The
regulatory framework takes from recommendations from the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and substantial
engagement and input from stakeholders representing a cross section of
the communications, technology, and public interest realms.
317. The comprehensive regulatory scheme adopted in the R&O
included specific licensing, technical, and service rules to enable
dynamic sharing between three tiers of users in the 3.5 GHz Band. The
Spectrum Access System (SAS) is the advanced frequency coordinator (or
coordinators) necessary to assign rights and maximize efficiency in the
band. The SAS(s) will incorporate information from the Environmental
Sensing Capability (ESC), which will be used to increase available
spectrum in coastal areas while continuing to protect incumbent
Department of Defense radar systems.
318. In this Second Order and Order on Reconsideration, we reaffirm
this regulatory scheme, and deny several petitions for reconsideration
of various aspects of the R&O. We also grant certain requests for
reconsideration, including the following: We increase the power limit
for non-rural Category B CBSDs to that applicable in rural areas,
[[Page 49063]]
provide greater flexibility on how to measure and direct the power,
revise our rules to make clear that SASs must be capable of receiving
and responding to interference complaints from FSS earth station
licensees, and allow a single PAL to be issued in License Areas located
in Rural Areas without an auction. Finally, we define what PAL uses
serve to preclude GAA uses, slightly modify our streamlined spectrum
leasing and assignment procedures for application in the 3.5 GHz band,
decline to permit partitioning and disaggregation in the band, and
provide for interference protections for FSS earth stations in this
band and the adjacent C-band. We developed a comprehensive approach
intended to balance consideration of complex issues and competing
considerations involved in creating a sharing regime in this band, and
each rule is a necessary component. We reaffirm our commitment to add
much needed capacity spectrum to the marketplace through innovative
sharing rules and techniques, and believe the rules established in the
R&O, as amended by the Second Order and Order on Reconsideration are
the best means to do so.
319. As a result of the Commission's actions in the R&O and Second
Order and Order on Reconsideration, small business will have access to
spectrum that is currently unavailable to them. The potential uses for
this spectrum are vast. For example, wireless carriers can deploy small
cells on a GAA basis where they need additional capacity. Real estate
owners can deploy neutral host systems in high-traffic venues, allowing
for cost-effective network sharing among multiple wireless providers
and their customers. Manufacturers, utilities, and other large economic
sectors, can construct private wireless broadband networks to automate
industrial processes that require some measure of interference
protection and yet are not appropriately outsourced to a commercial
cellular network. All of these applications can potentially share
common wireless technologies, providing economies of scale and
facilitating intensive use of the spectrum. Further, small businesses
can access this spectrum on the secondary market. The Commission's
actions in the Second Order and Order on Reconsideration thus
constitute a significant benefit for small businesses.
D. Legal Basis
320. The actions are authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j),
5(c), 302a, 303, 304, 307(e), and 316 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), 302a,
303, 304, 307(e), and 316.
E. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Rules Will Apply
321. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
322. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards
that encompass entities that could be directly affected by the
proposals under consideration. As of 2010, there were 28.2 million
small businesses in the United States, according to the SBA.
Additionally, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.''
Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of
this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as ``small
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental
jurisdictions are small.
323. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services,
paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that
category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census Bureau data for 2007, show that there were 1,383
firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 1,368 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 15 firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and
the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our actions.
324. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications.
Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and
earth station operators. Since 2007, the SBA has recognized two census
categories for satellite telecommunications firms: ``Satellite
Telecommunications'' and ``Other Telecommunications.'' Under the
``Satellite Telecommunications'' category, a business is considered
small if it had $32.5 million or less in annual receipts. Under the
``Other Telecommunications'' category, a business is considered small
if it had $32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
325. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point
telecommunications services to other establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 satellite
communications firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
482 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.
326. The second category of Other Telecommunications is comprised
of entities ``primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet
[[Page 49064]]
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category,
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,346 firms had
annual receipts of under $25 million. We anticipate that some of these
``Other Telecommunications firms,'' which are small entities, are earth
station applicants/licensees that might be affected by our rule
changes.
327. While our rule changes may have an impact on both earth and
space station applicants and licensees, space station applicants and
licensees rarely qualify under the definition of a small entity.
Generally, space stations cost hundreds of millions of dollars to
construct, launch and operate. Consequently, we do not anticipate that
any space station operators are small entities that would be affected
by our actions.
328. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for firms in this category, which is: All such firms having
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2010, there
were a total of 810 establishments in this category that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 787 had employment of under 500, and an
additional 23 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
F. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
329. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements resulting from the Second Order and Order on
Reconsideration will apply to all entities in the same manner,
consistent with the approach we adopted in the R&O. It is possible that
small entities will need to hire attorneys and engineers on a contract
basis to comply with the rules. We believe that while our proposals
require small entities to comply with the rules established for the
Citizens Broadband Radio service, they will receive the ability to
access spectrum that is currently unavailable to them. On balance, this
will constitute a significant benefit for small business.
330. Order on Reconsideration. Under the amended rules, FSS earth
station licensees may request additional protection from SAS
Administrators to prevent harmful interference and in order to provide
additional protection for out-of-band earth stations with telemetry,
tracking, and control (TT&C) responsibilities, we extend the annual
registration requirement to these sites.
331. Second Order. Under the new rules, Priority Access Licensees
may transfer, assign, or lease their spectrum on the secondary market.
In order to benefit from the streamlined approach to spectrum manager
leasing applicable to the 3.5 GHz Band, lessees may seek certification
from the Commission that they are qualified to act as a Commission
licensee and licensees must notify the SAS of the leasing arrangement
before the lessee commences service. This process is similar to the
certification and notification requirements to invoke immediate
processing under existing spectrum manager leasing rules. Further, we
extend the current process for transfers, assignments, and de facto
leases to the 3.5 GHz Band. The reporting requirements are no different
from the reporting requirements already required for all other services
to which our secondary market policies apply.
332. Under the new rules, as part of the requirements for defining
PAL Protection Areas, Priority Access Licensees must notify the SAS if
a previously activated CBSD is no longer in use and may choose to self-
report protection contours smaller than the default protection contour
to the SAS.
G. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
333. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
334. Order on Reconsideration. The reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements resulting from this order will apply to
all entities in the same manner. The Commission believes that applying
the same rules equally to all entities in this context promotes
fairness. The Commission does not believe that the costs and/or
administrative burdens associated with the rules will unduly burden
small entities. The rules the Commission adopts should benefit small
entities by giving them more information, more flexibility, and more
options for gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum. All Citizens
Broadband Radio Service Devices (CBSDs) must comply with the amended
technical and operational requirements aimed at preventing interference
to Incumbent Access and Priority Access users, including revised power
limits non-rural Category B CBSDs and elimination of conducted power
limits for all CBSDs and the revised method for defining a Priority
Access Licensee's protection area. We believe changes will provide
operational flexibility to Priority Access Licensees and GAA users,
which, regardless of size, must operate CBSDs that meet these technical
requirements.
335. Second Order. The reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements resulting from the Second Order will apply to
all entities in the same manner. The Commission believes that applying
the same rules equally to all entities in this context promotes
fairness. The Commission does not believe that the costs and/or
administrative burdens associated with the rules will unduly burden
small entities. The rules the Commission adopts should benefit small
entities by giving them more information, more flexibility, and more
options for gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum. Specifically,
the definition of use adopted in the Second Order leverages advances in
computing technology and economics to determine protection contours by
adopting a SAS-based engineering approach, while allowing Priority
Access Licensees to report their Protection Areas based on actual
network deployment. Establishing a baseline protection criteria will
allow General Authorized Access users reasonable opportunities for
additional access to the band. We considered adopting an economic or
hybrid economic/engineering definition of use but determined an
engineering approach would promote the most efficient use of the band
by all entities. Further, we permit access to the 3.5 GHz Band
[[Page 49065]]
through secondary markets and adopt a light-touch version of our
leasing rules that will allow Priority Access Licensees to lease any
portion of their spectrum or geographic area, outside of its PAL
Protection Area, for any bandwidth or duration period of time within
the terms of the license. We believe that this streamlined approach to
leasing will benefit all entities, including small entities, by
allowing them to gain immediate access to spectrum to implement their
business plans with reduced regulatory delay and transaction costs.
H. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Final Rules
336. None.
I. Report to Congress
337. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order
and Order on Reconsideration, including the FRFA, in a report to
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the
Commission will send a copy the Second Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). A copy of this
Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration and FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register (5 U.SC.
603(a)).
J. Congressional Review Act
338. The Commission will send a copy of this Order on
Reconsideration and Second Report and Order in a report to be sent to
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
VI. Ordering Clauses
339. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i),
4(j), 5(c), 302, 303, 304, 307(e), and 316 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), 302, 303,
304, 307(e), and 316, that this Order on Reconsideration and Second
Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-354 is adopted and the rules shall
become effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text or
summary thereof in the Federal Register, except for those rules and
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which shall become
effective after the Commission publishes a document in the Federal
Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.
340. It is further ordered, pursuant to section 405 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and section
1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that the petitions for
reconsideration of the Report and Order and Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking are denied, except to the extent set forth in this
Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order.
341. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common
carriers, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 2
Communications equipment, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 96
Telecommunications, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 2, and 96 as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79, et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452,
and 1455.
0
2. Section 1.9005 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.9005 Included services.
* * * * *
(p) The Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3550-3650 MHz band
(part 96 of this chapter).
* * * * *
0
3. Section 1.9020 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.9020 Spectrum manager leasing arrangements.
* * * * *
(e) Notifications regarding spectrum manager leasing arrangements.
A licensee that seeks to enter into a spectrum manager leasing
arrangement must notify the Commission of the arrangement in advance of
the spectrum lessee's commencement of operations under the lease.
Unless the license covering the spectrum to be leased is held pursuant
to the Commission's designated entity rules and continues to be subject
to unjust enrichment requirements and/or transfer restrictions (see
Sec. Sec. 1.2110 and 1.2111, and Sec. Sec. 24.709, 24.714, and 24.839
of this chapter) or restrictions in Sec. 1.9046 and Sec. 96.32 of
this chapter, the spectrum manager lease notification will be processed
pursuant to either the general notification procedures or the immediate
processing procedures, as set forth herein. The licensee must submit
the notification to the Commission by electronic filing using the
Universal Licensing System (ULS) and FCC Form 608, except that a
licensee falling within the provisions of Sec. 1.913(d) may file the
notification either electronically or manually. If the license covering
the spectrum to be leased is held pursuant to the Commission's
designated entity rules, the spectrum manager lease will require
Commission acceptance of the spectrum manager lease notification prior
to the commencement of operations under the lease.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 1.9046 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1.9046 Special provisions related to spectrum manager leasing in
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
(a) Scope. Subject to Sec. 96.32 of this chapter, a Priority
Access Licensee, as defined in Sec. 96.3 of this chapter, is permitted
to engage in spectrum manager leasing for any portion of its spectrum
or geographic area, outside of the PAL Protection Area, for any
bandwidth or duration period of time within the terms of the license
with any entity that has provided a certification to the Commission in
accordance with this section or pursuant to the general notification
procedures of Sec. 1.9020(e).
(b) Certification. The lessee seeking to engage in spectrum manager
leasing pursuant to this section must certify with the Commission that
it meets the same eligibility and qualification requirements applicable
to the licensee before entering into a spectrum manger leasing
arrangement with a Priority Access Licensee, as defined in Sec. 96.3
of this chapter and maintain the accuracy of such certifications.
(1) Priority Access Licensees, as defined in Sec. 96.3 of this
chapter, are
[[Page 49066]]
deemed to meet the certification requirements.
(2) Entities may also certify by using the Universal Licensing
System and FCC Form 608.
(c) Notifications regarding spectrum manager leasing arrangements.
Prior to lessee operation, the licensee seeking to engage in spectrum
manager leasing pursuant to Sec. 1.9020(e) must submit notification of
the leasing arrangement to the Spectrum Access System Administrator, as
defined in Sec. 96.3 of this chapter, by electronic filing. The
notification shall include the following information:
(1) Lessee contact information including name, address, telephone
number, fax number, email address;
(2) Lessee FCC Registration Number (FRN);
(3) Name of Real Party in Interest and related FCC Registration
Number (FRN);
(4) The specific spectrum leased (in terms of amount of bandwidth
and geographic area involved) including the call sign(s) affected by
the lease; and
(5) The duration of the lease.
(d) Expiration, extension, or termination of a spectrum leasing
arrangement. (1) Absent Commission termination or except as provided in
paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section, a spectrum leasing arrangement
entered into pursuant to this section will expire on the termination
date set forth in the spectrum leasing notification.
(2) A spectrum leasing arrangement may be extended beyond the
initial term set forth in the spectrum leasing notification for an
additional period not to exceed the term of the Priority Access
License, as defined in Sec. 96.3 of this chapter, provided that the
licensee notifies the Spectrum Access System Administrator, as defined
in Sec. 96.3 of this chapter, of the extension in advance of operation
under the extended term and does so pursuant to the notification
procedures in this section.
(3) If a spectrum leasing arrangement is terminated earlier than
the termination date set forth in the notification, either by the
licensee or by the parties' mutual agreement, the licensee must file a
notification with the Spectrum Access System Administrator, no later
than ten (10) days after the early termination, indicating the date of
the termination. If the parties fail to put the spectrum leasing
arrangement into effect, they must so notify the Spectrum Access System
Administrator as promptly as practicable.
(e) The Commission will place information concerning the
commencement, an extension or an early termination of a spectrum
leasing arrangement on public notice.
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
5. 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
6. Section 2.106 is amended in the footnote for US107 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of frequency allocations.
* * * * *
United States (US) Footnotes
* * * * *
US107 * * *
(a) Earth stations authorized prior to, or granted as a result of
an application filed prior to July 23, 2015, and constructed within 12
months of initial authorization may continue to operate on a primary
basis. Applications for modifications to such earth station facilities
filed after July 23, 2015 shall not be accepted, except for repair or
replacement of equipment; changes in polarization, antenna orientation,
or ownership; and increases in antenna size for interference mitigation
purposes.
* * * * *
PART 96--CITIZENS BROADBAND RADIO SERVICE
0
7. The authority citation for part 96 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 307.
0
8. Section 96.3 is amended by adding the definition for ``PAL
Protection Area'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 96.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
PAL Protection Area. The area within the Priority Access Licensee's
default protection contour, as calculated by the SAS in accordance with
Sec. 96.25 (or smaller, self-reported protection contour). This area
will be protected from interference in accordance with Sec. Sec. 96.25
and 96.41(d).
* * * * *
0
9. Section 96.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 96.15 Protection of federal incumbent users.
(a) * * *
(4) Within 300 seconds after the ESC communicates that it has
detected a signal from a federal system in a given area, or the SAS is
otherwise notified of current federal incumbent use of the band, the
SAS must either confirm suspension of the CBSD's operation or its
relocation to another unoccupied frequency, if available. If the
President of the United States (or another designated Federal
Government entity) issues instructions to discontinue use of CBSDs
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 606, SAS Administrators must instruct CBSDs to
cease operations as soon as technically possible.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Within 300 seconds after the ESC communicates that it has
detected a signal from a federal system in a given area, or the SAS is
otherwise notified of current federal incumbent use of the band, the
SAS must either confirm suspension of the CBSD's operation or its
relocation to another unoccupied frequency. If the President of the
United States (or another designated Federal Government entity) issues
instructions to discontinue use of CBSDs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 606, SAS
Administrators must instruct CBSDs to cease operations as soon as
technically possible.
0
10. Section 96.17 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) and by adding paragraphs (d)(1)(vi) and
(f) to read as follows:
Sec. 96.17 Protection of existing fixed satellite service (FSS) earth
stations in the 3600-3700 MHz Band and 3700-4200 MHz Band.
(a) FSS earth stations licensed to operate in the 3600-3700 MHz
band listed at www.fcc.gov/cbrs-protected-fss-sites shall be protected
from CBSD operation consistent with this section. The protections in
this section shall only apply to registered FSS earth stations that are
authorized to operate on a co-primary basis consistent with Sec. 2.106
of this chapter.
(1) FSS earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band will be afforded
protection consistent with this section only after the conditions set
forth in Sec. 96.21(c) are satisfied.
(2) Co-channel. The aggregate passband radiofrequency (RF) power
spectral density at the output of a reference RF filter and antenna at
the location of an FSS earth station operating in the 3600-3700 MHz
band, produced by emissions from all co-channel CBSDs (within 150 km)
operating in the Citizens Band Radio Service shall not exceed a median
root mean square (RMS) value of -129 dBm/MHz. The reference antenna
system requires SAS to calculate antenna gain using Sec. 25.209(a)(1)
and (4) of this chapter, and a reference RF filter between the feed-
horn and low noise amplifier (LNA)/low noise block
[[Page 49067]]
downconverter (LNB), with 0.5 dB insertion loss in the passband.
(3) Blocking. The aggregate RF power at the output of a reference
RF filter and antenna at the location of an FSS earth station operating
in the 3600-3700 MHz band, produced by emissions from all CBSDs (within
40 km), shall not exceed a median RMS value of -60 dBm. The reference
antenna system requires an SAS to calculate antenna gain using Sec.
25.209(a)(1) and (4) of this chapter, and a reference RF filter between
the feed-horn and LNA/LNB, with a filter mask of 0.6 dB/MHz attenuation
to 30.5 dB at 50 MHz offset below the lower edge of the FSS earth
station's authorized passband, and 0.25 dB/MHz attenuation to 55.5 dB
at an offset greater than or equal to 150 MHz below the lower edge of
the FSS earth station's authorized passband.
(b) Registered FSS earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band listed
at www.fcc.gov/cbrs-protected-fss-sites shall be protected from CBSD
operation in accordance with this section. Only licensed FSS earth
stations used for satellite telemetry, tracking, and control (TT&C)
operations will be protected under this section. Other licensed 3700-
4200 MHz earth stations may be protected consistent with Sec.
96.17(f).
(1) Out-of-band emissions into FSS. The aggregate passband RF power
spectral density at the output of a reference RF filter and antenna at
the location of a TT&C FSS earth station operating in the 3700-4200 MHz
band, produced by emissions from all CBSDs (within 40 km) operating in
the Citizens Band Radio Service shall not exceed a median RMS value of
-129 dBm/MHz. The reference antenna system requires SAS to calculate
antenna gain using Sec. 25.209(a)(1) and (4) of this chapter, and a
reference RF filter between the feed-horn and LNA/LNB, with 0.5 dB
insertion loss in the passband.
(2) Blocking. The aggregate RF power at the output of a reference
RF filter and antenna at the location of a TT&C FSS earth station
operating in the 3700-4200 MHz band, produced by emissions from all
CBSDs (within 40 km), shall not exceed a median RMS value of -60 dBm.
The reference antenna system requires SAS to calculate antenna gain
using Sec. 25.209(a)(1) and (4) of this chapter, and a reference RF
filter between the feed-horn and LNA/LNB, with a filter mask of 0.6 dB/
MHz attenuation to 30.5 dB at 50 MHz offset below the lower edge of the
FSS earth station's authorized passband, and 0.25 dB/MHz attenuation to
55.5 dB at an offset greater than or equal to150 MHz below the lower
edge of the FSS earth station's authorized passband.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Whether the earth station is used for satellite telemetry,
tracking, and control (for earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band).
* * * * *
(e) CBSDs may operate within areas that may cause interference to
FSS earth stations, in excess of the levels described in Sec. 96.17(a)
and (b), provided that the licensee of the FSS earth station and the
authorized user of the CBSD mutually agree on such operation and the
terms of any such agreement are provided to an SAS Administrator that
agrees to enforce them. The terms of any such agreement shall be
communicated promptly to all other SAS Administrators.
(f) FSS earth station licensees in the 3600-3700 and 3700-4200 MHz
bands may request additional protection from SAS Administrators to
prevent harmful interference into their systems. SAS Administrators
must establish a process to receive and address such requests,
consistent with Sec. Sec. 96.53(o) and 96.63 and shall make good faith
efforts to address interference concerns, consistent with their other
responsibilities under this part. In addressing such requests, SASs
shall assume that 3700-4200 MHz earth stations are utilizing filters
with the characteristics described in Sec. 96.17(a)(3) or (b)(2) as
appropriate for the 3600-3700 or 3700-4200 MHz band.
0
11. Section 96.21 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 96.21 Protection of existing operators in the 3650-3700 MHz
Band.
* * * * *
(c) Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees and Citizens
Broadband Radio Service users must protect authorized grandfathered FSS
earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band, consistent with the existing
protection criteria in 47 CFR part 90, subpart Z, until the last
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensee's license expires within the
protection area defined for a particular grandfathered FSS earth
station. Thereafter, the protection criteria in Sec. 96.17 applicable
to FSS earth stations in the 3600-3700 MHz band shall apply.
0
12. Section 96.25 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 96.25 Priority access licenses.
* * * * *
(c) PAL Protection Areas. PAL channels shall be made available for
assignment by the SAS for General Authorized Access use only in areas
outside of PAL Protection Areas consistent with this section and Sec.
96.41(d).
(1) A CBSD will be considered to be in use for purposes of
calculating a PAL Protection Area once it is registered and authorized
for use on a Priority Access basis by an SAS consistent with Sec. Sec.
96.39, 96.53, and 96.57.
(i) Priority Access Licensees must inform the SAS if a previously
activated CBSD is no longer in use.
(ii) Any CBSD that does not make contact with the SAS for seven
days shall not be considered in use and will be excluded from the
calculation of the PAL Protection Area until such time as contact with
the SAS is re-established.
(2) The default protection contour will be determined by the SAS as
a -96 dBm/10 MHz contour around each CBSD. The default protection
contour will be calculated based on information included in the CBSD
registration and shall be determined and enforced consistently across
all SASs.
(i) The default protection contour is the outer limit of the PAL
Protection Area for any CBSD but a Priority Access Licensee may choose
to self-report protection contours smaller than the default protection
contour to the SAS.
(ii) If the PAL Protection Areas for multiple CBSDs operated by the
same Priority Access Licensees overlap, the SAS shall combine the PAL
Protection Areas for such CBSDs into a single protection area.
(3) The PAL Protection Area may not extend beyond the boundaries of
the Priority Access Licensee's Service Area.
0
13. Section 96.29 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 96.29 Competitive bidding procedures.
* * * * *
(d) Except in Rural Areas, when there is only one application for
initial Priority Access Licenses in a License Area that is accepted for
filing for a specific auction, no PAL will be assigned for that License
Area, the auction with respect to that License Area will be canceled,
and the spectrum will remain accessible solely for shared GAA use until
the next filing window for competitive bidding of PALs. In Rural Areas,
when there is only one application for initial Priority Access Licenses
in a License Area, that applicant will be granted a PAL if otherwise
qualified under the Commission's rules.
0
14. Section 96.31 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 49068]]
Sec. 96.31 Aggregation of priority access licenses.
(a) Priority Access Licensees may aggregate up to four PAL channels
in any License Area at any given time.
(b) The criteria in Sec. 20.22(b) of this chapter will apply in
order to attribute partial ownership and other interests for the
purpose of applying the aggregation limit in paragraph (a) of this
section.
0
15. Add Sec. 96.32 to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 96.32 Priority access assignments of authorization, transfers of
control, and leasing arrangements.
(a) Priority Access Licensees may transfer or assign their licenses
and enter into de facto leasing arrangements in accordance with part 1
of this chapter.
(b) Priority Access Licensees may not partition or disaggregate
their licenses or partially assign or transfer their licenses nor may
they enter into de facto leasing arrangements for a portion of their
licenses.
(c) Priority Access Licensees may enter into spectrum manager
leasing arrangements with approved entities as prescribed in Sec.
1.9046 of this chapter. Priority Access Licensees may only enter into
leasing arrangements for areas that are within their Service Area and
outside of their PAL Protection Areas.
0
16. Section 96.35 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 96.35 General authorized access use.
(a) General Authorized Access Users shall be permitted to use
frequencies assigned to PALs when such frequencies are not in use, as
determined by the SAS, consistent with Sec. 96.25(c).
* * * * *
0
17. Section 96.41 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 96.41 General radio requirements.
The requirements in this section apply to CBSDs and their
associated End User Devices, unless otherwise specified.
(a) Digital modulation. Systems operating in the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service must use digital modulation techniques.
(b) Power limits. Unless otherwise specified in this section, the
maximum effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) and maximum Power
Spectral Density (PSD) of any CBSD and End User Device must comply with
the limits shown in the table in this paragraph (b):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
EIRP (dBm/ Maximum PSD
Device 10 (dBm/MHz)
megahertz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End User Device............................... 23 n/a
Category A CBSD............................... 30 20
Category B CBSD \1\........................... 47 37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Category B CBSDs will only be authorized for use after an ESC is
approved and commercially deployed consistent with Sec. Sec. 96.15
and 96.67.
(c) Power management. CBSDs and End User Devices shall limit their
operating power to the minimum necessary for successful operations.
(1) CBSDs must support transmit power control capability and the
capability to limit their maximum EIRP and the maximum EIRP of
associated End User Devices in response to instructions from an SAS.
(2) End User Devices shall include transmit power control
capability and the capability to limit their maximum EIRP in response
to instructions from their associated CBSDs.
(d) Received Signal Strength Limits. (1) For both Priority Access
and GAA users, CBSD transmissions must be managed such that the
aggregate received signal strength for all locations within the PAL
Protection Area of any co-channel PAL, shall not exceed an average
(RMS) power level of -80 dBm in any direction when integrated over a 10
megahertz reference bandwidth, with the measurement antenna placed at a
height of 1.5 meters above ground level, unless the affected PAL
licensees agree to an alternative limit and communicate that to the
SAS.
(2) These limits shall not apply for co-channel operations at the
boundary between geographically adjacent PALs held by the same Priority
Access Licensee.
(e) 3.5 GHz Emissions and Interference Limits--(1) General
protection levels. Except as otherwise specified in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section, for channel and frequency assignments made by the SAS to
CBSDs, the conducted power of any emission outside the fundamental
emission (whether in or outside of the authorized band) shall not
exceed -13 dBm/MHz within 0-10 megahertz above the upper SAS-assigned
channel edge and within 0-10 megahertz below the lower SAS-assigned
channel edge. At all frequencies greater than 10 megahertz above the
upper SAS assigned channel edge and less than 10 MHz below the lower
SAS assigned channel edge, the conducted power of any emission shall
not exceed -25 dBm/MHz. The upper and lower SAS assigned channel edges
are the upper and lower limits of any channel assigned to a CBSD by an
SAS, or in the case of multiple contiguous channels, the upper and
lower limits of the combined contiguous channels.
(2) Additional protection levels. Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1)
of this section, the conducted power of any emissions below 3530 MHz or
above 3720 MHz shall not exceed -40dBm/MHz.
(3) Measurement procedure. (i) Compliance with this provision 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 authorized frequency
channel, a resolution bandwidth of no less than one percent of the
fundamental emission bandwidth may be employed. A narrower resolution
bandwidth is permitted in all cases to improve measurement accuracy
provided the measured power is integrated over the full reference
bandwidth (i.e., 1 MHz or 1 percent of emission bandwidth, as
specified). The emission bandwidth is defined as the width of the
signal between two points, one below the carrier center frequency and
one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions
are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter power.
(ii) When measuring unwanted emissions to demonstrate compliance
with the limits, the CBSD and End User Device nominal carrier
frequency/channel shall be adjusted as close to the licensee's
authorized frequency block edges, both upper and lower, as the design
permits.
(iii) Compliance with emission limits shall be demonstrated using
either average (RMS)-detected or peak-detected power measurement
techniques.
(4) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes
harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require
greater attenuation than specified in this section.
(f) Reception limits. Priority Access Licensees must accept
adjacent channel and in-band blocking interference (emissions from
other authorized Priority Access or GAA CBSDs transmitting between 3550
and 3700 MHz) up to a power spectral density level not to exceed -40
dBm in any direction with greater than 99% probability when integrated
over a 10 megahertz reference bandwidth, with the measurement antenna
placed at a height of 1.5 meters above ground level, unless the
affected Priority Access
[[Page 49069]]
Licensees agree to an alternative limit and communicates that to the
SAS.
Note to paragraph (f): Citizens Broadband Radio Service users
should be aware that there are Federal Government radar systems in the
band and adjacent bands that could adversely affect their operations.
(g) Power measurement. The peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) of
any CBSD transmitter output power must not exceed 13 dB. PAPR
measurements should be made using either an instrument with
complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) capabilities or
another Commission approved procedure. The measurement must be
performed using a signal corresponding to the highest PAPR expected
during periods of continuous transmission.
0
18. Section 96.53 is amended by revising paragraph (i) and by adding
paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 96.53 Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.
* * * * *
(i) To protect Priority Access Licensees from interference caused
by other PALs and from General Authorized Access Users, including the
calculation and enforcement of PAL Protection Areas, consistent with
Sec. 96.25.
* * * * *
(o) To receive reports of interference and requests for additional
protection from Incumbent Access users and promptly address
interference issues.
0
19. Section 96.57 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 96.57 Registration, authentication, and authorization of
Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices.
* * * * *
(e) An SAS must calculate and enforce PAL Protection Areas
consistent with Sec. 96.25 and such calculation and enforcement shall
be consistent across all SASs.
0
20. Add Sec. 96.66 to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 96.66 Spectrum access system responsibilities related to
priority access spectrum manager leases.
(a) An SAS Administrator that chooses to accept and support leasing
notifications shall:
(1) Verify that the lessee is on the certification list, as
established in Sec. 1.9046 of this chapter.
(2) Establish a process for acquiring and storing the lease
notification information and synchronizing this information, including
information about the expiration, extension, or termination of leasing
arrangements, with the Commission databases at least once a day;
(3) Verify that the lease will not result in the lessee holding
more than the 40 megahertz of Priority Access spectrum in a given
License Area;
(4) Verify that the area to be leased is within the Priority Access
Licensee's Service Area and outside of the Priority Access Licensee's
PAL Protection Area; and
(5) Provide confirmation to licensee and lessee whether the
notification has been received and verified.
(b) During the period of the lease and within the geographic area
of a lease, SASs shall treat any CBSD operated by the lessee the same
as a similarly situated CBSDs operated by the lessor for frequency
assignment and interference mitigation purposes.
[FR Doc. 2016-14505 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P