Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, 58269-58308 [2016-19793]
Download as PDF
Vol. 81
Wednesday,
No. 164
August 24, 2016
Part IV
Federal Communications Commission
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
47 CFR Parts 2, 25, 30, et al.
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services;
Proposed Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
58270
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
47 CFR Parts 2, 25, 30, and 101
[GN Docket No. 14–177, IB Docket Nos. 15–
256 and 97–95, RM–11664, WT Docket No.
10–112; FCC 16–89]
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz
for Mobile Radio Services
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on
proposed service rules to allow flexible
fixed and mobile uses in additional
bands and on refinements to the rules
the Commission adopted in FCC 16–89.
These refinements include: Providing
additional detail on the sharing
arrangement the Commission adopted in
FCC 16–89 for the 37 GHz band;
performance requirements for
innovative uses such as Internet of
Things (IoT) and machine-to-machine
communications; additional issues
relating to our mobile spectrum
holdings policies; whether antenna
height limits are necessary in mmW
bands; whether minimum bandwidth
scaling factors are necessary for
transmitter power limits; whether
allowing higher Power Flux Density
(PFD) levels for Fixed Satellite Service
(FSS) in the 37 and 39 GHz bands
would be consistent with terrestrial use
of those bands; refining the coordination
limits for point-to-point operations; and
on sharing analysis and modeling.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
September 30, 2016; reply comments are
due on or before October 31, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by GN Docket No. 14–177, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov,
phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418–
0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
John
Schauble of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau,
Broadband Division, at 202–418–0797
or John.Schauble@fcc.gov, Michael Ha
of the Office of Engineering and
Technology, Policy and Rules Division,
at 202–418–2099 or Michael.Ha@
fcc.gov, or Jose Albuquerque of the
International Bureau, Satellite Division,
at 202–418–2288 or Jose.Albuquerque@
fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), GN
Docket No. 14–177, IB Docket Nos. 15–
256 and 97–95, RM–11664, WT Docket
No. 10–112; FCC 16–89, adopted and
released on July 14, 2016. The full text
of the FNPRM is available for inspection
and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445
12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
The document also is available for
download over the Internet at https://
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-16-89A1.docx.
Comment Filing Procedures: You may
submit comments, identified by GN
Docket No. 14–177, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/ or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the
Commission’s Web site for submitting
comments and transmit one electronic
copy of the filing to GN Docket No. 14–
177. For ECFS filers, in completing the
transmittal screen, filers should include
their full name, U.S. Postal Service
mailing address, and the applicable
docket number.
• Parties may also submit an
electronic comment by Internet email.
To get filing instructions, filers should
send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and
include the following words in the body
of the message, ‘‘get form your email
address’’. A sample form and
instructions will be sent in response.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of reach filing. Filings can
be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. The filing
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
E. Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD
20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority must be addressed
to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC
20554.
Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose
Pursuant to Section 1.1200(a) of the
Commission’s rules, this FNPRM shall
be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must: (1) List all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this present IRFA of the possible
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the
attached FNPRM. Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines specified in the
FNPRM for comments. The Commission
will send a copy of this FNPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Analysis
This document does not contain new
or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13.
Synopsis
1. This FNPRM has two sections that
the Commission is seeking comment.
First, the Commission proposes to adopt
service rules allowing flexible fixed and
mobile uses in additional bands. These
bands potentially offer 17.7 GHz of
spectrum that could be available for
fixed or mobile use. By examining the
suitability for mobile use of such a large
amount of spectrum, the Commission
takes steps to ensure that additional
spectrum is available to allow the next
generation of wireless technologies to
flourish in the mmW bands. In addition,
many of these bands will require
sharing solutions to unlock their
potential for flexible use services—the
Commission seeks comment on the
potential sharing mechanisms, and
continue to encourage all stakeholders
to work to develop and refine effective
solutions to sharing. Second, the
Commission seeks further comment on
refinements to the rules the Commission
adopted in the Report and Order in GN
Docket No. 14–177, IB Docket Nos. 15–
256 and 97–95, RM–11664, WT Docket
No. 10–112; FCC 16–89, adopted and
released on July 14, 2016 (hereinafter
Order or Report and Order). In
particular, the Commission seeks
comment on: (1) Providing additional
detail on the sharing arrangement that
the Commission adopted in the Order
for the 37 GHz band; (2) performance
requirements for innovative uses such
as IoT and machine-to-machine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
communications; (3) additional issues
relating to our mobile spectrum
holdings policies; (4) whether antenna
height limits are necessary in mmW
bands; (5) whether minimum bandwidth
scaling factors are necessary for
transmitter power limits; (6) whether
allowing higher PFD levels for FSS in
the 37 and 39 GHz bands would be
consistent with terrestrial use of those
bands; (7) refining the coordination
limits for point-to-point operations; and
(8) on sharing analysis and modeling.
2. In the Order, several commenters
ask the Commission to consider other
bands for mobile use. Many commenters
argue that the criteria should not
preclude the Commission from
considering bands that do not meet all
of those criteria. For example, CTIA and
Nokia ask the Commission to consider
bands that do not have 500 MHz of
spectrum because certain applications
may be feasible for smaller bandwidths.
Commenters also agree that while
international harmonization is
preferable, the Commission should not
preclude bands from further
consideration just because they are not
proposed for mobile use throughout the
world.
3. Several factors lead us to conclude
that it is now appropriate to consider
additional bands for mobile use. First,
as the record to the Report and Order
has made clear, there are a wide variety
of services, including fixed, mobile, and
satellite, for which these bands could be
used. This variety favors making
multiple bands available, including
bands for which the Commission did
not to propose service rules in the
NPRM (see In the Matter of Use of
Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for
Mobile Radio Services, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd
11878 (2015)). Second, the World Radio
Conference identified a large number of
bands as candidate bands for IMT–2020
(International Mobile
Telecommunications), including several
bands that the Commission did not
address in the NPRM. Third, it appears
that the amount of global data traffic
will continue to grow exponentially.
Cisco estimates that global mobile data
traffic will grow nearly tenfold between
2014 and 2019. Under these
circumstances, the Commission believes
it is now appropriate to seek comment
on proposing mobile service rules for
most of the bands identified at the 2015
World Radio Conference.
4. Specifically, the Commission
proposes authorizing flexible use
licenses that would permit fixed and
mobile services in the following bands:
24.25–24.45 GHz and 24.75–25.25 GHz,
31.8–33.4 GHz, 42–42.5 GHz, 47.2–50.2
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58271
GHz, 50.4–52.6 GHz, 71–76 GHz, and
81–86 GHz. Each of these bands was
identified as a candidate band for IMT–
2020.
5. At the same time, the Commission
recognizes that there are challenges that
must be overcome before the
Commission can authorize service in
these bands, including existing
allocations and/or operations in these
bands. The Commission will continue to
work with existing stakeholders,
wireless providers, the satellite
industry, National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA),
and other interested Federal
stakeholders to determine where
different services can coexist and
develop ways to maximize flexible use.
In several bands, the Commission
believes sharing mechanisms that the
Commission has adopted in the Report
and Order and in other proceedings can
allow many of these bands to be utilized
for fixed and mobile use while also
accommodating existing uses.
6. The Commission discusses each of
the bands in additional detail below.
The Commission generally proposes to
use the licensing and service rule
framework the Commission adopted in
the Order. Except for the 71–76 GHz,
and 81–86 GHz bands, the Commission
proposes to use geographic area
licensing with Partial Economic Area
(PEAs) as the license area size. For the
71–76 GHz and 81–86 GHz bands, the
Commission proposes to use a licensing
framework similar to the framework
developed for the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service. For any Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service
(UMFUS) bands for which the
Commission adopts geographic area
licensing and accept mutually exclusive
initial applications, the Commission has
decided to conduct any spectrum
auction of licenses in conformity with
the general competitive bidding
procedures set forth in Part 1 Subpart Q
of the Commission’s rules, including
rules governing designated entity
preferences. The Commission seeks
comment here on whether to apply the
same small business definitions and
associated bidding credits the
Commission has adopted for auctions of
UMFUS licenses to auctions of licenses
in the additional bands discussed
below, as the Commission seeks any
other spectrum bands that the
Commission may subsequently decide
to include in the UMFUS. Our proposal
is based on our anticipation that the
same types of services would be
deployed in these additional bands as
are contemplated to be deployed in the
bands that the Commission has already
designated for the UMFUS. The
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58272
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Commission asks commenters to
provide specific data on the costs and
benefits associated with the licensing
mechanisms the Commission has
proposed.
7. In the Order, the Commission is
making 3.85 GHz of mmW spectrum
available for licensed mobile use, as
well as adding seven gigahertz of
spectrum for unlicensed use, bringing
the total to 14 GHz of unlicensed
spectrum available in the 57–71 GHz
band. In view of these relative
proportions, the Commission believes it
is appropriate to make additional
licensed spectrum available for flexible
use. Furthermore, the Commission
continues to believe there is value in
using both geographic area licensing
and shared access. The Commission
seeks comment on alternative licensing
mechanisms for each of these bands,
including unlicensed operation. To the
extent the Commission adopts
geographic area licensing, the
Commission also seeks comment on
alternative license area sizes.
8. The Commission also proposes to
generally apply the Part 30 technical
rules the Commission has adopted in
the Order to each of the bands where the
Commission ultimately adopts flexible
use rules. The Commission seeks
comment on any deviations from those
rules or special technical rules that
would be needed for any of those bands.
Commenters who propose special
technical rules should explain the
specific need for such rules and
quantify the costs and benefits
associated with their proposed rules.
The Commission also encourages
commenters to provide detailed
technical analysis supporting any
technical proposals.
9. As the Commission explained in
the NPRM, the Commission believes
these bands might be able to support
expanded sharing, including two-way
shared use between Federal and nonFederal users in these bands and sharing
among different types of service
platforms. The Commission continues to
believe there is an opportunity to
leverage the propagation characteristics
of these bands to further enhance
sharing Federal and non-Federal users.
The Commission seeks comment
generally on ways to further Federal and
non-Federal sharing in these bands,
including refinement of the concept the
Commission adopted in the Order for
the 37 GHz band.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
A. Additional Bands
1. 24 GHz Bands (24.25–24.45 GHz and
24.75–25.25 GHz)
10. The Commission proposes to add
a mobile allocation to the 24.25–24.45
and 24.75–25.25 GHz segments of the 24
GHz band, a fixed allocation to 24.75–
25.05 GHz, and to authorize both mobile
and fixed operations in those segments
under the new Part 30 UMFUS rules.
This band is already used
internationally for fixed service and is
included in the WRC study for future
international mobile allocation. The
existing manufacturing base and global
harmonization of this band make it an
attractive option for mobile use. The
Commission further proposes to grant
mobile rights to the existing fixed
licensees, in order to facilitate
coordination between fixed and mobile
uses in the areas that are currently
licensed. The Commission proposes to
add these new fixed and mobile
authorizations on a co-primary basis.
The Commission seeks comment on that
arrangement, as well as on the
alternative of making mobile or fixed
use secondary to FSS.
11. The Commission recognizes that
there are existing satellite interests and
operations in this band, and the
Commission seeks comment on the best
way to promote effective sharing
between satellite and mobile uses.
Given that the current use of the band
for satellite appears to be rather limited,
should the Commission maintain the
existing limits and coordination
procedures on satellite operations in the
25.05–25.25 GHz band, and apply those
same limits to the 24.75–25.05 GHz
band? Alternatively, are there other
sharing mechanisms that would better
achieve coexistence? Would the sharing
regime the Commission has adopted for
the 28 GHz band be appropriate in this
band, or do the differences between FSS
earth stations in that band and BSS
feeder links here suggest a different
solution?
12. The Commission also proposes to
modify the existing band plan for new
licenses in the 24 GHz band. Currently,
the 24 GHz bands is channelized into
five 40 MHz by 40 MHz channel pairs.
As with the 39 GHz band, the
Commission sees benefits to converting
the 24 GHz band plan to unpaired
blocks. Going forward, the Commission
proposes to license the 24.25–24.45 GHz
band segment as a single, unpaired
block of 200 MHz, and the 24.75–25.25
GHz band segment as two unpaired
blocks of 250 MHz each. The
Commission seeks comment on this
proposal, as well as the alternative of
using 100 MHz unpaired channels, or
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
two 200 MHz channels and one 100
MHz channel in 24.75–25.25 GHz. The
Commission also seeks comment on
how to treat existing 24 GHz band
licensees. Should incumbent licenses be
converted to UMFUS licenses, as the
Commission has done in 28 GHz and 39
GHz? Also, is it necessary to repack
existing licensees, or can they keep their
existing frequency assignments because
there are so few licensees?
2. 32 GHz Band (31.8–33.4 GHz)
13. The Commission proposes to add
primary non-Federal fixed and mobile
service allocations to the 32 GHz band
(31.8–33.4 GHz).1 The Commission also
proposes to authorize fixed and mobile
operations in the 32 GHz under the Part
30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service rules. In the NPRM, the
Commission noted that the 32 GHz band
is not currently allocated for mobile
operations, and therefore, perhaps it is
not as suited to the provision of 5G
services as other bands under
consideration. Since the NPRM was
adopted, however, ITU WRC–15
decided to conduct the appropriate
sharing and compatibility studies for the
32 GHz band, which may lead to an
allocation for mobile service in the 32
GHz band at WRC–19 and the
opportunity for globally harmonized
services in this band. Global
harmonization, in turn, will promote
global interconnection, roaming, and
interoperability. In addition, there is a
significant amount of contiguous
bandwidth available in the 32 GHz
band. Finally, the Commission notes
that there is significant support among
the commenters to allocate the 32 GHz
band for fixed and mobile 5G services.
14. However, there are still two major
challenges to authorizing mobile
operations in the 32 GHz band: (1)
Protecting radionavigation operations in
the 32 GHz band; and (2) protecting
radio astronomy observations in the
adjacent 31.3–31.8 GHz band. The
Commission discusses those challenges
and invites further comment on those
issues below.
a. Federal and Non-Federal Services in
the 32 GHz Band
15. In the NPRM, the Commission
sought comment on the compatibility of
mobile use of the 32 GHz band with
existing aeronautical and shipborne
radar use of the band, future
radionavigation and other Federal
services, as well as deep space research
1 In the NPRM, the Commission addressed the
31.8–33 GHz band. Because the ITU identified
31.8–33.4 GHz as a potential candidate band, we
will expand our consideration to the 31.8–33.4 GHz
band.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
in the 31.8–32.3 GHz portion of the 32
GHz band. In the Order, commenters
did not address these issues directly.
Instead, Echodyne, a technology startup,
asks the Commission to proceed
cautiously to ensure that it does not
hinder the development of innovative
technologies for the radionavigation
bands. Echodyne states that ‘‘near term
advances in radar technology soon will
help fuel revolutionary changes in many
sectors.’’ For instance, Echodyne
indicates that ‘‘accurate, lightweight,
and low-power detect and avoid
systems will be essential to widespread
commercial deployment of Unmanned
Aerial Systems and autonomous
vehicles,’’ which Echodyne argues, will
change the face of transportation,
shipping, security, and numerous other
industries. According to Echodyne,
these advances rely on effective
radionavigation operations that need
consistent operating conditions across a
geographic region, including a
predictable and uniform interference
environment. Echodyne indicates that it
is skeptical that the 32 GHz band could
be made available for mobile use.
16. The Commission seeks comment
on the compatibility of fixed and mobile
services with existing allocated services
in the 32 GHz band. In the Order,
commenters who support mobile use of
this band should provide specific
technical information and proposals
showing how fixed and mobile uses of
this band is compatible with
radionavigation uses. In that regard, the
Commission asks Echodyne and other
commenters to provide specific
information on existing and planned
non-Federal uses of radar in this band.
The Commission will continue to work
with NTIA and other Federal partners to
determine the protection requirements
for Federal users and the opportunity to
expand shared Federal use across the
band.
17. The Commission also seeks
comment on protecting other allocated
service within the 32 GHz band. For
Space Research Service operations in
the Goldstone, California area, would
coordination requirements be sufficient
to protect those operations? In the
NPRM, the Commission noted that the
risk of interference between terrestrial
operations and ISS links in 64–71 GHz
appeared to be low because of
atmospheric absorption. Would the
same analysis apply in the 32 GHz
band?
b. Radio Astronomy and EESS in the
Adjacent 31.3–31.8 GHz Band
18. The 32 GHz band is adjacent to
the 31.3–31.8 GHz band. In the United
States, the 31.3–31.8 GHz band is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
allocated for Earth Exploration Satellite
(passive), radio astronomy, and Space
Research (passive). No station is
authorized to transmit in the 31.3–31.8
GHz band and the radio astronomy
operations in the 31.3–31.8 GHz band
are protected from unwanted emissions
only to the extent that such radiation
exceeds the level which would be
present if the offending station were
operating in compliance with the
technical standards or criteria
applicable to the service in which it
operates.
19. In the NPRM, the Commission
noted that the need to protect the 31.3–
31.8 GHz passive band may severely
limit the availability of usable spectrum
in the 31.8–33 GHz band and sought
detailed technical analysis from
commenters on the out-of-band
emission limits required to protect
operations in the 31.3–31.8 GHz band.
The Commission indicated that a
detailed analysis would help it
determine how much of the 31.8–33
GHz band could be used for mobile
operations while protecting the passive
services in the 31.3–31.8 GHz band.
20. In the Order, CORF submitted the
most information on this topic. CORF
states that although the critical science
undertaken by Radio Astronomy
observers cannot be performed without
access to interference free bands, Radio
Astronomy Service (RAS) bands can be
protected regionally by limiting
emissions within a certain radius of the
facility. But, CORF explains, ‘‘the
emissions that radio astronomers
receive are extremely weak—a radio
telescope receives less than 1 percent of
one-billionth of one-billionth of a watt
(10–20 W) from a typical cosmic
object.’’ CORF further explains that
radio observatories are particularly
vulnerable to interference from in-band
emissions, spurious and out-of-band
emissions from licensed and unlicensed
users of neighboring bands, and
emissions that produce harmonic
signals in the RAS bands, even when
those manmade signals are weak and
distant. EMEA Satellite Operators
Association (ESOA) argues that any
deep space research operations in the
31.3–31.8 GHz band can be protected
from mobile terrestrial operations in the
32 GHz band because there are very few
research facilities and they are located
in very remote areas. The Commission
seeks specific comment on how the
Commission should protect these
operations.
21. CORF stresses the importance of
the data collected from Earth
Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) and
that billions of dollars have been
invested in EESS satellites. CORF notes
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58273
that for certain applications, satellitebased microwave remote sensing is the
only practical method of obtaining
atmospheric and surface data for the
entire planet. Data derived from EESS
have contributed substantially to the
study of meteorology, atmospheric
chemistry, climatology, and
oceanography and is used by multiple
governmental agencies. CORF indicates
that incumbent users designed and
developed EESS missions without the
expectation of transmissions in close
proximity to the 31.3–31.8 GHz band.
They also report that most incumbent
users at 31.5 GHz operate in a direct
detection (homodyne) mode. CORF
recommends that the Commission adopt
adequate guard bands to protect EESS
operations in the 31.3–31.8 GHz ‘‘until
the current satellites can be replaced
with satellites with filtering suited to
the new spectral environment.’’ CORF
claims that proportionally larger guard
bands are needed as the frequency
increases. In direct detection, CORF
explains, band definition is achieved
with filters that are limited by the
properties of the materials used in the
filter itself. Thus, for example, ‘‘for a
given material, the minimum bandwidth
of a filter is proportional to the central
frequency, so that the width of the
necessary guard bands to suppress
emissions to a desired level also
increases in proportion to the
frequency.’’ CORF continues, ‘‘it is
impossible to reject a signal 10 MHz
away from a band edge at these higher
frequencies, so guard bandwidths must
be scaled in frequency to accommodate
this physical limitation.’’ The
Commission seeks comment on whether
the Commission should adopt a guard
band to protect EESS operations in the
31.3–31.8 GHz band, and if so, how
large should the guard band be? ESOA,
disagrees with CORF and states that
services operating in the 31.3–31.8 GHz
band can be protected through
‘‘carefully crafted operating
requirements.’’ The Commission seeks
comment on ESOA’s statement and ask
what these ‘‘carefully crafted operating
requirements’’ might be.
22. CORF also expresses concern that
‘‘mobile devices with limited size and
cost will not be able to adequately filter
their out-of-band emissions to meet the
stringent requirements’’ of the 31.3–31.8
GHz band. Avanti responds that under
agenda item 1.13 for WRC–19 (World
Radiocommunication Conference), the
International Telecommunication
Union-Radiocommunication (ITU–R)
will develop technical measures, if
necessary, to protect passive services
from interference from 5G mobile
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
58274
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
broadband systems. The Commission
seeks detailed information concerning
the capability of mobile and other
consumer devices to limit out-of-band
emissions into the 31.3–31.8 GHz band,
and seek comment on whether guard
bands or other special rules will be
necessary to limit emissions into the
31.3–31.8 GHz band.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
c. Band Plan
23. The Commission also seeks
comment on the appropriate band plan
for the 32 GHz band. The Commission
proposes to license the band using
channels of either 200 MHz or 400 MHz
bandwidth. Given the contemplated use
cases and the nature of this band, what
channel size would be best? The
Commission encourages commenters to
discuss the specific advantages and
disadvantages of various band plans.
3. 42 GHz Band (42–42.5 GHz)
24. The Commission proposes to
authorize fixed and mobile service
operations to operate in the 42 GHz
band (42–42.5 GHz) under the Part 30
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
rules, as long as the Commission can
ensure that adjacent channel RAS
services will be protected. The band
potentially offers 500 megahertz for new
flexible use services, has existing fixed
and mobile allocations, and is being
studied internationally for possible
mobile use. The Commission also
proposes to adopt geographic area
licensing using PEAs as the geographic
area. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal, as well as alternatives.
25. The Commission denies FWCC’s
request that the Commission establish
service rules to enable fixed service at
42.–42.5 GHz, but keeps its request
pending for the 42.5–43.5 GHz band.
The Commission believes that flexible
use licensing, which would allow a
variety of services to be offered, would
be more likely to place the spectrum in
its highest and best use, as opposed to
rules that would only allow point-topoint operation. Nevertheless, the
Commission does not deny FWCC’s
petition with respect to the 42.5–43.5
GHz band because point-to-point
operation may be more likely to co-exist
with co-channel RAS. The Commission
will give further consideration to the
42.5–43.5 GHz band separately.
26. The Commission seeks comment
on whether it is possible to authorize
fixed and mobile use in the 42 GHz
band while protecting RAS observations
in the adjacent 42.5–43.5 GHz band. If
protection is possible, the Commission
seeks comment on what protections
should be established. CORF notes that
frequency lines at 42.519, 42.821,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
43.122, and 43.424 GHz (for
observations of silicon monoxide) are
among those of greatest importance to
radio astronomy. CORF represents, ‘‘The
detrimental levels for continuum and
spectral line radio astronomy
observations for single dishes are ¥227
dBW/m2/Hz and ¥210 dBW/m2/Hz,
respectively, for the average across the
full 1 GHz band and the peak level in
any single 500 kHz channel. For
observations using the entire Very Long
Baseline Array (VLBA), the
corresponding limit is ¥175 dBW/m2/
Hz.’’ Does the Commission need to
establish special out-of-band emission
limits into the 42.5–43.5 GHz band? Is
it necessary or appropriate to establish
a guard band below 42.5 GHz? The
Commission asks proponents of
terrestrial use in the 42 GHz band to
provide detailed studies demonstrating
how such use can be compatible with
RAS use in the 42.4–43.5 GHz band.
The Commission also asks CORF and
other radio astronomy interests to
provide additional information on the
locations where observations are made
in the 42.4–43.5 GHz band.
27. The Commission also seeks
comment on the appropriate band plan
for the 42 GHz band. Should the band
be licensed as a single channel, split
into two channels, or split into multiple
100 megahertz channels? The
Commission recognizes that if the
Commission adopts a guard band to
protect adjacent channel radio
astronomy, the guard band will affect
the band plan by making less spectrum
available. Given the contemplated use
cases and the nature of this band, what
channel size would be best? The
Commission encourages commenters to
discuss the specific advantages and
disadvantages of various band plans.
28. Finally, the Commission proposes
to add Federal fixed and mobile
allocations into this band, and
additionally seek comment on
establishing a framework under which
Federal and non-Federal users could
share the band. Given the short
propagation distances, lack of
incumbent licensees, and other factors,
as described in the 37 GHz sharing
section and the rules the Commission
adopted in the Report and Order, the
Commission believes it is possible for
both Federal and non-Federal users to
coexist on a co-primary basis,
particularly using simple methods of
coordination (to enable geographic
sharing). The Commission therefore
seeks comment on whether to extend
Federal access to this band, including
how to best achieve coexistence with
non-Federal uses. For instance, are there
additional considerations in addition to
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
leveraging the sharing regime adopted
for the co-primary coordinated sharing
in the 37 GHz band? Should the
Commission use more static sharing
mechanisms? Would an SAS-based
sharing approach facilitate Federal and
non-Federal sharing of this band? Are
there other tools the Commission can
leverage to create a robust sharing
environment that allows this spectrum
to meet both Federal and non-Federal
needs?
4. 47 GHz Band (47.2–50.2 GHz)
29. The Commission proposes to
authorize fixed and mobile operations
in the 47 GHz band (47.2–50.2 GHz)
under the Part 30 Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service rules. The band
potentially offers 3 GHz of spectrum and
is being studied internationally for
possible mobile use.
30. At the same time, the Commission
recognizes that this band is authorized
for FSS use. While there are no current
authorized operations, this band may be
paired with the 40–42 GHz downlink
band. Unlike in the 28 GHz or 39 GHz
bands, where FSS can use other
spectrum to operate user equipment,
FSS would have to use some portion of
the 47 GHz band to operate user
equipment. Sharing between terrestrial
mobile and FSS user equipment is more
complicated, particularly when the FSS
user equipment is transmitting.
31. With respect to individually
licensed earth stations, it appears that
the Commission could adopt the sharing
framework the Commission has adopted
for the 28 GHz band. Specifically, in
each PEA, the Commission proposes
that there can be one location where
FSS earth stations can be located on a
co-primary basis, subject to the
conditions and limitations the
Commission has adopted in other
bands. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal, as well as alternatives.
32. The Commission seeks comment
on the best approach for sharing
between FSS user equipment and
terrestrial operations. One option would
be to have geographic area licensing on
a PEA basis, but also authorize databasedriven sharing between terrestrial
licensees and stationary FSS user
equipment. In the NPRM, the
Commission sought comment on
leveraging a Spectrum Access System
(SAS) or other database coordination
mechanism to facilitate sharing between
terrestrial operations and FSS user
equipment. Under the SAS proposal,
terrestrial licensees would provide the
geographic coordinates and other
pertinent technical information
concerning their facilities to the SAS.
Satellite operators would then access
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the information in the SAS to determine
where their user equipment could
transmit without causing interference to
terrestrial operations. The Commission
recognizes that many terrestrial
operators oppose being required to
provide information on their
deployments to a database, but those
operators have not presented a viable
alternative that would allow sharing
between these services.
33. Another option would be to divide
the band into a segment where FSS has
priority and a segment where UMFUS
operations has priority.2 In the segment
where FSS had priority, FSS could
operate its user equipment without any
obligation to protect UMFUS operations.
Conversely, in the segment where
UMFUS licensees had priority, satellite
user equipment could operate on a
purely secondary basis and would be
required to cease transmitting if it
caused interference to fixed or mobile
operations. Supporters of this option
should propose a split for the band and
explain how their proposed split best
balances the needs of UMFUS and FSS
licensees.
34. A third option would be to
develop specific criteria for assigning
priority between FSS and terrestrial
operations. For example, the
Commission could require both FSS and
UMFUS licensees to register their
operations in a database, and the
Commission could assign interference
protection on a first-come, first-served
basis. The Commission seeks comment
on a first-come, first-served approach,
and the Commission also invites
commenters to propose alternative
criteria for assigning priority.
Commenters should provide detailed
information on the costs and benefits of
their proposed mechanisms for
assigning priorities. The Commission
also seeks comment on other
alternatives for sharing between UMFUS
and FSS in this band.
35. The Commission also seeks
comment on sharing with co-primary
Federal services in the 48.2–50.2 GHz
band, as well as protection of passive
services in the adjacent 50.2–50.4 GHz
band. Our understanding is that there
are currently no authorized Federal or
non-Federal operations in the 48.2–50.2
GHz band but that there may be future
Federal operations in that band. Are the
rules and framework the Commission
adopted in the Order for sharing of the
37 GHz band applicable to the 48.2–50.2
2 The Commission could maintain the current
wireless services and FSS designations. When the
Commission made the separate designations for the
FSS and wireless services in the band, it did not
place any restrictions on the use of either portion
of the band by either the FSS or wireless services.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
GHz band? Could a modified first-come,
first-served mechanism be used to
establish priority in this band without
precluding use of the band by coprimary Federal users? Should the
Commission leverage the databasedriven sharing mechanism? The
Commission intends to work with NTIA
and other Federal agencies to identify
an appropriate framework to protect
current or planned Federal interests in
and ensure future access to this band on
a co-primary shared basis. The
Commission also seeks comment on
protecting radio astronomy in the
48.94–49.04 GHz band. Are there any
steps the Commission needs to take to
protect radio astronomy over and above
implementing the existing prohibition
on aeronautical use in that segment?
The Commission encourages CORF and
other radio astronomy interests to
provide information on locations where
this band is used for radio astronomy
observations. With respect to the 50.2–
50.4 GHz band, the Commission notes
that the international allocation for the
passive services ‘‘shall not impose
undue constraints on the use of adjacent
bands by the primary allocated services
in those bands.’’ On the other hand, at
WRC–12, the WRC recognized ‘‘that
long-term protection of the EESS in the
[, inter alia, 50.2–50.4 GHz band] is vital
to weather prediction and disaster
management.’’ The WRC did establish
emission limits for FSS stations
operating in the 49.7–50.2 GHz and
50.4–50.9 GHz bands, but did not
address fixed or mobile stations
operating in those bands. Given that
framework, what requirements would be
appropriate to protect passive services
in the 50.2–50.4 GHz bands?
36. The Commission also seeks
comment on the appropriate band plan
for the 47 GHz band. One possibility
would be to divide the band into six
channels of 500 MHz each. One
advantage of that band plan is that the
channels would align with 48.2 GHz,
which is where the Federal allocation
and current FSS designation begin and
where FSS user equipment can begin to
be deployed. On the other hand, 500
megahertz channels would not align
with the band plan in other bands,
where the Commission is using
multiples of 200 MHz. Given the
contemplated use cases and the nature
of this band, what channel size would
be best? The Commission encourages
commenters to discuss the specific
advantages and disadvantages of various
band plans.
5. 50 GHz Band (50.4–52.6 GHz)
37. The Commission proposes to
authorize fixed and mobile operations
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58275
in the 50 GHz band (50.4–52.6 GHz)
under the Part 30 Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service rules. The band
potentially offers 2 GHz of spectrum and
is being studied internationally for
possible mobile use. The Commission
also proposes to use geographic area
licensing in this band and license the
band on a PEA basis. The Commission
seeks comment on these proposals, as
well as alternatives. The Commission
also seeks comment on the non-Federal
satellite allocations in the 50.4–51.4
GHz band.3 Assuming that the 40–42
GHz (space-to-Earth) band is paired
with the 48.2–50.2 GHz (Earth-to-space)
band, the Commission requests
comments on how this uplink band
would be used by FSS operators. The
Commission also requests comments on
means of accommodating sharing
between terrestrial and satellite
operations.
38. The Commission also seeks
comment on sharing with co-primary
Federal services in the 50.4–52.6 GHz
band, as well as protection of passive
services in the adjacent 50.2–50.4 GHz
and 52.6–54.25 GHz bands. The
Commission’s understanding is that
there are currently no authorized
Federal or non-Federal operations in
this band but that there may be future
Federal operations in that band. Are the
rules and framework the Commission
adopted in the Order for sharing of the
37 GHz band applicable to this band?
Could a database-driven sharing
approach facilitate sharing between
Federal and non-Federal operations?
Could a modified first-come, first-served
mechanism be used to establish priority
in this band without precluding use of
the band by co-primary Federal users?
The Commission intends to work with
NTIA and other Federal agencies to
identify an appropriate framework to
protect current or planned Federal
interests and to ensure future access to
this band on a co-primary shared basis.
With respect to the 50.2–50.4 GHz band
this band is vital to weather prediction
and disaster management, and the
international allocation for the passive
services ‘‘shall not impose undue
constraints on the use of adjacent bands
by the primary allocated services in
those bands.’’ Given that framework,
what limits on emissions into the 50.2–
50.4 GHz would be appropriate? On the
3 The Commission notes that the NATO Joint
Frequency Agreement identifies the 39–5–40.5 GHz
downlink band and the 50.4–51.4 GHz uplink band
for future military FSS and MSS requirements. See
NTIA letter, IB Docket No. 97–95, received May 7,
1997, at p. 4. See also NTIA’s Federal Long-Range
Spectrum Plan, September 2000, at p. 122 (available
at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/
final-1rsp.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
58276
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
other hand, there is a specific limit on
fixed emissions into the 52.6–54.25 GHz
band. What impact will that limit have
on the suitability of this band to provide
terrestrial service? What limits would be
necessary on mobile service to protect
the 52.6–54.25 GHz band?
39. The Commission also seeks
comment on the appropriate band plan
for the 50 GHz band. One option is to
establish ten channels of 200 MHz each,
which would be consistent with the
channel plan for the 39 GHz band. Other
options include four channels of 500
megahertz each or five channels of 400
MHz each, with one extra 200 MHz
channel. Is there any value in
establishing a guard band immediately
below 52.6 GHz to protect the passive
band above 52.6 GHz? Given the
contemplated use cases and the nature
of this band, what channel size would
be best? The Commission encourages
commenters to discuss the specific
advantages and disadvantages of the
various band plans.
6. 70/80 GHz Bands (71–76 GHz and
81–86 GHz)
40. When evaluating services or uses
that could be viable if the Commission
authorize their introduction into the 71–
76 and 81–86 GHz bands, the
Commission must consider three basic
issues. First, the Commission needs to
consider whether the bands offer
adequate spectrum for the proposed
new services or uses in bands where
tens of thousands of incumbent
operations are already registered.
Second, the Commission needs to
consider whether the new services or
uses are compatible with the
fundamental electromagnetic
characteristics of the relevant spectrum.
And third, the Commission needs to
consider whether more than one service
or use can coexist in the bands. The
Commission addresses each of these
considerations and corollary concerns
below.
41. The NPRM posited that it might
not be possible to authorize mobile
services or unlicensed access in the 71–
76 and 81–86 GHz bands without
causing interference to incumbent
point-to-point links. After further
review, the Commission finds that the
bands are relatively lightly used both in
terms of the number of registered sites
(especially on a large geographic scale)
and with respect to the quantity of
spectrum available. As E-Band
Communications notes, ‘‘The 10 GHz of
spectrum available [in the 71–76 and
81–86 GHz bands] represents by far the
most ever allocated by the FCC at any
one time, representing 50-times the
bandwidth of the entire cellular
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
spectrum.’’ Moreover, the great majority
of existing links in the bands are
concentrated in just a few localities. As
of June 10, 2016, only 16 counties had
an average site density of more than one
transmission or reception site per square
mile, and those 16 counties contain
more than 73 percent of all registered
transmitters and receivers in the 71–76
and 81–86 GHz bands. Given the narrow
beamwidths and limited path lengths
involved, it would be reasonable to treat
the remaining 3,125 counties and
county-equivalents as the functional
equivalent of a green field, provided
that adequate measures are taken to
protect the few incumbents in them.
42. The Commission must also
consider whether the physical
characteristics of the bands are suitable
for the kinds of services that might be
authorized in the bands—this is
particularly true for mmW bands where
atmospheric and other environmental
phenomena affect the utility of the
band. In general, for example,
atmospheric attenuation increases the
higher one goes in the electromagnetic
spectrum, limiting the potential length
of transmission paths. However, the 71–
76 and 81–86 GHz bands experience
less attenuation than frequencies in the
50–60 GHz range.
43. In addition to atmospheric
attenuation, spreading loss also becomes
an issue in the mmW bands. As the Friis
transmission law states, path loss grows
with the square of the frequency, even
when radio waves are traveling through
a vacuum. The caveat, however, is that
Friis’s law applies only to transmissions
from omnidirectional antennas. As a
recent technical study and analysis
explains, ‘‘[T]he smaller wavelength of
mmW signals also enables
proportionally greater antenna gain for
the same physical antenna size.
Consequently, the higher frequencies of
mmW signals do not in themselves
result in any increased free space
propagation loss, provided the antenna
area remains fixed and suitable
directional transmissions are used.’’ In
short, the directionality of the antennas
that are feasible at shorter wavelengths
may result in less path loss than
theorized. Based upon this preliminary
analysis, the Commission believes the
bands might be valuable for a variety of
uses, including mobile as well as fixed
uses. In determining whether new and
different services can coexist in these
bands, the Commission must also look
at whether the new service use can be
authorized in a manner that does not
disrupt the incumbent use (or
otherwise, the Commission could
decide to disrupt the incumbent use),
and whether the existing use can and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
should continue to expand. Specific to
this analysis is whether the current and
potential future fixed point-to-point
uses of these bands might be compatible
with other types of fixed or mobile uses.
44. When evaluating the compatibility
between fixed and mobile services in
the 70/80 GHz band, one important
consideration is the beamwidths of their
transmission paths because tighter
beams are less likely to cause
interference. Historically, the
Commission has tried to balance the
desire for smaller antennas against the
spectrum efficiencies of narrow
beamwidths in the 70/80 GHz band.
Over the last decade, the Commission
has continued to explore modifying the
technical rules to allow larger
beamwidths. Most recently, on October
13, 2015, WTB’s Broadband Division
opened a new docket (Public Notice 30
FCC Rcd 10961 (WTB 2015)) to address
two waiver requests seeking a further
relaxation of antenna standards in the
71–76 and 81–86 GHz bands. As the
waiver requests and comments filed in
that docket attest, evidence suggests that
the Commission might further relax the
allowed beamwidth to 2.2 degrees. That
step, if taken, would bring the bands’
technical standards into a realm that is
at least potentially compatible with
dynamic beamforming technology
because a 2.2-degree beamwidth is also
achievable by the kinds of MIMO base
stations that will be supporting mmW
mobile services. At least when operating
with beamforming MIMO, these base
stations would likely be able to coexist
with conventional point-to-point Fixed
Service links.
45. The introduction of fixed services
under somewhat relaxed directionality
requirements in addition to mmW
mobile services pose a new coexistence
consideration. It is likely that, when
both fixed and mobile mmW services
are operated by the same entity, they
can sufficiently plan, coordinate, and
time their use to facilitate coexistence.
In looking at whether incumbent fixed
services, new more dynamic fixed
services, and potential mobile services
(and equipment) in these bands may
coexist, it is apparent that the use of a
central coordinating database capable of
calculating and enforcing protections
among different types of users, like a
Spectrum Access System, could
facilitate this coexistence.
46. Initially, coordination of nonFederal links with Federal operations in
the 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz, and 92–95
GHz (70/80/90) bands was
accomplished under a traditional
coordination process: that is, requested
non-Federal links were recorded in the
Commission’s Universal Licensing
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
System (ULS) database and coordinated
with the NTIA through the
Interdepartment Radio Advisory
Committee (IRAC) Frequency
Assignment Subcommittee. However,
beginning on February 8, 2005, this
interim link registration process was
replaced by a permanent process in
which third-party database managers are
responsible for recording each proposed
non-Federal link in the third-party
database link system and coordinating
with NTIA’s automated ‘‘green light/
yellow light’’ mechanism to determine
the potential for harmful interference
with Federal operations. A ‘‘green light’’
response indicates that the link is
coordinated with the Federal
Government; a ‘‘yellow light’’ response
indicates a potential for interference to
Federal Government or certain other
operations. In the case of a ‘‘yellow
light,’’ the licensee must file an
application for the requested link with
the Commission, which in turn will
submit the application to IRAC for
individual coordination. This
automated process is designed to
streamline the administrative process
for non-Federal users in the bands. The
Commission noted that the classified
nature of some Federal operations
precludes the use of a public database
containing both Federal and nonFederal links.
47. This system has been effectively
used for over a decade to facilitate
coexistence between commercial
systems and Federal systems: the
technical data needed to avoid
interfering with incumbent non-Federal
licensees is already available in existing
registration databases, and an automated
system to prevent interference with
Federal systems is already in place and
has been in operation for years.
48. Recently, the Commission has
developed other means of facilitating
spectrum sharing. In May 2016, seven
parties filed applications to be certified
SAS Administrators for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. The SAS is a
critical tool to enable spectrum sharing
in the band. SAS will protect incumbent
users based on technical criteria,
authorize all devices in the band,
protect a Priority Access Tier, and
coordinate a General Authorized Access
(GAA) Tier. By leveraging the SAS
computational power, protections can
be tailored to the characteristics of the
systems that require protection,
different uses with different
characteristics can be coordinated in a
similar area, and spectrum efficiency
can be maximized. Based on the
experience with the coordination
system for the 70/80 GHz band, and the
existing rules for the SAS, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
Commission proposes to establish a
SAS-based regulatory framework
adapted to the constraints and the
opportunities of the 71–76 and 81–86
GHz bands. In particular, the
Commission invites comments on the
following questions and proposals:
• The Commission proposes to
establish three tiers of users for the 71–
76 and 81–86 GHz band, consisting of:
(1) Incumbent Access users, which
would receive the highest level of
protection; (2) Priority Access Licensees
(PALs); and (3) GAA users. Each tier
would be required to prevent
interference to, and accept interference
from, higher tier users.
• The Commission seeks comment on
whether the rules for these bands
should be included in Part 30 (Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service) or Part
96 (Citizens Broadband Radio Service).
• Incumbent Access: The
Commission proposes to continue to
protect existing Federal locations and
seek comment on the ability to add
future sites on the same protected basis.
The Commission seeks comment on
whether existing 70/80 GHz licensees
and registered links should also qualify
for incumbent protection. Alternatively,
the Commission seeks comment on
whether they should be grandfathered
for some period of time, then required
to transition to the new service the
Commission proposes here (most
notably, deploy equipment consistent
with the technical rules and capable of
communicating to an SAS). To the
extent grandfathered links are protected,
the Commission proposes to require the
links to be operational and in service,
and seek comment on requiring
incumbent licensees to certify their
construction and operational status with
the Commission. The Commission also
seeks comment on the appropriate
means for protecting Federal
incumbents, including whether the
Commission should modify the existing
system or utilize a more automated
system (like a sensor-based system).
Finally, the Commission seeks comment
on the extent to which Federal users
could expand their service area and gain
protected status under the incumbent
tier.
• Priority Access: As in the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service, the
Commission proposes to create a
Priority Access Tier in which the
Commission would make PALs
available for geographic license areas.
The Commission proposes to authorize
PALs within census tracts, with oneyear, non-renewable license terms. The
Commission believes that this approach
will provide licensees with the certainty
required to promote investment while
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58277
maximizing efficient use of the
spectrum and incentivizing a variety of
innovative deployment models. The
Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
• General Authorized Access: The
Commission proposes to create a GAA
tier, and seek comment on whether the
tier should be licensed by rule or subject
to a ‘‘licensed light’’ regime similar to
the existing structure for the 70/80 GHz
band (non-exclusive nationwide
licenses with individual sites
authorized). The Commission seeks
comment on whether the GAA tier
should have access to a set channels,
(i.e., there would be some first-in-time
right that would provide some level of
certainty) or if the Commission should
require (or allow) the SAS to
dynamically maximize the number of
GAA sites in a given area. Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
the Commission should defer
authorizing GAA users until the
conclusion of initial Priority Access
license terms.
• Protection Methodology: The
Commission invites comment on the
appropriate technical methodologies for
protecting licensees that are entitled to
protection, including but not limited to
the following alternatives:
a. Require SAS to calculate expected
aggregate interference at each
incumbent or Priority Access receiver,
based on their positions and the
technical parameters of their equipment,
together with the corresponding
parameters of intruding transmitters.
b. Establish a maximum aggregate
received signal level within Priority
Access license areas, which would be
measured in terms of power flux density
(PFD) per megahertz of bandwidth at
specified heights above the ground.
c. Implement an alternate protection
scheme whereby the SAS would protect
operator-defined contours around
Priority Access base stations to a
protection level at a specified dBm per
megahertz of bandwidth anywhere
within the contour.
• Technical Rules: The Commission
proposes to establish two classes of
licenses for point-to-point operations in
these bands that will be subject to the
technical requirements described below.
a. Class A licenses would be
authorized only for operations at a
minimum specified height above ground
level, would be authorized to use
comparatively high power levels, and
would be required to use tightbeamwidth antennas. Class B point-topoint licenses would be authorized
transmit at streetlamp level, with
somewhat relaxed beamwidth
requirements in order to accommodate
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58278
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
smaller antennas. The Commission
invites comment on the appropriate
height limits, power levels, and
beamwidth constraints that would be
appropriate for these purposes.
b. The Commission proposes to
authorize dynamic beamforming
antennas to provide in-band backhaul so
long as they conform to the same
beamwidth requirements, height
limitations, and other requirements that
apply to conventional antennas used for
point-to-point links.
c. The Commission proposes to
authorize the same dynamic
beamforming antennas to serve mobile
user equipment, with further relaxation
of beamwidth requirements, provided
that they are situated no higher than
streetlamp level and provided further
that their antennas are inclined
downward at a minimum specified
angle when they are communicating
with mobile user equipment. The
Commission invites comment on
appropriate beamwidths, inclination
angles, power levels, and height
constraints for these purposes.
d. The Commission proposes to
require that Class A license equipment
be professionally installed but that nonprofessionals be allowed to install Class
B license equipment and mobile base
station equipment, provided that the
installer is equipped with the necessary
geo-location equipment or that the
equipment itself is capable of
ascertaining its location and its
orientation.
e. The Commission invites comment
on technical requirements that would be
appropriate for different kinds of user
equipment in these bands,
differentiating between point-to-point,
handheld mobile equipment, and
mobile equipment that will typically be
situated more than 20 centimeters away
from people. The Commission proposes
to require that user equipment be
allowed to transmit only when it is
locked onto a serving base station, with
the possible exception of brief pilot or
sounding signals.
f. The Commission proposes to
require SAS to maintain and verify
information from registered base
stations and Fixed Service transmitters
and receiver equipment under their
coordination, and the Commission
invites comment on the minimum
geographic positioning accuracy that the
Commission should require, including
accuracy with respect to altitude as well
as latitude and longitude. The
Commission also seeks comment on
requiring licenses to update registration
information if the location or
operational status of registered base
station equipment changes. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
Commission does not propose to require
SAS to maintain position awareness of
mobile user equipment.
g. The Commission proposes to
establish out of band emissions (OOBE)
limits for all equipment authorized to
operate in these bands, and the
Commission invites comments on the
appropriate technical parameters to
apply for that purpose.
• Indoor Use: The Commission
invites comments on the feasibility of
authorizing unlicensed, indoor-only
operations, subject to Part 15 of our
rules. The Commission has decided not
to adopt the NPRM’s proposal to
authorize unlicensed indoor-only
operations in the 37 GHz band, but the
Commission believes that the
comparative amount of signal leakage
through windows could be much lower
in the 71–76 GHz and 81–86 GHz bands,
and consequently would be less likely
to interfere with outdoor operations.
The Commission seeks further
information on that issue, especially
from commenters that have performed
relevant tests or have access to the
results of such tests. The Commission
notes that Part 15 already provides
technical rules for indoor-only
operation in the 92–95 GHz band that
are similar to the rules in the existing
57–64 GHz band, but require that these
devices be AC-powered in order to
ensure that they only operate indoors. If
the Commission allows unlicensed
operation at 71–76 GHz/81–86 GHz,
should similar technical rules apply?
What additional restrictions should be
added to ensure that this type of
equipment will not interfere with
authorized services that are currently
operating in these bands? Alternatively,
would registered indoor GAA use be a
better mechanism for facilitating indoor
use of these bands? The Commission
seeks comment on this and any other
relevant issue regarding unlicensed and
indoor operations within this spectrum.
• The Commission proposes to
extend the same requirements and
privileges to all parts of the United
States, but the Commission also invites
comment on the alternative of
establishing a separate regulatory
framework for the 16 counties that are
heavily registered with incumbent
users.
• The Commission proposes to
require SAS to be capable of performing
the following operations:
a. Determine the available frequencies
at a given geographic location and
assign them to PAL and/or GAA
licensees;
b. Determine the maximum
permissible transmission power level
for incumbent, PAL, and GAA licensees
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
at a given location and communicate
that information;
c. Register and authenticate the
identification information and location
of incumbent, PAL and GAA licensees;
d. Enforce Exclusion and Protection
Zones, including any future changes to
such Zones, to ensure compatibility
between non-Federal users of spectrum
in the 71–76 GHz and 81–86 GHz bands
and incumbent Federal operations;
e. Ensure that PAL and GAA licensees
protect non-Federal incumbent users
consistent with the rules;
f. Protect Priority Access Licensees
from impermissible interference from
other users;
g. Facilitate coordination between
GAA users to promote a stable spectral
environment;
h. Ensure secure and reliable
transmission of information between the
SAS, ESC, and PAL and GAA licensees;
i. Provide any ESC that the
Commission might approve with any
sensing information reported by PAL
and GAA licensees if available;
j. Facilitate coordination and
information exchange with other SASs
and exchange information, as needed,
with NTIA.
49. The Commission also seeks
comment on alternative methods of
authorizing additional access to these
bands, including exclusive use licensing
and unlicensed. As discussed,
authorizing new flexible use operations
in these bands is difficult given the
incumbent fixed commercial and
Federal operations. How would an
exclusive use licensing or unlicensed
access models work? How would
incumbents be protected and be
permitted to expand? Could the
Commission auction overlay licenses
that allow the auction winner to
negotiate with the incumbents in the
area for their rights? How could
unlicensed operations sufficiently
protect incumbents? Have
circumstances changed since the
Commission declined to allow
unlicensed operations in these bands in
2003? The Commission seeks comment
on these and other issues implicated in
any alternative licensing or
authorization scheme.
8. Bands Above 95 GHz
50. In the NPRM, the Commission
noted that several parties expressed
support for making additional spectrum
available in the upper reaches of the
spectrum, particularly above 95 GHz.
The Commission invited parties to
submit proposals for use of this
spectrum, including proposals for
authorizing use under our Part 15 rules
for unlicensed devices. Commenters
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
generally did not respond to this
request, but the Commission recognizes
that the NPRM explored many spectrum
issues and commenters may have
chosen to focus on the specific
proposals for the frequency bands below
95 GHz. Moreover, the Commission is
aware that operations above 95 GHz
involve nascent technology that is being
developed by small companies that may
not be accustomed to participating in
FCC proceedings. Nevertheless, the
Commission is committed to developing
a record that will provide a basis for
proposing rules that will encourage the
introduction of new services and
devices above 95 GHz.
75. The spectrum from 95 to 275 GHz
has been allocated for a variety of
different types of Federal and nonFederal radio services. In addition, the
international Table of Frequency
Allocations has been extended from 275
to 1,000 GHz for specific services and,
in a separate proceeding, the
Commission is considering how to
amend the United States table. The
bands above 95 GHz have already been
identified for services that typically
involve the reception of extremely weak
signals, such as radio astronomy, space
research, and Earth Exploration
Satellite. All of the bands, with some
minor exceptions, are allocated on a coprimary basis for Federal and nonFederal use.
51. The Commission recognizes that
signals in the frequency bands above 95
GHz will attenuate rapidly, intuitively
tending to minimize the risk of harmful
interference to other radio services.
However, this does not by itself provide
a basis for proposing to allow use of any
spectrum above 95 GHz. The
Commission believes the process of
facilitating technology above 95 GHz
can best be advanced by identifying
specific frequency bands rather than
attempting to address all parts of the
spectrum above 95 GHz. Accordingly,
the Commission takes this opportunity
to solicit information on the specific
parts of the spectrum that would be
most attractive from the standpoint of
technology development while
successfully coexisting with the types of
radio communications services that
operate under the existing allocations.
52. In identifying specific frequency
bands, the Commission asks
commenters to provide specific analyses
to justify any claims that there are no
risks of harmful interference to other
radio services. Which bands should be
made available for licensed or
unlicensed use? Is there sufficient
information to identify where and on
what frequencies both existing and
planned radio astronomy, space
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
research, Earth Exploration Satellite,
and similar users will actually operate?
What technical rules may be
appropriate? For parties supporting
unlicensed use, will it be necessary to
control the locations of operation to
prevent harmful interference to radio
astronomy, space research, Earth
Exploration Satellite, or other services?
If so, how could the areas of permissible
operations be controlled under the
unlicensed rules? For bands that
commenters believe should be made
available on a licensed basis, should the
new Part 30 rules or other service rules
apply? How would the Commission
create a licensing scheme for signals
that generally propagate over very short
distances? Should the Commission
permit both mobile and fixed service?
What technical rules should apply? The
Commission encourages parties to file
comments addressing these matters.
B. Federal Sharing Issues—37 GHz Band
(37–38.6 GHz)
53. As the Commission indicated in
the Report and Order, FCC staff will—
in coordination with NTIA, Department
of Defense (DoD), and other Federal and
non-Federal stakeholders—further
define the sharing framework by more
fully developing the coordination
mechanisms the Commission adopt for
the lower band segment. The
Commission also seeks comment on
adopting methods for shared (Federal
and non-Federal) access of the upper
band segment, including through a use
or share requirement, and how to
facilitate coordination for potential
future Federal access across the licensed
portions. Thus the Commission seeks
comment on the issues described below.
1. Coordination Mechanism for the
Lower Band Segment
54. As explained in the Report and
Order, the lower band segment is
available for coordinated coequal
sharing between Federal fixed and
mobile users and non-Federal fixed and
mobile users. Non-Federal fixed and
mobile users, which the Commission
will identify as Shared Access Licensees
(SALs), will be authorized by rule.
Federal and non-Federal fixed and
mobile users will access the band by
registering individual sites through a
coordination mechanism. The Report
and Order explained that FCC staff will
work with stakeholders, both Federal
and non-Federal, to help develop the
details of the coordination process.
Here, the Commission seeks comment
on the coordination mechanism—that
is, the regulatory, technical, or
procedural tool necessary to actually
facilitate coordinated access. Our
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58279
expectation is that some of the issues
raised here may be further developed
through the collaborative process
between the FCC, NTIA, DOD, and other
Federal users set out in the Report and
Order, as well as through comments in
response to this FNPRM.
55. The Commission believes that a
robust coordination mechanism is
essential to ensuring that both Federal
and non-Federal fixed and mobile users
have effective coordinated access to the
lower band segment. The coordination
mechanism will authorize a particular
user to use a particular bandwidth of
spectrum at a particular location. To do
so efficiently and effectively, it must be
able to obtain information about the
type of equipment used, the signal
contour from the coordinated location,
and the bandwidth requested compared
with the bandwidth available. As
discussed below, it must also be capable
of regularly updating the status of a
coordinated location (on/off or
authorized/unauthorized). Moreover, it
will have to incorporate this type of
information for both Federal and nonFederal fixed and mobile uses. Here, the
sharing environment is relatively
straight forward—there are limited
incumbent uses that need to be
protected, and Federal and non-Federal
fixed and mobile users will have
coequal rights to the band. The
Commission also believes that the
propagation characteristics of this band
might help minimize the complexity of
the coordination mechanism.
56. The Commission notes that
historically the Commission has used
manual frequency coordination
managed by third party frequency
coordinators. Recently however, the
Commission finalized the rules for the
3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband Radio
Service, which relies not on a static
frequency coordination mechanism, but
on a dynamic mechanism known as a
SAS that coordinates uses among
different tiers of users, rather than on an
individual basis. The Commission seeks
comment on the most appropriate
mechanism for the lower band segment.
Should the Commission rely on static,
manual frequency coordination, a
dynamic SAS-type mechanism, or
something in between? For instance,
would the advanced capabilities of
automated coordination from SAS
present advantages over other types of
coordination? Is a full SAS
implementation, consistent with the
Part 96 requirements, appropriate here?
57. The Commission also seeks
comment on the protection or operation
contours necessary for the coordination
mechanism to reserve a quantity of
spectrum at a location for a user. In the
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
58280
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Report and Order, the Commission
established technical rules for operation
in the lower band segment, which are
consistent with the rules adopted for the
28 GHz band, the 39 GHz band, and the
upper band segment of the 37 GHz
band. Based on this technical
information, should the Commission
establish a maximum protection contour
for coordinated sites? Alternatively,
should the Commission allow the
coordinated party to request less or
more protection?
58. Although non-Federal fixed and
mobile users must follow the
coordination requirements that the
Commission adopted in the Report and
Order to protect the Federal sites listed
in Section 30.205 of our rules, the
Commission seeks comment on how to
ensure coexistence between Federal and
non-Federal fixed and mobile users.
Ideally, Federal fixed and mobile uses
would comply with the same or similar
technical requirements as non-Federal
fixed and mobile uses. For instance,
NTIA might establish in its Manual of
Regulations and Procedures for Federal
Radio Frequency Management a set of
technical rules for operations in this
band, there could be a notation in the
U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, or
the Commission could rely on some
other means. The Commission seeks
comment on these and other
mechanisms. Absent consistent (or
known) technical rules governing
Federal operations, how should the
coordination mechanism account for
their protection or operational area of
these operations?
59. Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on how best to coordinate
Federal access. Is it feasible for Federal
users to rely on the same coordination
mechanism as non-Federal? How should
the coordination mechanism address
information security issues particular to
Federal users? The Commission seeks
comment on the means of achieving
information security, including ways for
the information to be masked, e.g., by
having Federal users coordinate through
a Federal intermediary that interfaces
with the non-Federal coordination
mechanism, such as the existing
mechanism in the 70/80/90 GHz band.
2. Channelization of the Lower Band
Segment
60. As discussed in the Report and
Order, the lower band segment consists
of 600 MHz of spectrum from 37–37.6
GHz. Although the Commission adopted
a channelization plan for the upper
band segment, the Commission did not
do so for the lower band segment. Thus,
the Commission proposes to guarantee
users in the lower band segment a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
minimum channel size. Specifically, the
Commission proposes to establish a 100
MHz minimum channel size. The
Commission also proposes, however, to
allow users to aggregate 100 MHz
channels into larger channel sizes, up to
the maximum of 600 MHz where
available (subject to use requirements as
described below).
61. The Commission also finds that
our proposal to adopt a minimum
channel size of 100 MHz strikes the
right balance between providing enough
spectrum for a diversity of wireless uses
with helping to minimize the
complexity of the coordination
mechanism. The Commission notes that
while most commenters in this
proceeding generally favor channel sizes
of 200 MHz or greater, other
commenters suggest that smaller
channel sizes can still facilitate robust
wireless broadband services. By
permitting users to aggregate up to 600
MHz channels, the Commission found
that it has enabled maximum flexibility
for a variety of use cases involving a
variety of channel sizes. The
Commission seeks comment on these
proposals. The Commission also seeks
comment on alternative approaches,
including whether the Commission
should adopt 100 MHz or a larger
minimum channel size. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
the Commission should refrain from
setting a minimum channel size and
instead require the coordination
mechanism to attempt to maximize the
number of users in a given area.
3. Authorization Expiration/
Construction Requirement for the Lower
Band Segment
62. To achieve a robust and efficient
sharing environment and prevent
spectrum warehousing, the Commission
proposes that registered non-Federal
sites must be put into service within
seven days of coordination and that
registered and coordinated sites must
reassert their registration every seven
days. For example, if the Commission
relies on a database for coordination, a
user could query the database for
available frequencies at a location, and
reserve those frequencies for seven days.
Within seven days, it would need to
activate a device that is capable of
notifying the database that it is active on
the channel. That device would then
check in with the database (or receive
and respond to a message from the
database) at least once every seven days.
If the device fails to check in within the
seven day period, its authorization
would lapse. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. Are these
time frames appropriate? Are there other
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
tools to ensure the spectrum is put to
use consistent with the public interest?
4. Priority Access for Federal Users of
the Lower Band Segment
63. The Commission recognizes that
Federal users’ needs are not necessarily
commensurate with non-Federal users’
needs. The use cases will likely differ,
the level of certainty and protection or
a use related to a critical defense or
national security mission may vary. The
Commission therefore seeks comment
on whether the Commission should
make a portion of the lower band
segment available for priority access by
Federal users. For instance, should the
Commission allow Federal users to
claim priority access to up to 200 MHz
of the 600 MHz lower band segment?
Could the coordination mechanism
statically reserve this space or
dynamically make it available when
requested? For instance, if the entire
band is in use, could the database
reconfigure the channels or clear the
necessary channel size?
5. Interference Mitigation in the Lower
Band Segment
64. The Commission seeks comment
on any necessary enforcement
mechanism in the lower band segment
to help identify and rectify interference
events. Because the Commission
proposes to require users in the lower
band segment to coordinate on a sitebasis, it may be easier to identify and
rectify any interference issues that may
arise. The Commission recognizes,
however, that there may be users and
uses, both Federal and non-Federal, for
which any interference may be
significantly problematic. Therefore, the
Commission seeks comment on any
additional interference mitigation and
enforcement mechanisms that might be
necessary.
6. Secondary Market Policies for the
Lower Band Segment
65. Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on whether and how to apply
secondary market rules to the lower
band segment. As proposed, the band
will be made available on a site-by-site
basis. Partitioning and disaggregation
generally do not apply in site-based
licensing circumstances. Should they
apply here, and if so, how? Should the
Commission apply our leasing rules?
What are the benefits to secondary
market rules for the lower band segment
relative to other ways to gain access to
the spectrum?
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
7. Use It or Share It and Federal Sharing
in the Upper Band Segment
66. As described in the Report and
Order, the upper band segment, 37.6–
38.6 GHz, is divided into five channels
each 200 megahertz wide. The upper
band segment will be available on a
geographic basis (with protected Federal
sites) via auction. The technical and
service rules the Commission adopted
allow continuity between the upper
band segment and the 39 GHz band,
which provides 2400 MHz of contiguous
spectrum under the same licensing and
technical rules. Given the types of uses
that may be deployed in the 37 GHz
band and the flexible build out
requirements that the Commission
adopted in the Report and Order, there
may be significant unused spectrum in
in the upper band segment at any given
time. To improve the spectrum
efficiency and provide an opportunity
for Shared Access Licensees and Federal
users to expand in a manner that does
not impact geographically licensed uses,
the Commission proposes to permit
shared access of the unused portions of
the five channels in the upper band
segment, under certain conditions. The
Commission also seeks comment on
establishing a process by which Federal
users could coordinate with licensees
for future expanded access in the upper
band segment.
67. The Commission notes that it has
found spectrum sharing to be an
effective tool to maximize spectrum
efficiency. In the 700 MHz band, the
Commission adopted a performance
requirement that results in the licensee
losing its unconstructed license area. In
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service,
Priority Access License areas that are
not in use must be made available for
General Authorized Access use.
Moreover, in the Report and Order, to
meet the applicable performance
requirements, licensees in the 28 GHz
and 39 GHz band may choose to share
access to their licensed spectrum.
Furthermore, the Commission believes
that the prospect of future shared access
(on a coordinated and non-interference
basis) to the remainder of the band may
create incentives for investment and
innovation in the shared channel.
68. The Commission understands that
upper band segment licensees may
make reasonable business decisions to
not serve particular parts of a licensed
area, and that these decisions may
change over time. In an environment
where these unserved areas are shared,
it is important to be able to both
accurately identify the areas in use and
enable the geographic area licensees to
expand or contract their coverage as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
necessary. Under our proposal, the
upper band segment licensee would
retain the primary right to construct and
provide service anywhere within its
license area at any time, and any
operations undertaken on a shared basis
would be subject to displacement by the
primary licensee. The Commission
therefore proposes to require licensees
to provide information about the extent
of their operations at some future point
in order to enable shared access.
69. The Commission also seeks
comment on when the Commission
should phase in shared access. Would it
be appropriate to phase in shared access
at the end of the initial license term, or
would it be appropriate to adopt a
sharing requirement at an earlier time
(e.g., 5 years from the date the upper
band segment geographic area license is
granted). The Commission seeks
comment on the scope of the
information that the incumbent licensee
must provide to the coordinating
mechanism. Would a map with simple
protection contours be sufficient, or
would additional information be
necessary? The Commission also seeks
comment on the appropriate mechanism
for dealing with multiple requests to
share the same spectrum in the same
location. Should the Commission adopt
a first-come, first-served approach,
require multiple parties to share unused
spectrum amongst themselves, or adopt
some other mechanism? In the Report
and Order, the Commission established
coordination zones around three Space
Research Service (SRS) sites and 14
military sites that apply across the
entire 37 GHz band, including the upper
band segment. As the Commission
envision non-Federal users being able to
coordinate for access on within the 14
military sites, the Commission seeks
comment on additional circumstances
and methods under which the upper
band segment can be made for expanded
future Federal use, in addition to the
shared access scheme. For example,
should the Commission establish a
required coordination process under
which Federal users could formally
request coordinated access from a
licensee? If the Commission establishes
such a process, how does the
Commission properly balance the
respective rights and interests of Federal
users and non-Federal licensees? How
would the Commission ensure coexistence between deployed commercial
systems (or planned systems) and the
Federal system that is seeking
coordinated access? Should the
Commission impose an obligation on
UMFUS licensees to consider in good
faith such coordination requests from
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58281
Federal users? What standards should
the Commission establish for
consideration of such coordination
requests? Are there alternative ways of
ensuring that Federal users can take
advantage of their co-primary fixed and
mobile allocations while protecting the
rights of non-Federal licensees? Are
there lessons and recommendations that
the Commission can incorporate form
the ongoing work within the Commerce
Spectrum Management Advisory
Committee? The Commission seeks
comment on all issues relating to
Federal access to the upper band
segment.
C. Performance Requirements
1. Additional Metrics
70. In the Report and Order, the
Commission adopted a list of
performance metrics for measuring
sufficient use of a license to qualify for
renewal. The Commission
acknowledged that this list is not
exhaustive, and in particular, does not
contain metrics designed to
accommodate new and innovative
services that may develop in the
millimeter wave bands. The
Commission therefore seeks comment
on additional performance metrics that
will better accommodate these new
services while fulfilling our statutory
obligation to encourage productive use
of spectrum and avoid warehousing and
speculation.
71. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on an appropriate metric
to evaluate the deployment and
performance of an Internet of Things
(IoT) type service, which is designed
primarily to facilitate machine-tomachine communication. Such services
may or may not be deployed in areas of
substantial residential population, and
may or may not be designed to serve
unaffiliated customers. Examples of this
type of service would include the
Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) systems described
by Southern Co. Because of the unique
characteristics of these machine-tomachine services, the Commission
proposes to develop a distinct metric by
which to measure the deployment of
such services, rather than attempting to
modify a population coverage approach
for this purpose. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal, including
specific suggestions for what aspects of
such services should be measured, how
they should be measured, and what
specific levels would constitute an
acceptable level of service.
72. In the Order, several commenters
suggested that the Commission measure
performance for all services in the
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58282
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
millimeter wave bands on the basis of
actual use of the service, including
number of devices connected, volume of
data transmitted, or number of sessions
initiated on the network. The
Commission seeks further comment on
these metrics, including specific
numbers for the levels of devices,
sessions, and data volume that
commenters believe would be
appropriate milestones. Would one of
these metrics be the most appropriate
way to measure deployment of an
Internet of Things or machine-tomachine type service? The Commission
also seeks comment on whether and
how it would be practical to implement
this type of usage-based requirement.
How could the Commission verify
information provided by licensees?
Should all kinds of devices, sessions,
and/or data be counted equally? How
should such a requirement be structured
to ensure that it both measures and
encourages meaningful service, rather
than gamesmanship?
73. As some commenters note in this
proceeding, licensees in these bands
may seek to provide service to areas
with high daytime or transient
populations but low or no residential
populations, such as corporate
campuses, interstate highways, or event
venues. The Commission seeks
comment on how to define such
locations for the purposes of evaluating
service coverage. The Commission also
seeks comment on the appropriate
framework for incorporating coverage of
such locations into an overall
performance metric. Would a venue per
population metric be appropriate,
similar to the current treatment for fixed
links? Should the applicable milestone
be based on the daytime or transient
population served by such venues or
traffic corridors? How should such
population be measured?
74. The Commission also seeks
comment on any other types of service
being contemplated by potential
providers, as well as metrics that would
be appropriate to measure performance
or build-out of those services.
75. Finally, in the Report and Order
the Commission explained that
licensees may demonstrate
combinations of fixed and mobile
deployments in order to meet their
performance requirement, and that the
Commission intended to review the
showings on a case-by-case basis. Here,
the Commission seeks comment on
whether to establish clear benchmarks
or even guidance for the amount of
buildout that might be adequate in these
combined showings. For instance,
should the Commission establish a scale
with levels showing acceptable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
combinations of mobile and fixed
deployment, where either mobile or
fixed is increased relative to the other?
Or should the Commission establish
variations depending on the population
density of a given license area, the land
mass of the area, or some other factor?
The Commission seeks comment on any
other means to provide flexibility and
clarity in how the Commission may
measure combined showings, or
whether the Commission should
continue to review the showings on a
case-by-case basis as contemplated in
the Report and Order.
2. Sharing Mechanisms
76. Given the relatively limited record
on the substantive issues regarding
mechanisms for sharing unused
portions of UMFUS licenses, the
Commission seeks further comment on
the possibility of implementing a use-orshare regime in the UMFUS bands. The
Commission continues to believe that a
use-or-share regime may have the
potential to enhance the efficiency and
productivity of spectrum, if properly
implemented. In particular, given the
propagation characteristics, and high
potential for re-use, of the mmW
spectrum, the Commission seeks
comment on whether such a regime
could maximize the efficient use of
these spectrum bands. The Commission
further seeks comment on the costs and
benefits of adopting mechanisms for
sharing unused UMFUS spectrum, as
well as on the incentives that particular
sharing regimes will create. In addition,
the Commission seeks comment on the
appropriateness of requiring UMFUS
licensees to share unused portions of
their license in addition to, or in lieu of,
meeting specific construction
requirements, particularly in
geographically licensed bands such as
28 GHz and 39 GHz.
77. In crafting an effective mechanism
to share unused spectrum, there are two
governing considerations: first, ensuring
the licensee has exclusive use of the
areas in which it is using the spectrum;
and second, creating an efficient
mechanism that both makes unused
spectrum available and protects the
licensee from interference. There are a
variety of potential options for
enhanced sharing mechanisms that
address these considerations. The
Commission seeks comment generally
on the following opportunistic sharing
mechanisms: a fully dynamic sharing
solution, facilitated by a SAS or other
third-party database; a modified shared
access system that would be less
dynamic but simpler; an unlicensed
shared access approach, similar to white
spaces, and other alternatives.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78. The Commission seeks comment
on variations of a use it or share it
mechanism. A potential drawback of a
keep what you use mechanism is that
the Commission must reclaim, and later
re-auction, the unused portions of the
band, which takes time and minimizes
a licensee’s ability to decide later to
deploy in an area (which is also a
feature of the approach because it
incentivizes maximum initial
deployment). Use or share mechanisms
permit a licensee to retain control of its
license area, but require the licensee to
share with other entrants in portions of
the license area in which it is not
operating. A use or share mechanism
may be less administratively
burdensome than keep what you use,
and may also allow a greater number of
users to access the shared spectrum.
There are a number of possible
variations of use or share, all of which
share characteristics of basic frequency
coordination.
79. One option would be to automate
shared access to enable dynamic
opportunistic sharing. In a dynamic
sharing solution, licensees would have
some initial period of time to build out
their networks. After this period,
information about the extent of
licensees’ deployment would be made
available, and other entities would be
free to deploy outside of the area used
by the licensee’s operations on a
coordinated basis, subject to further
expansion by the licensee. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
an automated dynamic use or share
mechanism would be appropriate in the
mmW bands. Generally, these shared
users would need to operate similar
technologies subject to the same
technical rules as the licensee to
maximize spectrum efficiency and
economies of scale with respect to
equipment. The Commission seeks
comment on whether the propagation
characteristics of these bands might
facilitate shared access with slightly
different technical rules. With respect to
the sharing mechanism, what types of
information, and what level of detail,
would be required to facilitate dynamic
sharing? Should opportunistic users be
authorized on a license-by-rule basis, or
by some other method? Should
opportunistic users be afforded some
level of interference protection from
each other, and if so what should that
level be?
80. Another option is to rely on more
traditional frequency coordination,
typically used in point-to-point
microwave, shared millimeter wave
bands, and other services today. Under
a simple frequency coordination
process, the licensee’s operations would
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
be protected around a contour, and new
sites would be individually coordinated
into the license area. While a database
could further automate this process, it
may not be necessary given the
relatively simple sharing regime. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
a sharing mechanism based on
traditional frequency coordination
would be appropriate for the mmW
bands.
81. Yet another option is to
established pre-defined geographic areas
that will be available for shared access,
depending on a licensee’s construction.
For instance, if a licensee meets its
performance requirement, the
Commission could find that any county
(or other unit of geographic area) in
which it has any operation is
unavailable for sharing. For example, a
licensee of a PEA might deploy heavily
in some counties but not others; the
heavily-deployed counties would then
be deemed ‘‘in use,’’ while the counties
with no deployment would be available
for opportunistic use in undeployed
areas. The Commission seeks comment
on the appropriateness of this
mechanism as a whole, and on the
specific details. What level of
subdivision would best accommodate
both licensee certainty and sharing
opportunity? Should the Commission
stop at the county level, or should the
Commission further subdivide into
census tracts or census blocks? What
level of deployment in each subdivision
should qualify that area for ‘‘used’’
status? How should the Commission
enable sharing—through a database,
individual coordination, or some other
method?
82. Finally, the Commission also
seeks comment on implementing
unlicensed shared access, similar to TV
white spaces, in the unused portions of
the UMFUS bands. In this case,
opportunistic users would operate on an
unlicensed basis at lower power in any
area where the licensee was not actually
deployed. The Commission seeks
comment on whether and how to
implement such a system in the
millimeter wave bands. Would this
system require a third-party database,
similar to the dynamic sharing solution?
How should the Commission draw the
contours around licensee deployments?
Should the Commission use a fixed
radius, or an interference contour at a
certain level, or some other metric?
Would this method be preferable to a
dynamic sharing solution where the
opportunistic users and the licensee
followed the same technical rules? Are
there technical benefits to this
approach? Will there be sufficient scale
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
to drive more special-purpose
equipment development?
83. To the extent that the Commission
implements any variation of a use it or
share it mechanism in the mmW bands,
certain key aspects of that mechanism
must be defined. Most importantly, the
Commission seeks comment on how to
define a licensee’s ‘‘use’’ of its licensed
spectrum. Should ‘‘use’’ be defined
geographically, either by the service
area of a network or by a defined radius
or contour around deployed equipment?
In the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service, the Commission recently
adopted an engineering metric to
determine the extent to which Priority
Access Licenses are in use. Licensees
can define the area of use subject to an
objective maximum. Should the
Commission follow this model? Should
‘‘use’’ be defined differently for different
types of deployments, for example
mobile vs. fixed links? Additionally, the
Commission seeks comment on how
best to allow the licensee room to
expand beyond its area of actual
deployment (or its ‘‘used’’ spectrum,
however ultimately defined). For
example, should the Commission define
a contour for an additional protected
area? If so, on what basis and how often
should the Commission do so? Should
the Commission set some level at which
a subdivision of a license area would be
declared ‘‘used’’ in its entirety, and offlimits to opportunistic use? If so, what
subdivisions and what level of
deployment would be appropriate (e.g.,
40% of the geographic area of a census
tract)? Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on the appropriate level of
protection for licensees at the
boundaries between ‘‘used’’ and
‘‘unused’’ areas. Should the level of
cross-border interference protection be
the same as that between two licensees,
or would some other limit, either higher
or lower, be more appropriate?
84. In addition to the inquiries above,
the Commission seeks comment on any
other mechanisms of opportunistic
sharing that could enhance spectrum
efficiency in the UMFUS bands, as well
as any other aspects of such a system
that would be required to ensure it
could be reliably and effectively
implemented. The Commission
especially seeks comment from any
entity interested in using spectrum on
an opportunistic basis in these bands.
What technologies or business cases
would lend themselves to this type of
spectrum access? Which sharing
mechanism, described above or
otherwise, would best accommodate
that use?
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58283
D. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies
85. In the Order, the Commission
adopted an ex ante spectrum
aggregation limit of 1250 megahertz that
will apply to licensees acquiring
spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39
GHz bands through competitive
bidding.4 By helping to ensure that
multiple providers have access to the
spectrum the Commission made
available in the Report and Order, the
spectrum aggregation policies the
Commission adopted support our
overarching goals of facilitating
competition, innovation, and the
efficient use of the spectrum. The
Commission seeks comment below on
additional mobile spectrum holdings
issues related to how to implement the
spectrum aggregation limit; the
appropriate holding period; and
whether a spectrum aggregation limit
would be appropriate as additional
‘‘frontier’’ spectrum bands become
available.
1. Implementation of a Spectrum
Aggregation Limit at Auction
86. Of the 986 designated license
areas in the 28 GHz band, 412 areas
have active licenses, which cover about
75 percent of the U.S. population, while
the 37 GHz band is not yet licensed, and
in the 39 GHz band, current licensed
areas cover about 49 percent of the U.S.
population. Further, in terms of
geographic licensed areas, the 28 GHz
band will be licensed on a county basis
across the U.S., while the 37 GHz and
39 GHz bands will be licensed by PEA.
87. For purposes of assessing
eligibility to bid across the three
spectrum bands any given entity cannot
hold more than 1250 MHz of this
spectrum in total. Taking into account
existing incumbents’ holdings in the 28
GHz band and the 39 GHz band, as well
as different geographical license areas,
the Commission put forward and seeks
comment on two alternative
methodologies for assessing bidding
eligibility. The Commission asks for
comment on which methodology is
more appropriate, and why. The
Commission also asks that interested
parties comment on the likely costs and
benefits associated with each
methodology. Are there additional
methodologies beyond the two
alternatives set out below that would be
more appropriate to adopt? If so, the
4 The Commission adopted a spectrum threshold
of 1250 MHz in the Order for proposed secondary
market transactions, and noted that while this 1250
MHz threshold would help identify those markets
that provide particular reason for further
competitive analysis, the Commission’s
consideration of potential competitive harms would
not be limited solely to those markets.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58284
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Commission invites interested parties to
present their alternatives. Which
methodological approach should the
Commission use and how best would
the Commission implement it?
88. The first methodology that the
Commission invites comment on is the
‘‘maximum county-to-PEA’’ option.
Under this option, if any incumbent
licensee in the 28 GHz band, for
example, holds such spectrum, its
spectrum holdings at the county level
would be counted at the PEA level
when determining eligibility to bid on
37 GHz and 39 GHz spectrum. For
instance, if an incumbent licensee
currently holds two licenses, or 850
MHz of spectrum, in the 28 GHz band
in any county within a PEA, then that
licensee’s 28 GHz spectrum holdings
would be counted as 850 MHz for the
PEA as a whole. In addition, that same
licensee’s 39 GHz holdings, if any,
would be added on to its 28 GHz
holdings of 850 MHz. That licensee
would then be able to acquire a
maximum of an additional 400 MHz of
spectrum across the 37 GHz and 39 GHz
bands if it so chose (this maximum of
400 MHz assumes it has no current
holdings in the 39 GHz band). Similar
calculations would apply in the 39 GHz
band. For instance, for those licensees
that currently hold more than 400 MHz
of spectrum in the 39 GHz band in any
county in a given PEA, such entities
would be unable to bid on both licenses
in the 28 GHz band but potentially
could still bid for one license in the 28
GHz band, as well as on 37 GHz
spectrum and additional 39 GHz
spectrum. To determine bidding
eligibility across the three bands for
those entities who do not currently hold
licenses in the 28 GHz or 39 GHz band,
the Commission would similarly count
maximum spectrum holdings in
counties at the PEA level. The
‘‘maximum county-to-PEA’’ option is a
simple way to calculate spectrum
holdings in which the licensing areas of
each band have varied geographies, and
the Commission seeks comment on this
first methodology for determining
eligibility to bid.
89. The second methodology that the
Commission invites comment on is the
‘‘population-weighted-average’’ option.
This option involves calculating an
entity’s current spectrum holdings on a
county-by-county basis within a PEA in
the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, and then
constructing a population the weighted
average for that PEA as a whole. For
incumbent licensees in the 28 GHz and
39 GHz bands, the Commission would
sum the product of county spectrum
holdings and county population within
the PEA (using U.S. Census 2010
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
population data), and then divide that
sum by the total population of the PEA.
This would provide us with the
population-weighted amount of 28 GHz
and 39 GHz spectrum held by that
incumbent in that PEA. The entity
would then be able to bid on 28 GHz
spectrum (by county, and any winning
bid would be weighted by the county
population divided by the PEA
population), and 37 GHz and 39 GHz
spectrum (by PEA or partial PEA), up to
the population-weighted limit of 1250
MHz. To determine eligibility to bid for
those entities who do not currently hold
licenses in the 28 GHz or 39 GHz bands,
the Commission would also calculate
prospective holdings based on a
population-weighted average within the
PEA. Overall, any entity would not be
able to bid on certain spectrum if, across
the three bands, it would hold 1250
megahertz or more on a populationweighted basis. The Commission seeks
comment on this second methodology
for determining eligibility to bid.
2. Holding Period
90. In addition to the decisions made
in the Report and Order, the
Commission seeks comment on our
proposal to adopt a holding period that
would preclude certain proposed
secondary market transactions for
licensees that acquire certain amounts
of 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and/or 39 GHz
spectrum at auction. In the Mobile
Spectrum Holdings Report and Order
(see Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum
Holdings; WT Docket No. 12–269,
Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133
(2014)), the Commission established a
six-year holding period, which
represented the interim buildout period
for 600 MHz licensees, restricting
certain proposed secondary market
transactions for 600 MHz band
licensees. The Commission determined
that establishing a holding period best
balanced its goals of preserving the
integrity of the market-based spectrum
reserve it had established while still
permitting some flexibility in secondary
market transactions.
91. The Commission proposes to
adopt a holding period for licensees
acquiring spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37
GHz, and/or 39 GHz bands. In
particular, the Commission seeks
comment on our proposal to adopt a
holding period that would restrict
certain proposed secondary market
transactions for mmW licensees
necessary to support the spectrum
aggregation policies the Commission
adopted in the Report and Order, as
well as our objective of ensuring that
multiple providers will be able to access
mmW spectrum as it becomes available.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
92. The Commission proposes a
period of three years, given the nascent
nature of the frontier spectrum in the 28
GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands and the
likely rapid development of multiple
use cases for this spectrum. While the
Commission could establish a holding
period tied to the length of the license
term or build out period for licensees in
these bands, a shorter three-year holding
period that is half of the buildout period
the Commission established for
incumbent licensees in the 28 GHz and
39 GHz bands may best serve the public
interest by allowing flexibility while
still preventing entities from
undermining our ex ante spectrum
aggregation policies. The Commission
seeks comment on our proposal. To the
extent commenters support a longer
holding period, the Commission seeks
comment on how a longer holding
period would better help the
Commission achieve its objectives for
the use of this spectrum. If a longer
holding period is warranted, how long
should it be? For example, should the
length of the holding period be based on
the 10 year license term and
performance benchmarks for new
licensees that the Commission adopted
in the Order or would a different
holding period be appropriate? The
Commission asks commenters to
address how it can best balance its
general policy of promoting flexibility
in secondary market transactions with
our goals of encouraging competition
and facilitating the deployment of new
services and innovation to the benefit of
consumers.
3. Spectrum Aggregation Limits for
Additional Spectrum Bands
93. The Commission determined in
the Order that grouping spectrum in the
28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands
together for purposes of applying these
mobile spectrum holdings policies is
appropriate in view of the similar
technical characteristics and potential
uses of spectrum in these bands. The
Commission seeks comment on the
proposal to apply spectrum aggregation
policies generally in the bands the
Commission proposes making available
in this Further Notice. The objective of
the spectrum aggregation polices the
Commission adopted in the Order is to
promote competitive conditions and
help ensure that multiple providers
have the ability to acquire mmW
spectrum as it becomes available, while
avoiding the excessive concentration of
licenses. Further, to the extent these
bands to be made available have similar
technical characteristics and potential
uses as the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz
bands, the Commission proposes to use
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
E. 37.5–40 GHz Band Satellite Issues
explicitly list the assumptions they
made concerning both terrestrial and
satellite operations. Studies should
study both fixed and mobile terrestrial
operations. If a commenter believes a
study submitted by another commenter
is not valid, it should list the specific
assumptions or analysis that it believes
are not valid and provide its own
assumptions or analysis. Ultimately, the
Commission believes the burden is on
FSS interests to show that the higher
PFD level is consistent with terrestrial
use. Terrestrial interests do have an
obligation to provide sufficient
information concerning the nature of
their systems to allow other parties to
analyze the interference impact of a
higher PFD level.
1. Satellite Power Flux Density Limits
94. The Commission does not believe
the current record is sufficient for us to
conclude that authorizing satellites to
operate at the higher PFD of ¥105
dBW/m2/MHz would be consistent with
terrestrial use of the 37.5–40 GHz band.
In theory, the same rain storm that
impairs satellite reception might be able
to shield earth stations if the satellite
raises its power level; the problem is
that rain will rarely be uniformly
present throughout a spot beam’s
footprint, leaving at least some
terrestrial stations unshielded or
inadequately shielded by rain and,
hence, vulnerable to any increase in the
spot beam’s PFD level. Unlike with
respect to the 28 GHz band, the issue of
satellite-terrestrial coexistence in the 39
GHz band has received relatively little
attention.
95. At the same time, the Commission
recognizes that Boeing has submitted a
study which shows that coexistence is
possible, even at the higher PFD level.
Boeing’s presentation suggests that
terrestrial mobile units might be able to
suppress interfering signals from
satellites if the satellite signals arrive at
sufficiently high angles of elevation. On
the other hand, Boeing assumes a
maximum distance of 200 meters
between mobile units and base stations.
The Commission believes the record
would benefit from further development
on this issue.
96. Accordingly, the Commission
seeks further comment on whether there
are any circumstances under which
allowing FSS satellites in the 37.5–40
GHz band to operate at a higher PFD
level than permitted under the existing
rules would be consistent with
terrestrial use of the 37.5–40 GHz band.
If a higher PFD limit would be
appropriate, what limit should the
Commission adopt? Commenters should
provide detailed technical studies that
2. Authorizing Satellite User Equipment
97. The Commission seeks comment
on the possibility of repealing the
prohibition on satellite user equipment
in the 37.5–40 GHz band. Initially, the
Commission asks satellite interests to
provide further information concerning
the need and demand for user
equipment in that band. The
Commission notes that FSS user
equipment can receive in the 40–42 GHz
band, which is not licensed for
terrestrial operations. Are there uses for
which access to the 40–42 GHz band is
insufficient? The Commission asks FSS
providers to provide specific examples
and data demonstrating the need for
user equipment in the 37.5–40 GHz
band.
98. Assuming a need exists, the
Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate manner of authorizing
satellite user equipment. The
Commission agrees with ViaSat’s
observation that because user
equipment in this band would be
receiving, it would not cause
interference to terrestrial operations.
One option would be to adopt ViaSat’s
proposal to allow FSS user equipment
purely on a secondary basis at their own
risk. If the Commission adopted that
proposal, the Commission emphasizes
that the equipment would truly be on a
secondary basis and that FSS user
equipment would have no expectation
of interference protection. A variation
on that option, based on the analysis
Boeing has done, would be to require
terrestrial operators to provide
information on their deployments to
FSS providers through a database,
which the FSS providers could then use
to determine where user equipment
could operate without interference. The
Commission asks other parties to
comment on Boeing’s technical analysis.
To the extent Boeing relies on erroneous
data concerning the nature of technical
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the approximately one-third threshold
of the total amount of spectrum as our
starting point but recognizes that its
understanding of the appropriate
approach for these bands is developing
and that other thresholds may be
appropriate. Is the approximately onethird threshold appropriate or are there
alternative thresholds that the
Commission should consider? What are
the likely benefits and costs of our
proposed threshold? The Commission
asks interested parties to provide us
with any alternative approaches to the
appropriate spectrum aggregation
policies for these bands as they become
available.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58285
operations, the Commission asks
terrestrial operators and equipment
manufacturers to provide a specific
analysis in response, with an
explanation for the specific parameters
used in their analysis. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether the
benefit to FSS operators of enhancing
the ability to operate user equipment in
the band outweighs the burden to
UMFUS licensees of providing
information on their deployments. The
Commission asks both FSS operators
and terrestrial operators to provide
specific data on the relative costs and
benefits.
F. Digital Station Identification
99. Currently, AM/FM/TV
broadcasters are required to announce
their call signs, as are land mobile
station operators. Adopting a similar
requirement for millimeter wave band
operations could make it easier to
identify and monitor signals, which in
turn could make it easier to find sources
of interference to these systems.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks
comment on requiring a digital
identification (digital ID) for the
millimeter wave band systems under
consideration in this proceeding.
Specifically, should operators be
required to transmit an ID that is readily
observable and decipherable by the
Commission and/or other users that
could be used to identify the operator/
licensee of an unknown and/or
interference source?
100. If so, the Commission seeks
comment on the details of such a digital
ID requirement. For example, should the
ID requirement apply to all millimeter
wave band services, or be limited to
licensed services, non-licensed services,
or fixed operations? Alternatively,
should it apply to all transmissions
above a certain power limit or antenna
height, or be limited to transmissions
with some other technical parameter? If
so, what should those technical
parameters be? If there is an ID
requirement for unlicensed equipment,
what should the content of the ID be?
Should unlicensed equipment
authorization holder or equipment user
be required to register in a nationwide
database that would allow either the
FCC and/or anyone to search an ID for
operator contact information? Should
the ID be continuously broadcast,
similar to consumer Wi-Fi routers, only
when the transmitter is operational, or
only at regular intervals? Finally, should
there be a labeling (or software screen
display) requirement for the equipment
itself that identifies the owner/operator?
If so, should the requirement apply to
all millimeter wave band equipment, or
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
58286
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
only to fixed or mobile equipment, only
to outdoor equipment, or only to some
other subset of millimeter wave band
equipment?
G. Technical Issues
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Antenna Height
101. The Commission seeks further
comment on whether antenna height
limits are appropriate and, if so, what
thresholds and corresponding
reductions in power should apply at
higher antenna heights. Considering
what future wireless networks are
envisioned to be, are the antenna height
thresholds and corresponding power
reductions in the existing Part 24 (PCS)
or Part 27 rules appropriate for future
mmW mobile base stations? Based on
what has been presented on the record,
mobile mmW base stations in this band
may be more likely deployed at street
lamp post height, and will not be
deployed at the heights of traditional
mobile base station deployments. In that
context is the 305 meter threshold
currently in Part 27 valid or would
lower thresholds be appropriate? Is
there an alternative maximum height
that should be considered? Conversely,
given the existing PFD limits that the
Commission has adopted to control
interference at market boundaries and at
the edge of an earth station contour, are
additional antenna height restrictions
and corresponding power reductions
even necessary? The Commission
tentatively proposes to adopt antenna
height and power limits similar to those
in our Part 27 rules. However, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
power limits based on antenna height
are necessary and/or whether any
modifications should be made to either
the height thresholds or the power
limits at specific heights that the
Commission have proposed. The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether there would there be any
benefit in requiring antenna downtilt for
antennas above a certain height?
2. Minimum Bandwidth for Given BS/
MS/Transportable Transmit Power
Levels
102. For applications and
technologies that operate under the
umbrella of the next generation of
wireless networks, is it worth
considering a sub-set of networks that
might operate with band widths less
than 100 MHz and how the maximum
power limits adopted should be
evaluated? What minimum band width
should be established for base stations,
transportable station, and mobile station
classes of equipment? Is there value in
establishing these bandwidth scaling
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
limits for mobile and transportable
classes such as the Commission did for
base stations? If so what should the
minimum band width scaling factors be
for these classes of equipment based on
the power levels the Commission
adopted in the Report and Order? What
is the minimum bandwidth that should
be established for these two classes of
equipment in relation to the adopted
transmit power limits? Should the
establishment of these limits be
comparable to the rules that currently
exist for part 27 frequency bands?
3. Coordination Criteria at Market
Borders for Fixed Point-to-Point
Operations
103. In the Report and Order, in
particular with smaller licensed areas,
the Commission recognized that the
existing coordination distances of 16 km
for 39 GHz and 20 km for 28GHz result
in coordination zones that encompass a
large part of many license areas. In fact,
in the context of 28 GHz county based
licenses, the entire market area is
subject to the coordination requirement
in many cases. In adopting market
border limits and coordination
requirements our goal is to ensure that
there is a mechanism in place to
mitigate interference between adjacent
area licensees without creating an
unnecessary burden on licensees. While
the Commission recognizes that under
our rules adjacent area licensees are able
to negotiate and agree to mutual terms
and criteria that deviate from the market
border and coordination limits imposed
in our rules, the Commission also
believes that the changes that the
Commission adopted to market sizes
warrants re-examination of the market
boundary coordination requirements
that were originally developed in the
context of larger market sizes. Therefore,
the Commission now seeks to create a
record with an eye toward reducing the
coordination burden on licensees. The
Commission notes that in its comments
in response to the NPRM, Sprint
recommends that the Commission
require an operator proposing to initiate
new fixed operations to coordinate
those operations with the adjacent block
operator when a new fixed transmitter
would be located within 3 km and
within +/¥ 10 degrees of the receive
azimuth of an existing fixed receiver, or
a new fixed transmitter would be within
1 km of an existing fixed receiver, but
outside the +/¥ 10 degree receive
antenna main lobe, in order to avoid
adjacent channel OOBE interference or
brute force receiver overload. While
Sprint’s comments were in relation to
adjacent channel interference a similar
approach might be appropriate for co-
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
channel coordination. The Commission
seeks comment first on whether the
existing coordination distances for
traditional fixed point-to-point
operations are still appropriate given
smaller market area sizes. The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether the coordination distance
should incorporate other technical
criteria into factoring the distance. For
example, should the coordination
distances be dependent on the
orientation of the fixed point-to-point
antenna relative to the market
boundary? Should the coordination
distance be reduced in cases where a
directional antenna is pointed away
from the market boundary? Should the
coordination distance be dependent on
other technical factors such as the EIRP
of the transmitting station, gain of the
antenna, or other factors? The
Commission requests comment on these
issues. The Commission requests that
commenters support any proposal with
technical analysis.
4. Sharing Analysis and Modeling
104. The wireless industry, standards
groups, government organizations, and
academia are currently engaged in
developing propagation models for
millimeter wave bands. The National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and the European Commission’s
5G partnership with industry have
active study groups looking at
millimeter wave propagation modeling.
Academia have published papers
describing several models such as the
Close In (CI) and alpha-beta-gamma
(ABG) free space reference distance
models. The Commission seeks
comment on whether these or other
models are appropriate propagation
models to apply when analyzing interservice interference between terrestrialbased transmitters and receivers of
different services. There are several
factors that are common to the
interference effects in both directions to
and from 5G stations, including antenna
beam forming, the location and height of
antennas, and the propagation distance
and environment between other systems
and the 5G stations. Lower gain 5G
antennas that are mostly indoors in
cluttered environments and at lower
heights will reduce the degree of RF
coupling in both directions, and
therefore reduce the propagation path
loss required to meet interference
threshold limits. Which millimeter
wave propagation models are most
appropriate for sharing analyses where
the interfering emitters may be
assembled from a group of indoor and
outdoor emitters? When applying
transmitter or receiver isolation factors
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
such as antenna directionality, should a
degree of statistical probability be
associated with the factor versus the
assumption of worse case interference?
The Commission asks parties to submit
propagation analysis and path loss
models of 5G deployment in both
indoor and outdoor environments for
use in determining interference impact
and potential mitigation.
105. If the terrestrial receiver or
transmitter is fixed at a specific location
then a terrain-based propagation loss
model can be employed; what terrain
based propagation models are most
appropriate for millimeter wave
analyses? When the terrestrial receiver
is not at a known location, what are the
most appropriate millimeter wave
models to apply? How much isolation
could one typically assume due to
antenna beam forming techniques?
What other interference mechanism,
such as clutter, should be considered
when modeling inter-service
interference in millimeter wave bands?
Generally, the Commission seeks further
comment on millimeter wave
propagation models appropriate for
spectrum sharing studies between fixed,
mobile and satellite systems, as well as
active and passive services.
5. Part 15 Operation On-Board Aircraft
in the 57–71 GHz Band
107. The Commission is seeking
further technical analyses and sharing
studies, specifically with respect to the
various types of unlicensed applications
envisioned on-board aircraft, the
priority/order of their planned
introduction, as well as their associated
potential harmful interference profile
with respect to passive sensor services.
For example, is the intent to provide
only for applications that are used by
the aircraft itself to reduce weight by
replacing cabling and wiring with radio
for applications, such as for connecting
inflight entertainment systems, seatback
display consoles, or connecting with
sensors used to monitor the health of
the aircraft structure and its critical
systems in wireless avionics intracommunication (WAIC)? Or is the intent
to provide for the direct streaming of
movies/news/internet service from
ceiling-mounted access points to
portable electronic devices carried
aboard the aircraft by passengers in
nearby seats? Are there additional
inflight applications that commenters
further envision?
108. What harmful interference
profile could be expected from each of
these various types of on-board aircraft
provisions of 60 GHz transmitters? How
much difference would the type of
aircraft body make in providing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
additional protection to passive sensor
services from operation of these
transmitters? Should the Commission
propose, as a first cautious step, to allow
WiGig transmissions on-board aircraft
only for certain applications, such as
inflight entertainment provision
beaming from seatback display to userprovided devices, because such
transmissions would be at a very short
distance (1–2 feet, or 30 to 60 cm), in
a direct line-of-sight between each
seatback display and user-provided
device, with little risk of escaping
through cabin windows? If the
Commission were to prohibit the first
WiGig channel (57.24–59.4 GHz) as
CORF suggested to protect EESS, would
this limitation ameliorate in any way
the need to protect RAS, as WiGig
devices will be using the rest of the
spectrum from 59.4 GHz to 71 GHz?
How would RAS and EESS be protected
from potential WAIC applications using
external structural sensors or cameras
mounted on the outside of the aircraft
structure to monitor the performance of
the aircraft during various phases of
aircraft operation (taxi, take-off, landing,
cruise, etc.)? Commenters should
provide detailed technical analyses,
with possible real-world transmission
scenarios on aircraft, including expected
signal leakage in this particular
frequency band through unshielded
cabin windows for the various types of
inflight applications (e.g., entertainment
provisions, WAIC provisions, etc.) in
different aircraft body structures if the
fuselage type and cabin window
placements make a difference in signal
shielding, etc., and any other additional
harmful interference considerations
involving use of 60 GHz transmitters onboard aircraft.
H. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
109. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the
FNPRM. Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA
and must be filed by the deadlines
specified in the FNPRM for comments.
The Commission will send a copy of
this FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58287
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
110. In this FNPRM, the Commission
proposes to authorize mobile operations
in the 24.25–24.45 and 24.75–25.25 GHz
band (24 GHz band), the 31.8–33.4 GHz
band (32 GHz band), the 42–42.5 GHz
band (42 GHz band), the 47.2–50.2 GHz
band (47 GHz band), the 50.4–52.6 GHz
band (50 GHz band) and the 71–76 and
81–86 GHz bands (70/80 GHz bands).
The Commission is also seeking
comment on possible uses of bands
above 95 GHz. Together with the bands
that are the subject of our Report and
Order—namely the 28, 37, 39 and 57–
71 GHz bands, these bands are known
as the ‘‘mmW bands’’.
111. Until recently, the mmW bands
were generally considered unsuitable
for mobile applications because of
propagation losses at such high
frequencies and the inability of mmW
signals to propagate around obstacles.
As increasing congestion has begun to
fill the lower bands and carriers have
resorted to smaller and smaller
microcells in order to re-use the
available spectrum, however, industry is
taking another look at the mmW bands
and beginning to realize that at least
some of its presumed disadvantages can
be turned to advantage. For example,
short transmission paths and high
propagation losses can facilitate
spectrum re-use in microcellular
deployments by limiting the amount of
interference between adjacent cells.
Furthermore, where longer paths are
desired, the extremely short
wavelengths of mmW signals make it
feasible for very small antennas to
concentrate signals into highly focused
beams with enough gain to overcome
propagation losses. The short
wavelengths of mmW signals also make
it possible to build multi-element,
dynamic beam-forming antennas that
will be small enough to fit into
handsets—a feat that might never be
possible at the lower, longer-wavelength
frequencies below 6 GHz where cell
phones operate today.
112. The Commission proposes to
include the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 47
GHz, 50 GHz and 70/80 GHz bands in
the Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible
Use Service. The Commission also
proposes to add a mobile allocation in
the 24 GHz and 32 GHz bands. This
additional spectrum for mobile use will
help ensure that the speed, capacity,
and ubiquity of the nation’s wireless
networks keeps pace with the
skyrocketing demand for mobile service.
It could also make possible new types
of services for consumers and
businesses.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58288
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
113. In proposing service rules for
these bands, which include technical
rules to protect against harmful
interference, licensing rules to establish
geographic license areas and spectrum
block sizes, and performance
requirements to promote robust
buildout, the Commission advances
toward enabling rapid and efficient
deployment. The Commission does so
by proposing flexible service, technical,
assignment, and licensing rules for this
spectrum, except where special
provisions are necessary to facilitate
shared use with other co-primary users.
114. For the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz,
47 GHz and 50 GHz bands the
Commission proposes to assign PEAbased licenses through competitive
bidding. In the 48.2–50.2 GHz portion of
the 47 GHz band, the Commission
proposes to require licensees to provide
information on their facilities to enable
sharing with FSS user equipment.
Finally, in the 71–76/81–86 GHz bands,
the Commission seeks comment on
various systems managed by database
operators which will coordinate use as
between mmW base stations, fixed
point-to-point links used for backhaul,
and Federal operations.
115. A portion of the 24 GHz band is
allocated for satellite service but is
limited to only feeder links for the
Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS), and
the Commission has proposed to either
retain existing coordination procedures
or to adopt the sharing regime used for
the 28 GHz band to manage interference
between terrestrial and satellite
operations. Meanwhile, the 47 GHz
band is also allocated for satellite and is
intended to be used for FSS user
equipment. The Commission has
proposed that FSS operation at 47 GHz
be limited to individually licensed earth
stations subject to the same sharing
framework the Commission adopted in
the 28 GHz band except with SAS-based
sharing between terrestrial and satellite
operations. Finally, although the 50 GHz
band is also allocated for satellite, it
contains no present satellite use and the
Commission is exploring sharing
mechanisms for the band in the future,
including SAS.
116. Overall, these proposals are
designed to provide for flexible use of
this spectrum by allowing licensees to
choose their type of service offerings, to
encourage innovation and investment in
mobile broadband use in this spectrum,
and to provide a stable regulatory
environment in which fixed, mobile,
and satellite deployment would be able
to develop through the application of
flexible rules. The market-oriented
licensing framework for these bands
would ensure that this spectrum is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
efficiently utilized and will foster the
development of new and innovative
technologies and services, as well as
encourage the growth and development
of a wide variety of services, ultimately
leading to greater benefits to consumers.
117. In the FNPRM, the Commission
also seeks comment on various
proposals for refining the rules the
Commission have adopted in the Report
and Order. The Commission seeks
comment on various ways of developing
the shared access framework the
Commission has adopted for the 37–
37.6 GHz band. That framework creates
an innovative shared space that can be
used by a wide variety of Federal and
non-Federal users, by new entrants and
by established operators—and smaller
businesses in particular—to experiment
with new technologies in the mmW
space. The Commission proposes to
adopt additional performance
requirement metrics for uses such as
Internet of Things and machine-tomachine communications. Adopting
these additional metrics will allow
licensees to use the mmW bands for
innovative uses with the certainty that
they can meet performance
requirements and renew their licenses.
For example, the Commission seeks
further comment on whether the
Commission should impose a ‘‘use-orshare’’ obligation on UMFUS licensees
in order to efficiently make as much
unused spectrum available as possible.
Such a ‘‘use-or-share’’ regime could take
varying forms, such as a fully dynamic
sharing solution whereby opportunistic
users could indefinitely deploy outside
a licensee’s geographic build-out area
subject to the latter’s potential
expansion—as coordinated by a thirdparty database administrator; a modified
shared access system whereby meeting
a defined level of deployment in a set
of geographic areas would foreclose
their opportunistic use; and, an
unlicensed shared access approach
whereby opportunistic users would
operate wherever licensees were not
actually deployed.
118. The Commission seeks comment
on whether the Commission can allow
FSS satellites in the 37.5–40 GHz band
to operate at higher power and transmit
a higher power flux density at the
Earth’s surface. If the Commission can
allow such higher power without
causing interference to terrestrial
operations, this change could allow FSS
operators to make greater use of the
band. The Commission also asks
whether the Commission should repeal
the prohibition on satellite (FSS) user
equipment in the 37.5–40 GHz band and
seek comment on whether terrestrial
operators should have to divulge their
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
deployments to FSS providers through a
database in order to allow individual
users to install their own receiving
equipment without interfering with
terrestrial operations. In addition, the
Commission asks whether the
Commission should adopt a
requirement that millimeter wave band
systems transmit an ID identifying
themselves to enable better
identification and control of sources of
interfering signals much the same way
that TV, radio or even WiFi systems
presently identify themselves. Finally,
the Commission seeks comment on
revisions to the technical rules for the
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service,
including revising coordination criteria
between adjacent licensees for point-topoint operations; establishing a
minimum bandwidth and bandwidth
scaling factor corresponding to various
power levels; proposing a reduction in
transmit power limits responsive to
increasing antenna height, and
obtaining further information on
millimeter wave propagation models,
and whether Part 15 operations in the
57–71 GHz band can be allowed on
board aircraft. These portions of the
FNPRM will help ensure that licensees
have maximum flexibility to operate
while not causing interference to other
licensees.
B. Legal Basis
119. The proposed action is
authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 7, 10, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a,
303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332,
and 336 of the Communications Act of
1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155,
157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a,
303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332,
336 and Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
120. 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
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
additional criteria established by the
SBA.
D. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions
121. Our action may, over time, affect
small entities that are not easily
categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describe here, at the outset,
three comprehensive, statutory small
entity size standards. First, nationwide,
there are a total of approximately 28.2
million businesses, 99.7 percent of
which are small, according to the SBA.
In addition, 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,
towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than fifty thousand.’’
Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate
that there were 89,476 local
governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. The Commission
estimates that, of this total, as many as
88, 506 entities may qualify as ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, the
Commission estimates that most
governmental jurisdictions are small.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (Except Satellite)
122. The appropriate size standard
under SBA rules is for the category
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census Bureau data for
2012, show that there were 967 firms in
this category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 955 had employment
of 999 or fewer, and 12 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
action.
2. Fixed Microwave Services
123. Microwave services include
common carrier, private-operational
fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio
services. They also include the Local
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS),
the Digital Electronic Message Service
(DEMS), the 39 GHz Service (39 GHz),
the 24 GHz Service, and the Millimeter
Wave Service where licensees can
choose between common carrier and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
non-common carrier status. At present,
there are approximately 61,970 common
carrier fixed licensees, 62,909 private
and public safety operational-fixed
licensees, 20,349 broadcast auxiliary
radio licensees, 412 LMDS licenses, 35
DEMS licenses, 870 39 GHz licenses,
and five 24 GHz licenses, and 408
Millimeter Wave licenses in the
microwave services. The Commission
has not yet defined a small business
with respect to microwave services. For
purposes of the FRFA, the Commission
will use the SBA’s definition applicable
to Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except satellite)—i.e., an entity
with no more than 1,500 persons is
considered small. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census
Bureau data for 2012, show that there
were 967 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 had employment of 999 or
fewer, and 12 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 proposed action. The
Commission notes that the number of
firms does not necessarily track the
number of licensees. The Commission
estimates that virtually all of the Fixed
Microwave licensees (excluding
broadcast auxiliary licensees) would
qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition.
3. Satellite Telecommunications and All
Other Telecommunications
124. Two economic census categories
address the satellite industry. The first
category has a small business size
standard of $32.5 million or less in
average annual receipts, under SBA
rules. The second also has a size
standard of $32.5 million or less in
annual receipts.
125. The category of Satellite
Telecommunications ‘‘comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
providing 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.’’ Census Bureau
data for 2012 show that 333 Satellite
Telecommunications firms operated for
that entire year. Of this total, 275 firms
had annual receipts of under $10
million, and 58 firms had receipts of
$10 million to $24,999,999.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of Satellite
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58289
Telecommunications firms are small
entities that might be affected by our
action.
126. The second category, i.e., ‘‘All
Other Telecommunications,’’ comprises
‘‘establishments primarily engaged in
providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation.
This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and
associated facilities connected with one
or more terrestrial systems and capable
of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Establishments
providing Internet services or voice over
Internet protocol (VoIP) services via
client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry.’’ For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2012 show that there
were a total of 1442 firms that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 1400
firms had annual receipts of under $25
million and 42 firms had annual
receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of All Other
Telecommunications firms are small
entities that might be affected by our
action.
4. Radio and Television Broadcasting
and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing
127. The proposed rules relating to
Part 15 operation pertain to
manufacturers of unlicensed
communications devices. 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 2007, there were a total
of 939 establishments in this category
that operated for part or all of the entire
year. Of this total, 784 had less than 500
employees and 155 had more than 100
employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
58290
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
128. The projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements proposed in the FNPRM
will apply to all entities in the same
manner. The revisions the Commission
adopts should benefit small entities by
giving them more information, more
flexibility, and more options for gaining
access to wireless spectrum.
129. Any applicants for UMFUS
licenses will be required to file license
applications using the Commission’s
automated ULS. ULS is an online
electronic filing system that also serves
as a powerful information tool, one that
enables potential licensees to research
applications, licenses, and antenna
structures. It also keeps the public
informed with the weekly public
notices, FCC rulemakings, processing
utilities, and a telecommunications
glossary. UMFUS applicants that must
submit long-form license applications
must do so through ULS using Form
601, FCC Ownership Disclosure
Information for the Wireless
Telecommunications Services using
FCC Form 602, and other appropriate
forms.
130. Applicants in the UMFUS will be
required to meet buildout requirements
at the end of their initial license terms.
In doing do, they will be required to
provide information to the Commission
on the facilities they have constructed,
the nature of the service they are
providing, and the extent to which they
are providing coverage in their license
area.
131. The Commission also proposes to
require UMFUS licensees to provide
information on their proposed
operations in order to facilitate sharing
with other authorized services. This
may include the possibility that UMFUS
licensees will have to digitally identify
their stations in order to help identify
and eliminate causes of interference. In
the 48.2–50.2 GHz band, terrestrial
licensees may have to report their
deployment information to FSS
providers to facilitate the deployment of
FSS user equipment. The Commission
seeks comment on the scope of the
information to be provided and the
manner in which it should be provided.
132. The Commission expects that all
of the filing, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements associated with
the demands described above, including
professional, accounting, engineering or
survey services used in meeting these
requirements will be the same for large
and small businesses that intend to
utilize these new UMFUS licenses, but
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
the Commission seeks comment on any
steps that could be taken to minimize
any significant economic impact on
small businesses.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
133. 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. Accordingly, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
any of burdens associated the filing,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements described above can be
minimized for small businesses. In
particular, the Commission seeks
comment on whether any of the costs
associated with our construction or
performance requirements in these
bands can be alleviated for small
businesses.
134. The Commission intends to
license the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz,
and 50 GHz bands on a PEA basis, but
the Commission will also permit
partitioning and disaggregation by
licensees in the mmW bands. As the
Commission noted in the Report and
Order, while PEAs are small enough to
provide spectrum access opportunities
for smaller carriers and PEAs could
even be further disaggregated, PEAs also
nest within, and may be aggregated to
form, larger license areas. Therefore, the
benefits and burdens resulting from
assigning spectrum in PEA license areas
would be equivalent for small and large
businesses. Depending on the licensing
mechanisms the Commission adopts for
these bands, licensees may adjust their
geographic coverage through auction or
through the secondary markets. This
proposal should enable providers, or
any entities, whether large or small,
providing service in the mmW bands to
more easily adjust their spectrum to
build their networks pursuant to
individual business plans. And the
Commission believes this ability to
adjust spectrum holdings will make it
easier for small entities to acquire or
access spectrum. The Commission seeks
comment from the public concerning
whether these license area
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determinations would indeed benefit
the small businesses or whether there
are other alternatives the Commission
should consider.
135. For UMFUS bands for which the
Commission accept mutually exclusive
initial applications, the Commission
will resolve such applications by
competitive bidding conducted
pursuant to Part 1 Subpart Q of the
Commission’s rules, including rules
governing designated entity preferences.
In the Report and Order, the
Commission adopted bidding credits for
applicants for UMFUS licenses who
qualify as small businesses. An entity
with average annual gross revenues for
the preceding three years not exceeding
$55 million will qualify as a ‘‘small
business’’ and be eligible to receive a 15
percent discount on its winning bid. An
entity with average annual gross
revenues for the preceding three years
not exceeding $20 million will qualify
as a ‘‘very small business’’ and be
eligible to receive a 25 percent discount
on its winning bid. The FNPRM seeks
comment on whether to apply these
same small business definitions and
associated bidding credits to the auction
of licenses in the additional bands the
FNPRM proposes, as well as any other
spectrum bands the Commission may
subsequently decide to include in the
UMFUS. The Commission believes
providing small businesses and very
small businesses with bidding credits,
in addition to the protections built into
the auction rules themselves should
provide an economic benefit to small
businesses by making it easier for them
to acquire or access spectrum in these
bands. The Commission seeks comment
on this assessment and on whether there
are any alternative steps the
Commission could take to better assist
small businesses.
136. In the Report and Order, the
Commission adopted service rules that
will permit licensees the flexibility to
provide any fixed or mobile service that
is consistent with their spectrum
allocation. The Commission proposes
that the same flexibility shall apply to
the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 47 GHz,
and 50 GHz bands and the Commission
seeks comment concerning whether this
flexibility will benefit small businesses
by giving them more avenues for gaining
access to valuable wireless spectrum.
Finally, as noted above, the Commission
is proposing to create a SAS-based
regulatory framework in the 70/80 GHz
band that will permit an innovative
shared space in these bands. The SAS
serves as an advanced, highly
automated frequency coordinator across
the band, potentially allowing this
shared space to be used by a wide
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
variety of Federal and non-Federal
users, by new entrants, by established
operators, and small businesses in
particular—to experiment with new
technologies in the mmW space and
innovate. Our proposals require that
small businesses register with an SAS
and comply with the rules established
for the service and in return they receive
the ability to access spectrum currently
unavailable to them. The Commission
believes this should constitute a
significant benefit for small businesses,
and the Commission seeks comment on
this proposal.
137. The technical rules the
Commission now proposes will allow
licensees of mmW band spectrum to
operate while also protecting licensees
of nearby spectrum, some of whom are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
small entities, from harmful
interference, and the Commission also
seeks comment on these proposals.
J. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
138. None.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Communications
equipment.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Frm 00023
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
parts 2, 25, 30 and 101 as follows:
PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS
AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2
continues to read as follows:
■
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2, 25,
30, and 101
PO 00000
58291
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and
336, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 2.106, the Table of
Frequency Allocations, by revising
pages 54, 56, and 58 through 62 to read
as follows:
■
§ 2.106
*
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
Table of Frequency Allocations.
*
*
24AUP3
*
*
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58292
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 238001
24-24.05
5.150
24.05-24.25
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
5.150 US211
24.05-24.25
RADIOLOCATION G59
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
5.150 US211
24.05-24.25
Amateur
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
Radio location
5.150
24.25-24.45
5.150
24.25-24.45
FIXED
MOBILE
5.150
24.25-24.45
FIXED
PO 00000
24.45-24.65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
24.65-24.75
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
(Earth-to-space) 5.532B
INTER-SATELLITE
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
(Earth-to-space) 5.532B
24.45-24.65
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.533
24.65-24.75
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIOLOCATION-SATELLITE
(Earth-to-space)
24.75-25.25
FIXED-SATELLITE
(Earth-to-space) 5.535
24AUP3
25.25-25.5
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE 5.536
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
25.5-27
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 5.536B
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE 5.536
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-Earth) 5.536C
Standard frequency and time signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.536A
EP24AU16.115
24.25-24.45
RADIONAVIGATION
24.25-24.45
FIXED
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION
24.45-24.65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.533
24.65-24.75
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
(Earth-to-space) 5.532B
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE
24-24.05
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
24.45-24.65
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
ISM Equipment (18]
Amateur Radio (97]
RF Devices (15]
ISM Equipment (18]
Private Land Mobile (90)
Amateur Radio (97)
RF Devices (15)
Upper Microwave Flexible
Use (30)
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
5.533
24.65-24.75
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIOLOCATION-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
5.533
24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
(Earth-to-space) 5.535
MOBILE
25.25-25.5
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE 5.536
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time
signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
25.5-27
EARTH EXPLORATIONSATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE 5.536
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH
(space-to-Earth)
Standard frequency and time
signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.536A US258
24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
(Earth-to-space) NG535
MOBILE
25.25-25.5
Inter-satellite 5.536
Standard frequency and time
signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
Upper Microwave Flexible
Use (30)
RF Devices (15)
25.5-27
Inter-satellite 5.536
Standard frequency and time
signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.536A US258
Page 54
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
24-24.05
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 238001
31-31.3
Standard frequency and time
signal-satellite (space-to-Earth)
5.149
31.3-31.5
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US211 US342
US211 US342
31.3-31.8
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY US7 4
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
PO 00000
Frm 00025
5.340
31.5-31.8
EARTH EXPLORATIONSATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
Fixed
Mobile except aeronautical mobile
31.5-31.8
EARTH EXPLORATIONSATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
Fmt 4701
5.149 5.546
5.340
31.8-32
FIXED 5.547 A
RADIONAVIGATION
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (space-to-Earth)
31-31.3
FIXED NG60
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time
signal-satellite (space-to-Earth)
31.5-31.8
EARTH EXPLORATIONSATELLITE (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
Fixed
Mobile except aeronautical mobile
5.149
US246
31.8-32.3
RADIONAVIGATION US69
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space)
(space-to-Earth) US262
Sfmt 4725
5.547 5.547B 5.548
32-32.3
FIXED 5.547 A
RADIONAVIGATION
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (space-to-Earth)
31.8-32.3
FIXED
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space)
(space-to-Earth) US262
5.547 5.547D 5.548
33-33.4
FIXED 5.547 A
RADIONAVIGATION
5.548
33-33.4
RADIONAVIGATION US69
5.548
33-33.4
FIXED
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION US69
US360 G117
33.4-34.2
RADIOLOCATION
US360
33.4-34.2
Radiolocation
US360 G117
34.2-34.7
RADIOLOCATION
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space)
(Earth-to-space) US262
US360
34.2-34.7
Radiolocation
Space research (deep space)
(Earth-to-space) US262
US360 G34 G117
US360
Upper Microwave
Flexible Use (30)
Upper Microwave
Flexible Use (30)
Aviation (87)
Private Land Mobile (90)
Page 56
58293
5.548 US211
32.3-33
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE US278
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION US69
5.549
24AUP3
5.548 US211
32.3-33
INTER-SATELLITE US278
RADIONAVIGATION US69
5.549
34.2-34.7
RADIOLOCATION
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (Earth-to-space)
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
5.547 5.547C 5.548
32.3-33
FIXED 5.547 A
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.547 5.547E
33.4-34.2
RADIOLOCATION
EP24AU16.116
Fixed Microwave (101]
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
31-31.3
FIXED 5.338A 5.543A
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time signal-satellite (space-to-Earth)
Space research 5.544 5.545
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58294
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
40.5-41
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
BROADCASTING
BROADCAST! NG-SATELLITE
Mobile
40.5-41
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-toEarth) 5.516B
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Mobile
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
5.547
5.547
41-42.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 5.516B
BROADCASTING
BROADCAST! NG-SATELLITE
Mobile
40-40.5
40-40.5
EARTH EXPLORATIONFIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
SPACE RESEARCH (Earth-to-space)
Earth exploration-satellite
(space-to-Earth)
40.5-41
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-toEarth)
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Mobile
5.547
G117
40.5-41
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)
Satellite Communications (25)
40.5-41
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
BROADCASTING
BROADCAST! NG-SATELLITE
Fixed
Mobile
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)
US211
41-42
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
BROADCAST! NG-SATELLITE
US211
42-42.5
FIXED
MOBILE
US211
42-42.5
FIXED
MOBILE
5.547 5.551 F 5.551 H 5.5511
42.5-43.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) 5.552
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
RADIO ASTRONOMY
US211
42.5-43.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
RADIO ASTRONOMY
US211
42.5-43.5
RADIO ASTRONOMY
5.149 5.547
43.5-47
MOBILE 5.553
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
US342
US342
43.5-45.5
43.5-45.5
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
Sfmt 4725
US211 G117
41-42
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
G117
45.5-46.9
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
Upper Microwave Flexible
Use (30)
RF Devices (15)
5.554
5.554
EP24AU16.117
Page 58
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
40-40.5
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 5.516B
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
SPACE RESEARCH (Earth-to-space)
Earth exploration-satellite (space-to-Earth)
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table of Frequency Allocations
I Region 3Table
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
47-47.2
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
47.2-47.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) 5.552
MOBILE
5.554
47-48.2
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
5.552A
47.5-47.9
47.5-47.9
FIXED
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) 5.552
5.552 (space-to-Earth) 5.516 B
MOBILE
5.554A
MOBILE
47.9-48.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) 5.552
MOBILE
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
5.552A
48.2-48.54
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
5.552 (space-to-Earth) 5.516B
5.554A 5.555B
MOBILE
48.54-49.44
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
5.552
MOBILE
48.2-50.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) 5.338A 5.516B 5.552
MOBILE
Page 59
United States Table
Federal Table
Non-Federal Table
46.9-47
46.9-47
MOBILE
FIXED
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
47-47.2
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
47.2-48.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
US297
MOBILE
48.2-50.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) US156 US297
MOBILE US264
US246
Amateur Radio (97)
Satellite Communications (25)
Upper Microwave Flexible
Use (30)
58295
5.555 US342
50.2-50.4
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.340
EP24AU16.118
5.149 5.340 5.555
49.44-50.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
5.338A 5.552 (space-to-Earth)
5.516B 5.554A 5.555B
MOBILE
5.149 5.340 5.555
50.2-50.4
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
FCC Rule Part(s)
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Region 1 Table
(See previous page)
46.9-59 GHz (EHF)
International Table
Region 2 Table
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50.4-51.4
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
US156
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
51.4-52.6
FIXED 5.338A
MOBILE
G117
51.4-52.6
FIXED US157
MOBILE
5.547 5.556
52.6-54.25
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
52.6-54.25
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.340 5.556
54.25-55.78
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive]
INTER-SATELLITE 5.556A
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US246
54.25-55.78
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive]
INTER-SATELLITE 5.556A
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.556B
55.78-56.9
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED 5.557A
INTER-SATELLITE 5.556A
MOBILE 5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
Upper Microwave Flexible
Use (30)
55.78-56.9
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED US379
INTER-SATELLITE 5.556A
MOBILE 5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
Satellite Communications [25]
24AUP3
5.547 5.557
57-58.2
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE 5.556A
MOBILE 5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US532
US532
57-58.2
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE 5.556A
MOBILE 5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
US532
58.2-59
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
RF Devices [15]
5.547 5.556
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
US353 US532
56.9-57
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
(passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE G128
MOBILE 5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.547 5.557
58.2-59
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
EP24AU16.119
5.547 5.557
56.9-57
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive]
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE 5.558A
MOBILE 5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US353 US354
56.9-57
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
(passive)
FIXED
MOBILE 5.558
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
Page 60
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
50.4-51.4
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
US156
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
58296
VerDate Sep<11>2014
50.4-51.4
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) 5.338A
MOBILE
Mobile-satellite (Earth-to-space)
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table of Frequency Allocations
59-86 GHz (EHF)
Jkt 238001
Region 1 Table
59-59.3
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE 5.556A
MOBILE 5.558
RADIOLOCATION 5.559
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
59.3-64
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE 5.558
RADIOLOCATION 5.559
5.138
64-65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
5.547 5.556
65-66
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH
5.547
66-71
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE 5.553 5.558
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
71-74
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
EP24AU16.120
65-66
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH
65-66
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH
66-71
MOBILE 5.553 5.558
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
FCC Rule Part(s)
RF Devices (15)
RF Devices (15)
ISM Equipment (18)
RF Devices (15)
66-71
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE 5.553 5.558
MOBILE-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
5.554
71-74
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
US389
74-76
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US389
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
Upper Microwave Flexible
Use (30)
74-76
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING-SATELLITE
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US389
RF Devices (15)
Upper Microwave Flexible
Use (30)
58297
74-76
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
BROADCAST! NG-SATELLITE
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.561
I Region 3 Table
Page 61
United Stales Table
Federal Table
Non-Federal Table
59-59.3
59-59.3
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
(passive)
(passive)
FIXED
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE 5.556A
MOBILE 5.558
MOBILE 5.558
RADIOLOCATION 5.559
RADIOLOCATION 5.559
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US353
US353
59.3-64
59.3-64
FIXED
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE 5.558
MOBILE 5.558
RADIOLOCATION 5.559
RADIOLOCATION 5.559
5.138 US353
5.138 US353
64-65
64-65
FIXED
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
International Table
I Region 2 Table
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58298
VerDate Sep<11>2014
76-77.5
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Space research (space-to-Earth)
76-77
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Space research (space-to-Earth)
Jkt 238001
US342
77-77.5
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-Earth)
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
5.149
78-79
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Radio astronomy
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US342
78-79
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US342
78-79
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.149 5.560
79-81
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.560 US342
79-81
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.560 US342
79-81
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.149
81-84
FIXED 5.338A
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US342
US342
81-84
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) US297
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
Space research (space-to-Earth)
US161 US342 US389
84-86
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE
RADIO ASTRONOMY
US161 US342 US389
RF Devices (15)
Amateur Radio (9 7)
US342
77.5-78
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
Radio astronomy
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.149
PO 00000
US342
77.5-78
Radio astronomy
Space research (space-to-Earth)
5.149 5.561A
84-86
FIXED 5.338A
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) 5.561 B
MOBILE
RADIO ASTRONOMY
EP24AU16.121
5.149
77.5-78
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
Radio astronomy
Space research (space-to-Earth)
RF Devices (15)
RF Devices (15)
Upper Microwave Flexible
Use (30)
Page 62
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
76-77.5
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Amateur-satellite
Space research (space-to-Earth)
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
PART 25—SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 25
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Interprets or applies Sections 4,
301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 332, 705, and
721 of the Communications Act, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319,
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
4. Amend § 25.208 by revising
paragraphs (q) and (r) to read as follows:
■
§ 25.208
Power flux density limits.
*
*
*
*
*
(q) In the band 37.5–40.0 GHz, the
power flux-density at the Earth’s surface
produced by emissions from a
geostationary space station for all
methods of modulation shall not exceed
the following values:
¥127 dB(W/m2) in any 1 MHz band
for angles of arrival between 0 and 5
degrees above the horizontal plane;
¥127 + 4/3 (d¥5) dB(W/m2) in any
1 MHz band for angles of arrival d (in
degrees) between 5 and 20 degrees
above the horizontal plane; and
¥107 + 0.4 (d¥20) dB(W/m2) in any
1 MHz band for angles of arrival d (in
degrees) between 20 and 25 degrees
above the horizontal plane;
¥105 dB(W/m2) in any 1 MHz band
for angles of arrival between 25 and 90
degrees above the horizontal plane.
(r) In the band 37.5–40.0 GHz, the
power flux-density at the Earth’s surface
produced by emissions from a nongeostationary space station for all
methods of modulation shall not exceed
the following values:
¥120 dB(W/m2) in any 1 MHz band
for angles of arrival between 0 and 5
degrees above the horizontal plane;
¥120 + 0.75 (d¥5) dB(W/m2) in any
1 MHz band for angles of arrival d (in
degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees
above the horizontal plane; and
¥105 dB(W/m2) in any 1 MHz band
for angles of arrival between 25 and 90
degrees above the horizontal plane.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Add part 30 to read as follows:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
PART 30—UPPER MICROWAVE
FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
Subpart C—Technical Standards
30.201 Equipment authorization.
30.202 Power limits.
30.203 Emission limits.
30.204 Field strength limits.
30.205 Federal coordination requirements.
30.206 International coordination.
30.207 RF safety.
30.208 Operability.
30.209 Duplexing.
30.210 Information sharing requirements in
the 48.2–50.2 GHz band.
Subpart D—Competitive Bidding
Procedures
30.301 Upper microwave flexible use
service subject to competitive bidding.
30.302 Designated entities and bidding
credits.
Subpart E—Special Provisions for Fixed
Point-to-Point, Fixed Point-to-Multipoint
Hub Stations, and Fixed Point-to-Multipoint
User Stations
30.401 Permissible service.
30.402 Frequency tolerance.
30.403 Bandwidth.
30.404 Emission limits.
30.405 Transmitter power limitations.
30.406 Directional antennas.
30.407 Antenna Polarization.
Subpart F—Shared operation in the 71–76
GHz and 81/86 GHz bands
30.501 Scope.
30.502 Authorization required.
30.503 Frequency assignments.
30.504 Technical rules.
30.505 Protection of Federal incumbents.
30.506 Priority Access Licenses.
30.507 General Access.
30.508 Spectrum access system purposes
and functionality.
30.509 Registration, authentication, and
authorization of devices.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154,
301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.
§ 30.1 Creation of upper microwave
flexible use service, scope and authority.
Subpart A—General
Sec.
30.1 Creation of upper microwave flexible
use service.
30.2 Definitions.
30.3 Eligibility.
30.4 Frequencies.
30.5 Service areas.
30.6 Permissible communications.
30.7 37–37.6 GHz Band—Shared
Coordinated Service
30.8 5G Provider Cybersecurity Statement
Requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Subpart B—Applications and Licenses
30.101 Initial authorizations.
30.102 Authorization of operation of local
area networks in 37–38.6 GHz band.
30.103 Transition of existing local
multipoint distribution service and 39
GHz licenses.
30.104 License term.
30.105 Construction requirements.
30.106 Geographic partitioning and
spectrum disaggregation.
30.107 Discontinuance of service.
As of [effective date of final rule],
Local Multipoint Distribution Service
licenses for the 27.5–28.35 GHz band,
and licenses issued in the 38.6–40 GHz
band under the rules in part 101 of this
chapter shall be reassigned to the Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service. Local
Multipoint Distribution Service licenses
in bands other than 27.5–28.35 GHz
shall remain in that service and shall be
governed by the part 101 of this chapter
applicable to that service.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 30.2
58299
Definitions.
The following definitions apply to
this part:
Authorized bandwidth. The
maximum width of the band of
frequencies permitted to be used by a
station. This is normally considered to
be the necessary or occupied
bandwidth, whichever is greater. (See
§ 2.202 of this chapter).
Authorized frequency. The frequency,
or frequency range, assigned to a station
by the Commission and specified in the
instrument of authorization.
Fixed satellite earth station. An earth
station intended to be used at a
specified fixed point.
Local Area Operations. Operations
confined to physical facility boundaries,
such as a factory.
Point-to-Multipoint Hub Station. A
fixed point-to-multipoint radio station
that provides one-way or two-way
communication with fixed Point-toMultipoint Service User Stations.
Point-to-Multipoint User Station. A
fixed radio station located at users’
premises, lying within the coverage area
of a Point-to-Multipoint Hub station,
using a directional antenna to receive
one-way communications from or
providing two-way communications
with a fixed Point-to-Multipoint Hub
Station.
Point-to-Multipoint Service. A fixed
point-to-multipoint radio service
consisting of point-to-multipoint hub
stations that communicate with fixed
point-to-multipoint user stations.
Point-to-point station. A station that
transmits a highly directional signal
from a fixed transmitter location to a
fixed receive location.
Portable device. Transmitters
designed to be used within 20
centimeters of the body of the user.
Prior coordination. A bilateral process
conducted prior to filing applications
which includes the distribution of the
technical parameters of a proposed
radio system to potentially affected
parties for their evaluation and timely
response.
Secondary operations. Radio
communications which may not cause
interference to operations authorized on
a primary basis and which are not
protected from interference from these
primary operations
Transportable Station. Transmitting
equipment that is not intended to be
used while in motion, but rather at
stationary locations.
Universal Licensing System. The
Universal Licensing System (ULS) is the
consolidated database, application filing
system, and processing system for all
Wireless Radio Services. ULS supports
electronic filing of all applications and
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
58300
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
related documents by applicants and
licensees in the Wireless Radio Services,
and provides public access to licensing
information.
§ 30.3
Eligibility.
Any entity who meets the technical,
financial, character, and citizenship
qualifications that the Commission may
require in accordance with such Act,
other than those precluded by section
310 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to
hold a license under this part.
§ 30.4
Frequencies.
The following frequencies are
available for assignment in the Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service:
(a) 27.5 GHz–28.35 GHz band—27.5–
27.925 GHz and 27.925–28.35 GHz.
(b) 38.6–40 GHz band:
(1) New channel plan:
Frequency
band limits
(MHz)
Channel No.
1 ......................................
2 ......................................
38,600–38,800
38,800–39,000
3
4
5
6
7
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
Channel Group B
Frequency band
limits (MHz)
Channel No.
1–A ...................................................................................................................................
2–A ...................................................................................................................................
3–A ...................................................................................................................................
4–A ...................................................................................................................................
5–A ...................................................................................................................................
6–A ...................................................................................................................................
7–A ...................................................................................................................................
8–A ...................................................................................................................................
9–A ...................................................................................................................................
10–A .................................................................................................................................
11–A .................................................................................................................................
12–A .................................................................................................................................
13–A .................................................................................................................................
14–A .................................................................................................................................
Channel No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
Frequency
31,000–32,000
32,000–32,200
32,200–32,400
32,400–32,600
32,600–32,800
32,800–33,000
33,000–33,200
33,200–33,400
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(g) 42–42.5 GHz band:
(h) 47.2–50.2 GHz band:
Channel No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
Frequency
47,200–47,700
47,700–48,200
48,200–48,700
48,700–49,200
49,200–49,700
49,700–50,200
(i) 50.4–52.6 GHz band:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
Channel No.
50,400–50,600
50,600–50,800
50,800–51,000
51,000–51,200
51,200–51,400
51,400–51,600
51,600–51,800
51,800–52,000
52,000–52,200
52,200–52,400
52,400–52,600
(j) The 71–76 GHz and 81–86 GHz
bands shall be available on a shared
basis pursuant to the rules in subpart F
of this part.
Service areas.
(a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section, and except for
the shared 37–37.6 GHz, 71–76 GHz,
and 81–86 GHz bands, the service areas
for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service are Partial Economic Areas.
(b) For the 27.5–28.35 GHz band, the
service areas shall be counties.
(c) Common Carrier Fixed Point-toPoint Microwave Stations licensed in
the 38.6–40 GHz bands licensed with
Rectangular Service Areas shall
maintain their Rectangular Service Area
as defined in their authorization. The
frequencies associated with Rectangular
Service Area authorizations that have
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Channel No.
38,600–38,650
38,650–38,700
38,700–38,750
38,750–38,800
38,800–38,850
38,850–38,900
38,900–38,950
38,950–39,000
39,000–39,050
39,050–39,100
39,100–39,150
39,150–39,200
39,200–39,250
39,250–39,300
Frequency
1 ......................................
2 ......................................
3 ......................................
4 ......................................
5 ......................................
6 ......................................
7 ......................................
8 ......................................
9 ......................................
10 ....................................
11 ....................................
§ 30.5
39,000–39,200
39,200–39,400
39,400–39,600
39,600–39,800
39,800–40,000
(2) Pending transition to the new
channel plan, existing 39 GHz licensees
licensed under part 101 of this chapter
may continue operating on the
following channel plan:
Channel Group A
(c) 37–38.6 GHz band: 37,600–37,800
MHz; 37,800–38,000 MHz; 38,000–
38,200 MHz; 38,200–38,400 MHz, and
38,400–38,600 MHz. The 37,000–37,600
MHz band segment shall be available on
a site-specific, coordinated shared basis
with eligible Federal entities;
(d) 24.25–24.45 GHz band:
(e) 24.75–25.25 GHz band: 24.75–
25.00 GHz, 25.00–25.25 GHz;
(f) 31.8–33.4 GHz band:
Frequency
band limits
(MHz)
Channel No.
1–B
2–B
3–B
4–B
5–B
6–B
7–B
8–B
9–B
10–B
11–B
12–B
13–B
14–B
Frequency band
limits (MHz)
39,300–39,350
39,350–39,400
39,400–39,450
39,450–39,500
39,500–39,550
39,550–39,600
39,600–39,650
39,650–39,700
39,700–39,750
39,750–39,800
39,800–39,850
39,850–39,900
39,900–39,950
39,950–40,000
expired, cancelled, or otherwise been
recovered by the Commission will
automatically revert to the applicable
county licensee.
(d) In the 37.5–40 GHz band, Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service
licensees shall not place facilities
within the protection zone of FixedSatellite Service earth stations
authorized pursuant to § 25.136 of this
chapter, absent consent from the FixedSatellite Service earth station licensee.
§ 30.6
Permissible communications.
(a) A licensee in the frequency bands
specified in § 30.4 may provide any
services for which its frequency bands
are allocated, as set forth in the nonFederal Government column of the
Table of Frequency Allocations in
§ 2.106 of this chapter (column 5).
(b) Fixed-Satellite Service shall be
provided in a manner consistent with
part 25 of this chapter.
§ 30.7 37–37.6 GHz Band—Shared
Coordinated Service.
(a) The 37–37.6 GHz band will be
available for site-based registrations on
a coordinated basis with co-equal
eligible Federal entities.
(b) Any non-Federal entity meeting
the eligibility requirements of § 30.3 of
this part may operate equipment that
complies with the technical rules of this
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
part pursuant to a Shared Access
License.
(c) Licensees in the 37–37.6 GHz band
must register their individual base
stations and access points prior to
placing them in operation.
(d) The minimum authorized channel
bandwidth in this band is 100
megahertz.
(e) Registered non-Federal sites must
be put placed service within seven days
of coordination.
(f) Equipment in this band must be
capable of notifying the database that it
is active on the channel. At least once
every seven days, the equipment must
be capable of notifying the coordination
mechanism that the equipment is active
and operating. If the equipment fails to
make such a notification, the
registration to operate that equipment is
automatically terminated.
(g) Federal licensees may claim access
to 200 megahertz of spectrum in this
area on a priority basis.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 30.8 5G Provider Cybersecurity
Statement Requirements.
(a) Statement. Each Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service licensee is required
to submit to the Commission a
Statement describing its network
security plans and related information,
which shall be signed by a senior
executive within the licensee’s
organization with personal knowledge
of the security plans and practices
within the licensee’s organization. The
Statement must contain, at a minimum,
the following elements:
(1) Security Approach. A high-level,
general description of the licensee’s
approach designed to safeguard the
planned network’s confidentiality,
integrity, and availability, with respect
to communications from:
(i) A device to the licensee’s network;
(ii) One element of the licensee’s
network to another element on the
licensee’s network;
(iii) The licensee’s network to another
network; and
(iv) Device to device (with respect to
telephone voice and messaging
services).
(2) Cybersecurity Coordination. A
high-level, general description of the
licensee’s anticipated approach to
assessing and mitigating cyber risk
induced by the presence of multiple
participants in the band. This should
include the high level approach taken
toward ensuring consumer network
confidentiality, integrity, and
availability security principles, are to be
protected in each of the following use
cases:
(i) Communications between a
wireless device and the licensee’s
network;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
(ii) Communications within and
between each licensee’s network;
(iii) Communications between mobile
devices that are under end-to-end
control of the licensee; and
(iv) Communications between mobile
devices that are not under the end-toend control of the licensee;
(3) Cybersecurity Standards and Best
Practices. A high-level description of
relevant cybersecurity standards and
practices to be employed, whether
industry-recognized or related to some
other identifiable approach;
(4) Participation With Standards
Bodies, Industry-Led Organizations. A
description of the extent to which the
licensee participates with standards
bodies or industry-led organizations
pursuing the development or
maintenance of emerging security
standards and/or best practices;
(5) Other Security Approaches. The
high-level identification of any other
approaches to security, unique to the
services and devices the licensee
intends to offer and deploy; and
(6) Plans With Information Sharing
and Analysis Organizations. Plans to
incorporate relevant outputs from
Information Sharing and Analysis
Organizations (ISAOs) as elements of
the licensee’s security architecture.
Plans should include comment on
machine-to-machine threat information
sharing, and any use of anticipated
standards for ISAO-based information
sharing.
(b) Timing. Each Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service licensee shall
submit this Statement to the
Commission within three years after
grant of the license, but no later than six
months prior to deployment.
(c) Definitions. The following
definitions apply to this section:
(i) Confidentiality. The protection of
data from unauthorized access and
disclosure, both while at rest and in
transit.
(ii) Integrity. The protection against
the unauthorized modification or
destruction of information.
(iii) Availability. The accessibility and
usability of a network upon demand.
Subpart B—Applications and Licenses
§ 30.101
Initial authorizations.
Except with respect to in the 37–37.6
GHz band, an applicant must file a
single application for an initial
authorization for all markets won and
frequency blocks desired. Initial
authorizations shall be granted in
accordance with § 30.4. Applications for
individual sites are not required and
will not be accepted, except where
required for environmental assessments,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58301
in accordance with §§ 1.1301 through
1.1319 of this chapter.
§ 30.103 Transition of existing local
multipoint distribution service and 39 GHz
licenses.
Local Multipoint Distribution Service
licenses in the 27.5–28.35 GHz band
issued on a Basic Trading Area basis
shall be disaggregated into county-based
licenses and 39 GHz licenses issued on
an Economic Area basis shall be
disaggregated into Partial Economic
Area-based licenses on [effective date of
final rule]. For each county in the Basic
Trading Area or Partial Economic Area
in the Economic Area which is part of
the original license, the licensee shall
receive a separate license. If there is a
co-channel Rectangular Service Area
licensee within the service area of a 39
GHz Economic Area licensee, the
disaggregated license shall not authorize
operation with the service area of the
Rectangular Service Area license.
§ 30.104
License term.
Initial authorizations will have a term
not to exceed ten years from the date of
initial issuance or renewal.
§ 30.105
Construction requirements.
(a) Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service licensees must make a buildout
showing as part of their renewal
applications. Licensees relying on
mobile or point-to-multipoint service to
demonstrate that they are providing
reliable signal coverage and service to at
least 40 percent of the population
within the service area of the licensee,
and that they are using facilities to
provide service in that area either to
customers or for internal use. Licensees
relying on point-to-point service must
demonstrate that they have four links
operating and providing service, either
to customers or for internal use. If the
population within the license area is
equal to or less than 268,000. If the
population within the license area is
greater than 268,000, a licensee relying
on point-to-point service must
demonstrate it has at least one link in
operation and providing service for each
67,000 population within the license
area.
(b) Showings that rely on a
combination of multiple types of service
will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
(c) If a licensee in this service is also
a Fixed-Satellite Service licensee and
uses the spectrum covered under its
UMFUS license in connection with a
satellite earth station, it can demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of
this section by demonstrating that the
earth station in question is in service,
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
58302
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
operational, and using the spectrum
associated with the license. This
provision can only be used to
demonstrate compliance for the county
in which the earth station is located.
(d) Failure to meet this requirement
will result in automatic cancellation of
the license. In bands licensed on a
Partial Economic Area basis, licensees
will have the option of partitioning a
license on a county basis in order to
reduce the population within the
license area to a level where the
licensee’s buildout would meet one of
the applicable performance metrics.
(e) Existing 28 GHz and 39 GHz
licensees shall be required to make a
showing pursuant to this rule by June 1,
2024.
§ 30.106 Geographic partitioning and
spectrum disaggregation.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) Parties seeking approval for
partitioning and disaggregation shall
request from the Commission an
authorization for partial assignment of a
license pursuant to § 1.948 of this
chapter. Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service licensees may apply to partition
their licensed geographic service area or
disaggregate their licensed spectrum at
any time following the grant of their
licenses.
(b) Technical standards—(1)
Partitioning. In the case of partitioning,
applicants and licensees must file FCC
Form 603 pursuant to § 1.948 of this
chapter and list the partitioned service
area on a schedule to the application.
The geographic coordinates must be
specified in degrees, minutes, and
seconds to the nearest second of latitude
and longitude and must be based upon
the 1983 North American Datum
(NAD83).
(2) Spectrum may be disaggregated in
any amount.
(3) The Commission will consider
requests for partial assignment of
licenses that propose combinations of
partitioning and disaggregation.
(4) For purposes of partitioning and
disaggregation, part 30 systems must be
designed so as not to exceed the signal
level specified for the particular
spectrum block in § 30.204 at the
licensee’s service area boundary, unless
the affected adjacent service area
licensees have agreed to a different
signal level.
(c) License term. The license term for
a partitioned license area and for
disaggregated spectrum shall be the
remainder of the original licensee’s
license term as provided for in § 30.104.
(d)(1) Parties to partitioning
agreements must satisfy the
construction requirements set forth in
§ 30.105 by the partitioner and
partitionee each certifying that it will
independently meet the construction
requirement for its respective
partitioned license area. If the
partitioner or partitionee fails to meet
the construction requirement for its
respective partitioned license area, then
the relevant partitioned license will
automatically cancel.
(2) Parties to disaggregation
agreements must satisfy the
construction requirements set forth in
§ 30.105 by the disaggregator and
disaggregatee each certifying that it will
independently meet the construction
requirement for its respective
disaggregated license area. If the
disaggregator or disaggregatee fails to
meet the construction requirement for
its respective disaggregated license area,
then the relevant disaggregated license
will automatically cancel.
§ 30.107
Discontinuance of service.
(a) An Upper Microwave Flexible Use
License authorization will automatically
terminate, without specific Commission
action, if the licensee permanently
discontinues service after the initial
license term.
(b) For licensees with common carrier
regulatory status, permanent
discontinuance of service is defined as
180 consecutive days during which a
licensee does not provide service to at
least one subscriber that is not affiliated
with, controlled by, or related to the
licensee in the individual license area.
For licensees with non-common carrier
status, permanent discontinuance of
service is defined as 180 consecutive
days during which a licensee does not
operate.
(c) A licensee that permanently
discontinues service as defined in this
section must notify the Commission of
the discontinuance within 10 days by
filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting
license cancellation. An authorization
will automatically terminate, without
specific Commission action, if service is
permanently discontinued as defined in
this section, even if a licensee fails to
file the required form requesting license
cancellation.
Subpart C—Technical Standards
§ 30.201
Equipment authorization.
(a) Except as provided under
paragraph (c) of this section, each
transmitter utilized for operation under
this part must be of a type that has been
authorized by the Commission under its
certification procedure.
(b) Any manufacturer of radio
transmitting equipment to be used in
these services may request equipment
authorization following the procedures
set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this
chapter. Equipment authorization for an
individual transmitter may be requested
by an applicant for a station
authorization by following the
procedures set forth in part 2 of this
chapter.
(c) Unless specified otherwise,
transmitters for use under the
provisions of subpart E of this part for
fixed point-to-point microwave and
point-to-multipoint services must be a
type that has been verified for
compliance.
§ 30.202
Power limits.
(a) For fixed and base stations
operating in connection with mobile
systems, the average power of the sum
of all antenna elements is limited to a
maximum equivalent isotopically
radiated power (EIRP) density of
+75dBm/100MHz, except as specified in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) For mobile stations, the average
power of the sum of all antenna
elements is limited to a maximum EIRP
density of +43 dBm/100MHz.
(c) For transportable stations, as
defined in § 30.2, the average power of
the sum of all antenna elements is
limited to a maximum EIRP density of
+55 dBm/100MHz.
(d) For fixed point-to-point and pointto-multipoint limits see § 30.405.
(e) Antenna Height Limits
Effective isotropic
radiated power
density (EIRP)
(dBm/100 MHz)
Antenna height (AAT)
in meters (feet)
Above
Above
Above
Above
Above
Above
1372 (4500) ........................................................................................................................................................................
1220 (4000) To 1372 (4500) ..............................................................................................................................................
1067 (3500) To 1220 (4000) ..............................................................................................................................................
915 (3000) To 1067 (3500) ................................................................................................................................................
763 (2500) To 915 (3000) ..................................................................................................................................................
610 (2000) To 763 (2500) ..................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
62
63
64
65
67
69
58303
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Effective isotropic
radiated power
density (EIRP)
(dBm/100 MHz)
Antenna height (AAT)
in meters (feet)
Above 458 (1500) To 610 (2000) ..................................................................................................................................................
Above 305 (1000) To 458 (1500) ..................................................................................................................................................
Up to 305 (1000) ...........................................................................................................................................................................
§ 30.203
Emission limits.
(a) The conductive power or the total
radiated power of any emission outside
a licensee’s frequency block shall be
¥13 dBm/MHz or lower. However, in
the bands immediately outside and
adjacent to the licensee’s frequency
block, having a bandwidth equal to 10
percent of the channel bandwidth, the
conductive power or the total radiated
power of any emission shall be ¥5
dBm/MHz or lower.
(b)(1) Compliance with this provision
is based on the use of measurement
instrumentation employing a resolution
bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater.
(2) When measuring the emission
limits, the nominal carrier frequency
shall be adjusted as close to the
licensee’s frequency block edges as the
design permits.
(3) The measurements of emission
power can be expressed in peak or
average values.
(c) For fixed point-to-point and pointto-multipoint limits see § 30.404.
§ 30.204
Field strength limits.
(a) Base/Mobile Operations. The
predicted or measured Power Flux
Density (PFD) from any Base Station
operating in the 27.5–28.35 GHz band,
37–38.6 GHz band, and 38.6–40 GHz
bands at any location on the
geographical border of a licensee’s
service area shall not exceed ¥76dBm/
m2/MHz (measured at 1.5 meters above
ground) unless the adjacent affected
service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a
different PFD.
(b) Fixed Point-to-Point Operations:
(1) Prior to operating a fixed point-topoint transmitting facility in the 27,500–
28,350 MHz band where the facilities
are located within 20 kilometers of the
boundary of the licensees authorized
market area, the licensee must complete
frequency coordination in accordance
with the procedures specified in
§ 101.103(d)(2) of this chapter with
respect to neighboring licensees that
may be affected by its operations.
(2) Prior to operating a fixed point-topoint transmitting facility in the 37,000–
40,000 MHz band where the facilities
are located within 16 kilometers of the
boundary of the licensees authorized
market area, the licensee must complete
frequency coordination in accordance
with the procedures specified in
§ 101.103(d)(2) of this chapter with
respect to neighboring licensees that
may be affected by its operations.
§ 30.205 Federal coordination
requirements.
(a) Licensees in the 37–38 GHz band
located within the zones defined by the
coordinates in the tables below must
coordinate their operations with Federal
Space Research Service (space to Earth)
users of the band via the National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA). All licensees
operating within the zone defined by
the 60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates
in the tables below must coordinate all
operations. Licensees operating within
the area between the zones defined by
the 60 dBm and 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
coordinates in the tables below must
coordinate all operations if their base
station EIRP is greater than 60 dBm/100
MHz or if their antenna height exceeds
100 meters above ground level.
Licensees operating outside the zones
defined by the 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
coordinates in the tables below are not
required to coordinate their operations
with NTIA.
TABLE 1—GOLDSTONE, CALIFORNIA COORDINATION ZONE
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
34.69217/–115.6491
35.25746/–115.32041
36.21257/–117.06567
36.55967/–117.63691
36.66297/–118.31017
36.06074/–118.38528
35.47015/–118.39008
35.40865/–118.34353
35.35986/–117.24709
35.29539/–117.21102
34.67607/–118.55412
34.61532/–118.36919
34.91551/–117.70371
34.81257/–117.65400
34.37411/–118.18385
34.33405/–117.94189
34.27249/–117.65445
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
34.19524/–117.47963
34.24586/–117.36210
35.04648/–117.03781
35.04788/–117.00949
34.22940/–117.22327
34.20370/–116.97024
34.12196/–116.93109
34.09498/–116.75473
34.19642/–116.72901
34.64906/–116.62741
34.44404/–116.31486
34.52736/–116.27845
34.76685/–116.27930
34.69217/–115.6591
34.69217/–115.6491
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
34.69217/–115.6491
35.25746/–115.32041
36.11221/–116.63632
36.54731/–117.48242
36.73049/–118.33683
36.39126/–118.47307
36.36891/–118.47134
35.47015/–118.39008
35.40865/–118.34353
35.32048/–117.26386
34.63725/–118.96736
34.55789/–118.36204
34.51108/–118.15329
34.39220/–118.28852
34.38546/–118.27460
34.37524/–118.24191
34.37039/–118.22557
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71
73
75
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
34.19524/–117.47963
34.24586/–117.36210
34.21748/–117.12812
34.20370/–116.97024
34.12196/–116.93109
34.09498/–116.75473
34.13603/–116.64002
34.69217/–115.6591
34.69217/–115.6491
24AUP3
58304
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—SOCORRO, NEW MEXICO COORDINATION ZONE
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
34.83816/–107.66828
34.80070/–107.68759
34.56506/–107.70233
34.40826/–107.71489
34.31013/–107.88349
34.24067/–107.96059
34.10278/–108.23166
34.07442/–108.30646
34.01447/–108.31694
33.86740/–108.48706
33.81660/–108.51052
33.67909/–108.58750
33.50223/–108.65470
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
33.44401/–108.67876
33.57963/–107.79895
33.84552/–107.60207
33.85964/–107.51915
33.86479/–107.17223
33.94779/–107.15038
34.11122/–107.18132
34.15203/–107.39035
34.29643/–107.51071
34.83816/–107.66828
33.10651/–108.19320
33.11780/–107.99980
33.13558/–107.85611
33.80383/–107.16520
33.94554/–107.15516
33.95665/–107.15480
34.08156/–107.18137
34.10646/–107.18938
35.24269/–107.67969
34.06647/–108.70438
33.35946/–108.68902
33.29430/–108.65004
33.10651/–108.19320
TABLE 3—WHITE SANDS, NEW MEXICO COORDINATION ZONE
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
33.98689/–107.15967
33.91573/–107.46301
33.73122/–107.73585
33.37098/–107.84333
33.25424/–107.86409
33.19808/–107.89673
33.02128/–107.87226
32.47747/–107.77963
32.31543/–108.16101
31.79429/–107.88616
75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
31.78455/–106.54058
32.24710/–106.56114
32.67731/–106.53681
32.89856/–106.56882
33.24323/–106.70094
33.98689/–107.15967
(b) Licensees in the 37–38.6 GHz band
located within the zones defined by the
coordinates in the table below must
31.7494/–106.49132
32.24524/–106.56507
32.67731/–106.53681
32.89856/–106.56882
33.04880/–106.62309
33.21824/–106.68992
33.24347/–106.70165
34.00708/–107.08652
34.04967/–107.17524
33.83491/–107.85971
coordinate their operations with the
Department of Defense via the National
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
32.88382/–108.16588
32.76255/–108.05679
32.56863/–108.43999
32.48991/–108.50032
32.39142/–108.48959
31.63664/–108.40480
31.63466/–108.20921
31.78374/–108.20798
31.78322/–106.52825
31.7494/–106.49132
Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA).
TABLE—COORDINATION AREAS FOR FEDERAL TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS
Coordination area
(Decimal Degrees)
Agency
China Lake, CA ..................................................
Navy ...............
San Diego, CA ...................................................
Navy ...............
Nanakuli, HI .......................................................
Navy ...............
Fishers Island, NY .............................................
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Location
Navy ...............
Saint Croix, VI ....................................................
Navy ...............
Fort Irwin, CA .....................................................
Army ...............
Fort Carson, CO ................................................
Army ...............
Fort Hood, TX ....................................................
Army ...............
Fort Bliss, TX .....................................................
Army ...............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 35.59527 and longitude ¥117.22583.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 35.52222 and longitude ¥117.30333.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 35.76222 and longitude ¥117.60055.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 35.69111 and longitude ¥117.66916.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 32.68333 and longitude ¥117.23333.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 21.38333 and longitude ¥158.13333.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 41.25 and longitude ¥72.01666.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 17.74722 and longitude ¥64.88.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 35.26666 and longitude ¥116.68333.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 38.71666 and longitude ¥104.65.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 31.11666 and longitude ¥97.76666.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 31.8075 and longitude ¥106.42166.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
58305
TABLE—COORDINATION AREAS FOR FEDERAL TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS—Continued
Coordination area
(Decimal Degrees)
Location
Agency
Yuma Proving Ground, AZ ................................
Army ...............
Fort Huachuca, AZ .............................................
Army ...............
White Sands Missile Range, NM .......................
Army ...............
Moody Air Force Base, GA ................................
Air Force .........
Hurlburt Air Force Base, FL ...............................
Air Force .........
§ 30.206
International coordination.
Operations in the 27.5–28.35 GHz,
37–38.6, and 38.6–40 GHz bands are
subject to existing and future
international agreements with Canada
and Mexico.
§ 30.207
RF safety.
Licensees and manufacturers are
subject to the radio frequency radiation
exposure requirements specified in
§§ 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093
of this chapter, as appropriate.
Applications for equipment
authorization of mobile or portable
devices operating under this section
must contain a statement confirming
compliance with these requirements.
Technical information showing the
basis for this statement must be
submitted to the Commission upon
request.
§ 30.208
Operability.
Mobile and transportable stations that
operate on any portion of frequencies
within the 27.5–28.35 GHz or the 37–40
GHz bands must be capable of operating
on all frequencies within those
particular bands.
§ 30.209
Duplexing.
Stations authorized under this rule
part may employ frequency division
duplexing, time division duplexing, or
any other duplexing scheme, provided
that they comply with the other
technical and operational requirements
specified in this part.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 30.210 Information sharing requirements
in the 48.2–50.2 GHz band.
(a) Each operator of a Fixed Service or
Mobile Service system in the 48.2–50.2
GHz band will make the technical
information about its system listed in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
available to FSS operators by one or
more of the following means:
(1) An online database operated by
the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
licensee;
(2) An online database operated by a
third-party database manager, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 32.48333 and longitude ¥114.33333.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 31.55 and longitude ¥110.35.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 33.35 and longitude ¥106.3.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 30.96694 and longitude ¥83.185.
30 kilometer radius centered on
latitude 30.42388 and longitude ¥86.70694.
(3) A continuously transmitted pilot
signal receivable throughout the terrain
within which a FSS facility could cause
interference to or receive interference
from the terrestrial system.
(b) All licensees deploying fixed
systems in the48.2–50.2 GHz bands will
make the following information about
each such system available to FSS
operators in those bands by one or more
of the means described in paragraph (a)
of this section:
(1) Licensee’s name and address.
(2) Transmitting station name.
(3) Transmitting station coordinates.
(4) Frequencies and polarizations.
(5) Transmitting equipment, its
stability, effective isotropic radiated
power, emission designator, and type of
modulation (digital).
(6) Transmitting antenna(s), model,
gain, and a radiation pattern provided or
certified by the manufacturer.
(7) Transmitting antenna center line
height(s) above ground level and ground
elevation above mean sea level.
(8) Transmitting antenna boresight(s)
angle of elevation with respect to the
horizon.
(9) Receiving station name.
(10) Receiving station coordinates.
(11) Receiving antenna(s), model,
gain, and, if required, a radiation pattern
provided or certified by the
manufacturer.
(12) Receiving antenna center line
height(s) above ground level and ground
elevation above mean sea level.
(13) Receiving antenna boresight(s)
angle of elevation with respect to the
horizon.
(14) Path azimuth and distance.
(c) All licensees deploying mobile
service base stations in the 48.2–50.2
GHz bands will make the following
information about each such base
station available to FSS operators by one
or both of the means described in
paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Licensee’s name and address.
(2) Transmitting station name.
(3) Transmitting station coordinates.
(4) Frequencies and polarizations.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(5) Transmitting equipment, its
stability, maximum effective isotropic
radiated power, emission designator,
and types of modulation.
(6) Transmitting antenna(s), model,
maximum gain, and maximum extent of
all possible radiation patterns provided
or certified by the manufacturer.
(7) Transmitting antenna center line
height(s) above ground level and ground
elevation above mean sea level.
(8) Transmitting antenna boresight(s)
maximum and minimum angles of
elevation with respect to the horizon.
(9) Transmitting antenna boresight
minimum and maximum azimuths, or
designation of omnidirectionality.
(10) Boundary of the area served by
the base station for purposes of
communication with mobile user
equipment.
(11) Receiving antenna(s), model,
gain, and maximum extent of all
possible radiation patterns provided or
certified by the manufacturer.
(12) Receiving antenna center line
height(s) above ground level and ground
elevation above mean sea level.
(13) Receiving antenna boresight
maximum and minimum angles of
elevation with respect to the horizon.
(14) Receiving antenna boresight
minimum and maximum azimuths, or
designation of omnidirectionality.
Subpart D—Competitive Bidding
Procedures
§ 30.301 Upper microwave flexible use
service subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial
applications for Upper Microwave
Flexible User Service licenses are
subject to competitive bidding. The
general competitive bidding procedures
set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this
chapter will apply unless otherwise
provided in this subpart.
§ 30.302
credits.
Designated entities and bidding
(a) Eligibility for small business
provisions. (1) A small business is an
entity that, together with its affiliates, its
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
58306
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
controlling interests and the affiliates of
its controlling interests, have average
gross revenues that are not more than
$55 million for the preceding three (3)
years.
(2) A very small business is an entity
that, together with its affiliates, its
controlling interests and the affiliates of
its controlling interests, has average
gross revenues that are not more than
$20 million for the preceding three (3)
years.
(b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder
that qualifies as a small business, as
defined in this section, or a consortium
of small businesses may use a bidding
credit of 15 percent, as specified in
§ 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter. A
winning bidder that qualifies as a very
small business, as defined in this
section, or a consortium of very small
businesses may use a bidding credit of
25 percent, as specified in
§ 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
(c) A rural service provider, as
defined in § 1.2110(f)(4) of this chapter,
who has not claimed a small business
bidding credit may use a bidding credit
of 15 percent bidding credit, as
specified in § 1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this
chapter.
with efficient use of the spectrum and
good engineering practice.
(b) The maximum bandwidth
authorized per frequency to stations
under this subpart is set out in the table
that follows.
Frequency band
(MHz)
27,500 to 28,350 .......
38,600 to 40,000 .......
Maximum authorized
bandwidth
850 MHz.
200 MHz.1
1 For channel block assignments in the
38,600–40,000 MHz bands when adjacent
channels are aggregated, equipment is permitted to operate over the full channel block
aggregation without restriction.
§ 30.404
Emission limits.
(a) The mean power of emissions
must be attenuated below the mean
output power of the transmitter in
accordance with the following schedule:
(1) When using transmissions other
than those employing digital
modulation techniques:
(i) On any frequency removed from
the assigned frequency by more than 50
percent up to and including 100 percent
of the authorized bandwidth: At least 25
decibels;
(ii) On any frequency removed from
the assigned frequency by more than
100 percent up to and including 250
Subpart E—Special Provisions for
percent of the authorized bandwidth: At
Fixed Point-to-Point, Fixed Point-toleast 35 decibels;
Multipoint Hub Stations, and Fixed
(iii) On any frequency removed from
Point-to-Multipoint User Stations
the assigned frequency by more than
250 percent of the authorized
§ 30.401 Permissible service.
Stations authorized under this subpart bandwidth: At least 43 + 10 Log10 (mean
may deploy stations used solely as fixed output power in watts) decibels, or 80
decibels, whichever is the lesser
point-to-point stations, fixed point-toattenuation.
multipoint hub stations, or fixed point(2) When using transmissions
to-multipoint user stations, as defined
employing digital modulation
in § 30.2 subject to the technical and
techniques in situations not covered in
operational requirements specified in
this section:
this subpart.
(i) In any 1 MHz band, the center
frequency of which is removed from the
§ 30.402 Frequency tolerance.
assigned frequency by more than 50
The carrier frequency of each
percent up to and including 250 percent
transmitter authorized under this
of the authorized bandwidth: As
subpart must be maintained within the
specified by the following equation but
following percentage of the reference
frequency (unless otherwise specified in in no event less than 11 decibels:
A = 11 + 0.4(P ¥ 50) + 10 Log10 B.
the instrument of station authorization
(Attenuation greater than 56 decibels or
the reference frequency will be deemed
to an absolute power of less than ¥13
to be the assigned frequency):
dBm/1MHz is not required.)
(ii) In any 1 MHz band, the center
Frequency tolfrequency of which is removed from the
Frequency (MHz)
erance (percent)
assigned frequency by more than 250
percent of the authorized bandwidth: At
27,500 to 28,350 ..................
0.001 least 43 + 10 Log (the mean output
10
38,600 to 40,000 ..................
0.03 power in watts) decibels, or 80 decibels,
whichever is the lesser attenuation. The
§ 30.403 Bandwidth.
authorized bandwidth includes the
(a) Stations under this sub-part will be nominal radio frequency bandwidth of
an individual transmitter/modulator in
authorized any type of emission,
block-assigned bands. Equipment
method of modulation, and
licensed prior to April 1, 2005 shall
transmission characteristic, consistent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
only be required to meet this standard
in any 4 kHz band.
(iii) The emission mask in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of this section applies only to
the band edge of each block of
spectrum, but not to subchannels
established by licensees. The value of P
in the equation is the percentage
removed from the carrier frequency and
assumes that the carrier frequency is the
center of the actual bandwidth used.
The emission mask can be satisfied by
locating a carrier of the subchannel
sufficiently far from the channel edges
so that the emission levels of the mask
are satisfied. The emission mask shall
use a value B (bandwidth) of 40 MHz,
for all cases even in the case where a
narrower subchannel is used (for
instance the actual bandwidth is 10
MHz) and the mean output power used
in the calculation is the sum of the
output power of a fully populated
channel. For block assigned channels,
the out-of-band emission limits apply
only outside the assigned band of
operation and not within the band.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 30.405
Transmitter power limitations.
On any authorized frequency, the
average power delivered to an antenna
in this service must be the minimum
amount of power necessary to carry out
the communications desired.
Application of this principle includes,
but is not to be limited to, requiring a
licensee who replaces one or more of its
antennas with larger antennas to reduce
its antenna input power by an amount
appropriate to compensate for the
increased primary lobe gain of the
replacement antenna(s). In no event
shall the average equivalent
isotropically radiated power (EIRP), as
referenced to an isotropic radiator,
exceed the following:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EIRP
Frequency band (MHz)
Fixed (dBW)
27,500–28,350 1 ....................
38,600–40,000 ......................
+ 55
+ 55
1 For Point-to-multipoint user stations authorized in these bands, the EIRP shall not exceed 55 dBw or 42 dBw/MHz.
§ 30.406
Directional antennas.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized upon
specific request by the applicant, each
station authorized under the rules of
this subpart must employ a directional
antenna adjusted with the center of the
major lobe of radiation in the horizontal
plane directed toward the receiving
station with which it communicates;
provided, however, where a station
communicates with more than one
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
58307
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
point, a multi- or omni-directional
antenna may be authorized if necessary.
(b) Fixed stations (other than
temporary fixed stations) must employ
transmitting and receiving antennas
(excluding second receiving antennas
for operations such as space diversity)
meeting the appropriate performance
Standard A indicated below, except that
in areas not subject to frequency
congestion, antennas meeting
performance Standard B may be used.
For frequencies with a Standard B1 and
a Standard B2, in order to comply with
Standard B an antenna must fully meet
either Standard B1 or Standard B2.
Licensees shall comply with the
antenna standards table shown in this
paragraph in the following manner:
(1) With either the maximum
beamwidth to 3 dB points requirement
or with the minimum antenna gain
requirement; and
(2) With the minimum radiation
suppression to angle requirement.
Minimum radiation suppression to angle in degrees from centerline of main beam
in decibels
Maximum
beamwidth to
3 dB points1
(included
angle in degrees)
Minimum
antenna
gain (dbi)
A ..................
n/a ................
38
25
29
33
36
42
55
55
B ..................
n/a ................
38
20
24
28
32
35
36
36
Frequency
(MHz)
38,600 to
40,0002.
Category
5° to10°
10° to
15°
15° to
20°
20° to
30°
30° to
100°
100° to
140°
140° to
180°
1 If
a licensee chooses to show compliance using maximum beamwidth to 3 dB points, the beamwidth limit shall apply in both the azimuth and
the elevation planes.
2 Stations authorized to operate in the 38,600–40,000 MHz band may use antennas other than those meeting the Category A standard. However, the Commission may require the use of higher performance antennas where interference problems can be resolved by the use of such
antennas.
§ 30.407
Antenna polarization.
In the 27,500–28,350 MHz band,
system operators are permitted to use
any polarization within its service area,
but only vertical and/or horizontal
polarization for antennas located within
20 kilometers of the outermost edge of
their service area.
Subpart F—Shared operation in the
71–76 GHz and 81/86 GHz bands
§ 30.501
Scope.
(a) This section sets forth the
regulations governing use of devices in
the 71–76 GHz and 81–86 GHz bands.
The operation of all equipment in this
band shall be coordinated by one or
more authorized Spectrum Access
Systems (SASs).
(b) Operations in this band include
Priority Access and General Authorized
Access tiers of service. Priority Access
Licensees and General Authorized
Access Users must not cause harmful
interference to Incumbent Users and
must accept interference from
Incumbent Users. General Authorized
Access Users must not cause harmful
interference to Priority Access Licensees
and must accept interference from
Priority Access Licensees.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 30.502
Authorization required.
(a) Devices must be used and operated
consistent with the rules in this subpart.
(b) Authorizations for PALs may be
granted upon proper application,
provided that the applicant is qualified
in regard to citizenship, character,
financial, technical and other criteria
established by the Commission, and that
the public interest, convenience and
necessity will be served. See 47 U.S.C.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
301, 308, 309, and 310. The holding of
an authorization does not create any
rights beyond the terms, conditions, and
period specified in the authorization
and shall be subject to the provisions of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and the Commission’s rules
and policies thereunder.
(c) Grandfathered registered fixed
links are authorized to operate
consistent with § 101.1529 of this
chapter.
§ 30.503
Frequency assignments.
(a) Any frequencies designated for
Priority Access that are not in use by a
Priority Access Licensee may be utilized
by General Authorized Access Users.
(b) An SAS shall assign authorized
devices to specific frequencies, which
may be reassigned by that SAS,
consistent with this part.
§ 30.504
§ 30.507
Technical rules.
Devices in these bands shall be
subject to the technical rules in subpart
C of this part.
§ 30.505
Protection of Federal incumbents.
Prior to commencing operation, all
operations in these bands must
complete coordination with Federal
Government links according to the
coordination standards and procedures
adopted in Report and Order, FCC 03–
248, and as further detailed in
subsequent implementation public
notices issued consistent with that
order.
§ 30.506
Priority Access Licenses.
(a) Applications for Priority Access
Licenses must:
(1) Demonstrate the applicant’s
qualifications to hold an authorization;
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) State how a grant would serve the
public interest, convenience, and
necessity;
(3) Contain all information required
by FCC rules and application forms;
(4) Propose operation of a facility or
facilities in compliance with all
applicable rules; and
(5) Be amended as necessary to
remain substantially accurate and
complete in all significant respects, in
accordance with the provisions of § 1.65
of this chapter.
(b) Devices used for Priority Access
must register with a Spectrum Access
System and comply with its instructions
pursuant to § 30.508.
(c) Records pertaining to PALs,
including applications and licenses,
shall be maintained by the Commission
in a publicly accessible system.
General Access.
(a) Devices used for General
Authorized Access must register with
the Spectrum Access System and
comply with its instructions.
(b) General Authorized Access Users
shall be permitted to use frequencies
assigned to Priority Access Licenses
when such frequencies are not in use, as
determined by the Spectrum Access
System.
(c) Frequencies that are available for
General Authorized Access Use shall be
made available on a shared basis.
(d) General Authorized Access Users
shall have no expectation of interference
protection from other General
Authorized Access Users operating in
accordance with this part.
(e) General Authorized Access Users
must not cause harmful interference to
and must accept interference from
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
58308
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Priority Access Licensees and
Grandfathered Registered Links in
accordance with this part.
§ 30.508 Spectrum access system
purposes and functionality.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The Spectrum Access System shall:
(a) Enact and enforce all policies and
procedures developed by the SAS
Administrator.
(b) Determine and provide to devices
the permissible channels or frequencies
at their location.
(c) Determine and provide to devices
the maximum permissible transmission
power level at their location.
(d) Register and authenticate the
identification information and location
of devices.
(e) Ensure that devices protect
Grandfathered Register Links from
harmful interference.
(f) Protect Priority Access Licensees
from interference caused by other
Priority Access Licenses and from
General Authorized Access Users.
(g) Resolve conflicting uses of the
band while maintaining, as much as
possible, a stable radio frequency
environment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:55 Aug 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
(h) Ensure secure and reliable
transmission of information between the
SAS and devices.
(i) Protect Grandfathered Registered
Links consistent with § 101.1529 of this
chapter.
(j) Implement the terms of applicable
current and future international
agreements.
§ 30.509 Registration, authentication, and
authorization of devices.
(a) A Spectrum Access System must
register, authenticate, and authorize
operations of devices consistent with
this part.
(b) Devices composed of a network of
base and fixed stations may employ a
subsystem for aggregating and
communicating all required information
exchanges between the SAS and
devices.
(c) A Spectrum Access System must
also verify that the FCC identifier (FCC
ID) of any device seeking access to its
services is valid prior to authorizing it
to begin providing service. A list of
devices with valid FCC IDs and the FCC
IDs of those devices is to be obtained
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
from the Commission’s Equipment
Authorization System.
PART 101—FIXED MICROWAVE
SERVICES
6. The authority citation for part 101
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
■
7. Add § 101.1529 to read as follows:
§ 101.529 Grandfathered operation and
transition to upper microwave flexible use
service.
Links registered with a third party
database administrator on or before
[insert effective date of rules] that are
constructed, in service, and fully
compliant with the rules in part 101,
subpart Q as of [insert date one year
after effective date of rules] will be
afforded protection from harmful
interference caused by Upper
Microwave Flexible Use users until the
end of their license term.
[FR Doc. 2016–19793 Filed 8–23–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\24AUP3.SGM
24AUP3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58269-58308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19793]
[[Page 58269]]
Vol. 81
Wednesday,
No. 164
August 24, 2016
Part IV
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Parts 2, 25, 30, et al.
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 58270]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 25, 30, and 101
[GN Docket No. 14-177, IB Docket Nos. 15-256 and 97-95, RM-11664, WT
Docket No. 10-112; FCC 16-89]
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on proposed service rules to allow
flexible fixed and mobile uses in additional bands and on refinements
to the rules the Commission adopted in FCC 16-89. These refinements
include: Providing additional detail on the sharing arrangement the
Commission adopted in FCC 16-89 for the 37 GHz band; performance
requirements for innovative uses such as Internet of Things (IoT) and
machine-to-machine communications; additional issues relating to our
mobile spectrum holdings policies; whether antenna height limits are
necessary in mmW bands; whether minimum bandwidth scaling factors are
necessary for transmitter power limits; whether allowing higher Power
Flux Density (PFD) levels for Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) in the 37
and 39 GHz bands would be consistent with terrestrial use of those
bands; refining the coordination limits for point-to-point operations;
and on sharing analysis and modeling.
DATES: Comments are due on or before September 30, 2016; reply comments
are due on or before October 31, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 14-177,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov, phone: 202-418-0530
or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schauble of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0797 or
John.Schauble@fcc.gov, Michael Ha of the Office of Engineering and
Technology, Policy and Rules Division, at 202-418-2099 or
Michael.Ha@fcc.gov, or Jose Albuquerque of the International Bureau,
Satellite Division, at 202-418-2288 or Jose.Albuquerque@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), GN Docket No. 14-177, IB Docket Nos. 15-
256 and 97-95, RM-11664, WT Docket No. 10-112; FCC 16-89, adopted and
released on July 14, 2016. The full text of the FNPRM is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The
document also is available for download over the Internet at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-89A1.docx.
Comment Filing Procedures: You may submit comments, identified by
GN Docket No. 14-177, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/ or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow
the instructions provided on the Commission's Web site for submitting
comments and transmit one electronic copy of the filing to GN Docket
No. 14-177. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen,
filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket number.
Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet
email. To get filing instructions, filers should send an email to
ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the
message, ``get form your email address''. A sample form and
instructions will be sent in response.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of reach filing. Filings can be sent
by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. The
filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 E. Hampton Drive,
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose
Pursuant to Section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this FNPRM
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc,
[[Page 58271]]
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should
familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present IRFA of the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in the attached FNPRM. Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified
in the FNPRM for comments. The Commission will send a copy of this
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
Paperwork Reduction Analysis
This document does not contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13.
Synopsis
1. This FNPRM has two sections that the Commission is seeking
comment. First, the Commission proposes to adopt service rules allowing
flexible fixed and mobile uses in additional bands. These bands
potentially offer 17.7 GHz of spectrum that could be available for
fixed or mobile use. By examining the suitability for mobile use of
such a large amount of spectrum, the Commission takes steps to ensure
that additional spectrum is available to allow the next generation of
wireless technologies to flourish in the mmW bands. In addition, many
of these bands will require sharing solutions to unlock their potential
for flexible use services--the Commission seeks comment on the
potential sharing mechanisms, and continue to encourage all
stakeholders to work to develop and refine effective solutions to
sharing. Second, the Commission seeks further comment on refinements to
the rules the Commission adopted in the Report and Order in GN Docket
No. 14-177, IB Docket Nos. 15-256 and 97-95, RM-11664, WT Docket No.
10-112; FCC 16-89, adopted and released on July 14, 2016 (hereinafter
Order or Report and Order). In particular, the Commission seeks comment
on: (1) Providing additional detail on the sharing arrangement that the
Commission adopted in the Order for the 37 GHz band; (2) performance
requirements for innovative uses such as IoT and machine-to-machine
communications; (3) additional issues relating to our mobile spectrum
holdings policies; (4) whether antenna height limits are necessary in
mmW bands; (5) whether minimum bandwidth scaling factors are necessary
for transmitter power limits; (6) whether allowing higher PFD levels
for FSS in the 37 and 39 GHz bands would be consistent with terrestrial
use of those bands; (7) refining the coordination limits for point-to-
point operations; and (8) on sharing analysis and modeling.
2. In the Order, several commenters ask the Commission to consider
other bands for mobile use. Many commenters argue that the criteria
should not preclude the Commission from considering bands that do not
meet all of those criteria. For example, CTIA and Nokia ask the
Commission to consider bands that do not have 500 MHz of spectrum
because certain applications may be feasible for smaller bandwidths.
Commenters also agree that while international harmonization is
preferable, the Commission should not preclude bands from further
consideration just because they are not proposed for mobile use
throughout the world.
3. Several factors lead us to conclude that it is now appropriate
to consider additional bands for mobile use. First, as the record to
the Report and Order has made clear, there are a wide variety of
services, including fixed, mobile, and satellite, for which these bands
could be used. This variety favors making multiple bands available,
including bands for which the Commission did not to propose service
rules in the NPRM (see In the Matter of Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24
GHz for Mobile Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC
Rcd 11878 (2015)). Second, the World Radio Conference identified a
large number of bands as candidate bands for IMT-2020 (International
Mobile Telecommunications), including several bands that the Commission
did not address in the NPRM. Third, it appears that the amount of
global data traffic will continue to grow exponentially. Cisco
estimates that global mobile data traffic will grow nearly tenfold
between 2014 and 2019. Under these circumstances, the Commission
believes it is now appropriate to seek comment on proposing mobile
service rules for most of the bands identified at the 2015 World Radio
Conference.
4. Specifically, the Commission proposes authorizing flexible use
licenses that would permit fixed and mobile services in the following
bands: 24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz, 31.8-33.4 GHz, 42-42.5 GHz,
47.2-50.2 GHz, 50.4-52.6 GHz, 71-76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz. Each of these
bands was identified as a candidate band for IMT-2020.
5. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that there are
challenges that must be overcome before the Commission can authorize
service in these bands, including existing allocations and/or
operations in these bands. The Commission will continue to work with
existing stakeholders, wireless providers, the satellite industry,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and
other interested Federal stakeholders to determine where different
services can coexist and develop ways to maximize flexible use. In
several bands, the Commission believes sharing mechanisms that the
Commission has adopted in the Report and Order and in other proceedings
can allow many of these bands to be utilized for fixed and mobile use
while also accommodating existing uses.
6. The Commission discusses each of the bands in additional detail
below. The Commission generally proposes to use the licensing and
service rule framework the Commission adopted in the Order. Except for
the 71-76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz bands, the Commission proposes to use
geographic area licensing with Partial Economic Area (PEAs) as the
license area size. For the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands, the
Commission proposes to use a licensing framework similar to the
framework developed for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. For any
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) bands for which the
Commission adopts geographic area licensing and accept mutually
exclusive initial applications, the Commission has decided to conduct
any spectrum auction of licenses in conformity with the general
competitive bidding procedures set forth in Part 1 Subpart Q of the
Commission's rules, including rules governing designated entity
preferences. The Commission seeks comment here on whether to apply the
same small business definitions and associated bidding credits the
Commission has adopted for auctions of UMFUS licenses to auctions of
licenses in the additional bands discussed below, as the Commission
seeks any other spectrum bands that the Commission may subsequently
decide to include in the UMFUS. Our proposal is based on our
anticipation that the same types of services would be deployed in these
additional bands as are contemplated to be deployed in the bands that
the Commission has already designated for the UMFUS. The
[[Page 58272]]
Commission asks commenters to provide specific data on the costs and
benefits associated with the licensing mechanisms the Commission has
proposed.
7. In the Order, the Commission is making 3.85 GHz of mmW spectrum
available for licensed mobile use, as well as adding seven gigahertz of
spectrum for unlicensed use, bringing the total to 14 GHz of unlicensed
spectrum available in the 57-71 GHz band. In view of these relative
proportions, the Commission believes it is appropriate to make
additional licensed spectrum available for flexible use. Furthermore,
the Commission continues to believe there is value in using both
geographic area licensing and shared access. The Commission seeks
comment on alternative licensing mechanisms for each of these bands,
including unlicensed operation. To the extent the Commission adopts
geographic area licensing, the Commission also seeks comment on
alternative license area sizes.
8. The Commission also proposes to generally apply the Part 30
technical rules the Commission has adopted in the Order to each of the
bands where the Commission ultimately adopts flexible use rules. The
Commission seeks comment on any deviations from those rules or special
technical rules that would be needed for any of those bands. Commenters
who propose special technical rules should explain the specific need
for such rules and quantify the costs and benefits associated with
their proposed rules. The Commission also encourages commenters to
provide detailed technical analysis supporting any technical proposals.
9. As the Commission explained in the NPRM, the Commission believes
these bands might be able to support expanded sharing, including two-
way shared use between Federal and non-Federal users in these bands and
sharing among different types of service platforms. The Commission
continues to believe there is an opportunity to leverage the
propagation characteristics of these bands to further enhance sharing
Federal and non-Federal users. The Commission seeks comment generally
on ways to further Federal and non-Federal sharing in these bands,
including refinement of the concept the Commission adopted in the Order
for the 37 GHz band.
A. Additional Bands
1. 24 GHz Bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz)
10. The Commission proposes to add a mobile allocation to the
24.25-24.45 and 24.75-25.25 GHz segments of the 24 GHz band, a fixed
allocation to 24.75-25.05 GHz, and to authorize both mobile and fixed
operations in those segments under the new Part 30 UMFUS rules. This
band is already used internationally for fixed service and is included
in the WRC study for future international mobile allocation. The
existing manufacturing base and global harmonization of this band make
it an attractive option for mobile use. The Commission further proposes
to grant mobile rights to the existing fixed licensees, in order to
facilitate coordination between fixed and mobile uses in the areas that
are currently licensed. The Commission proposes to add these new fixed
and mobile authorizations on a co-primary basis. The Commission seeks
comment on that arrangement, as well as on the alternative of making
mobile or fixed use secondary to FSS.
11. The Commission recognizes that there are existing satellite
interests and operations in this band, and the Commission seeks comment
on the best way to promote effective sharing between satellite and
mobile uses. Given that the current use of the band for satellite
appears to be rather limited, should the Commission maintain the
existing limits and coordination procedures on satellite operations in
the 25.05-25.25 GHz band, and apply those same limits to the 24.75-
25.05 GHz band? Alternatively, are there other sharing mechanisms that
would better achieve coexistence? Would the sharing regime the
Commission has adopted for the 28 GHz band be appropriate in this band,
or do the differences between FSS earth stations in that band and BSS
feeder links here suggest a different solution?
12. The Commission also proposes to modify the existing band plan
for new licenses in the 24 GHz band. Currently, the 24 GHz bands is
channelized into five 40 MHz by 40 MHz channel pairs. As with the 39
GHz band, the Commission sees benefits to converting the 24 GHz band
plan to unpaired blocks. Going forward, the Commission proposes to
license the 24.25-24.45 GHz band segment as a single, unpaired block of
200 MHz, and the 24.75-25.25 GHz band segment as two unpaired blocks of
250 MHz each. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, as well as
the alternative of using 100 MHz unpaired channels, or two 200 MHz
channels and one 100 MHz channel in 24.75-25.25 GHz. The Commission
also seeks comment on how to treat existing 24 GHz band licensees.
Should incumbent licenses be converted to UMFUS licenses, as the
Commission has done in 28 GHz and 39 GHz? Also, is it necessary to
repack existing licensees, or can they keep their existing frequency
assignments because there are so few licensees?
2. 32 GHz Band (31.8-33.4 GHz)
13. The Commission proposes to add primary non-Federal fixed and
mobile service allocations to the 32 GHz band (31.8-33.4 GHz).\1\ The
Commission also proposes to authorize fixed and mobile operations in
the 32 GHz under the Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
rules. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that the 32 GHz band is not
currently allocated for mobile operations, and therefore, perhaps it is
not as suited to the provision of 5G services as other bands under
consideration. Since the NPRM was adopted, however, ITU WRC-15 decided
to conduct the appropriate sharing and compatibility studies for the 32
GHz band, which may lead to an allocation for mobile service in the 32
GHz band at WRC-19 and the opportunity for globally harmonized services
in this band. Global harmonization, in turn, will promote global
interconnection, roaming, and interoperability. In addition, there is a
significant amount of contiguous bandwidth available in the 32 GHz
band. Finally, the Commission notes that there is significant support
among the commenters to allocate the 32 GHz band for fixed and mobile
5G services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the NPRM, the Commission addressed the 31.8-33 GHz band.
Because the ITU identified 31.8-33.4 GHz as a potential candidate
band, we will expand our consideration to the 31.8-33.4 GHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. However, there are still two major challenges to authorizing
mobile operations in the 32 GHz band: (1) Protecting radionavigation
operations in the 32 GHz band; and (2) protecting radio astronomy
observations in the adjacent 31.3-31.8 GHz band. The Commission
discusses those challenges and invites further comment on those issues
below.
a. Federal and Non-Federal Services in the 32 GHz Band
15. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the compatibility
of mobile use of the 32 GHz band with existing aeronautical and
shipborne radar use of the band, future radionavigation and other
Federal services, as well as deep space research
[[Page 58273]]
in the 31.8-32.3 GHz portion of the 32 GHz band. In the Order,
commenters did not address these issues directly. Instead, Echodyne, a
technology startup, asks the Commission to proceed cautiously to ensure
that it does not hinder the development of innovative technologies for
the radionavigation bands. Echodyne states that ``near term advances in
radar technology soon will help fuel revolutionary changes in many
sectors.'' For instance, Echodyne indicates that ``accurate,
lightweight, and low-power detect and avoid systems will be essential
to widespread commercial deployment of Unmanned Aerial Systems and
autonomous vehicles,'' which Echodyne argues, will change the face of
transportation, shipping, security, and numerous other industries.
According to Echodyne, these advances rely on effective radionavigation
operations that need consistent operating conditions across a
geographic region, including a predictable and uniform interference
environment. Echodyne indicates that it is skeptical that the 32 GHz
band could be made available for mobile use.
16. The Commission seeks comment on the compatibility of fixed and
mobile services with existing allocated services in the 32 GHz band. In
the Order, commenters who support mobile use of this band should
provide specific technical information and proposals showing how fixed
and mobile uses of this band is compatible with radionavigation uses.
In that regard, the Commission asks Echodyne and other commenters to
provide specific information on existing and planned non-Federal uses
of radar in this band. The Commission will continue to work with NTIA
and other Federal partners to determine the protection requirements for
Federal users and the opportunity to expand shared Federal use across
the band.
17. The Commission also seeks comment on protecting other allocated
service within the 32 GHz band. For Space Research Service operations
in the Goldstone, California area, would coordination requirements be
sufficient to protect those operations? In the NPRM, the Commission
noted that the risk of interference between terrestrial operations and
ISS links in 64-71 GHz appeared to be low because of atmospheric
absorption. Would the same analysis apply in the 32 GHz band?
b. Radio Astronomy and EESS in the Adjacent 31.3-31.8 GHz Band
18. The 32 GHz band is adjacent to the 31.3-31.8 GHz band. In the
United States, the 31.3-31.8 GHz band is allocated for Earth
Exploration Satellite (passive), radio astronomy, and Space Research
(passive). No station is authorized to transmit in the 31.3-31.8 GHz
band and the radio astronomy operations in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band are
protected from unwanted emissions only to the extent that such
radiation exceeds the level which would be present if the offending
station were operating in compliance with the technical standards or
criteria applicable to the service in which it operates.
19. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that the need to protect the
31.3-31.8 GHz passive band may severely limit the availability of
usable spectrum in the 31.8-33 GHz band and sought detailed technical
analysis from commenters on the out-of-band emission limits required to
protect operations in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band. The Commission indicated
that a detailed analysis would help it determine how much of the 31.8-
33 GHz band could be used for mobile operations while protecting the
passive services in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band.
20. In the Order, CORF submitted the most information on this
topic. CORF states that although the critical science undertaken by
Radio Astronomy observers cannot be performed without access to
interference free bands, Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) bands can be
protected regionally by limiting emissions within a certain radius of
the facility. But, CORF explains, ``the emissions that radio
astronomers receive are extremely weak--a radio telescope receives less
than 1 percent of one-billionth of one-billionth of a watt (10-20 W)
from a typical cosmic object.'' CORF further explains that radio
observatories are particularly vulnerable to interference from in-band
emissions, spurious and out-of-band emissions from licensed and
unlicensed users of neighboring bands, and emissions that produce
harmonic signals in the RAS bands, even when those manmade signals are
weak and distant. EMEA Satellite Operators Association (ESOA) argues
that any deep space research operations in the 31.3-31.8 GHz band can
be protected from mobile terrestrial operations in the 32 GHz band
because there are very few research facilities and they are located in
very remote areas. The Commission seeks specific comment on how the
Commission should protect these operations.
21. CORF stresses the importance of the data collected from Earth
Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) and that billions of dollars have
been invested in EESS satellites. CORF notes that for certain
applications, satellite-based microwave remote sensing is the only
practical method of obtaining atmospheric and surface data for the
entire planet. Data derived from EESS have contributed substantially to
the study of meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, climatology, and
oceanography and is used by multiple governmental agencies. CORF
indicates that incumbent users designed and developed EESS missions
without the expectation of transmissions in close proximity to the
31.3-31.8 GHz band. They also report that most incumbent users at 31.5
GHz operate in a direct detection (homodyne) mode. CORF recommends that
the Commission adopt adequate guard bands to protect EESS operations in
the 31.3-31.8 GHz ``until the current satellites can be replaced with
satellites with filtering suited to the new spectral environment.''
CORF claims that proportionally larger guard bands are needed as the
frequency increases. In direct detection, CORF explains, band
definition is achieved with filters that are limited by the properties
of the materials used in the filter itself. Thus, for example, ``for a
given material, the minimum bandwidth of a filter is proportional to
the central frequency, so that the width of the necessary guard bands
to suppress emissions to a desired level also increases in proportion
to the frequency.'' CORF continues, ``it is impossible to reject a
signal 10 MHz away from a band edge at these higher frequencies, so
guard bandwidths must be scaled in frequency to accommodate this
physical limitation.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether the
Commission should adopt a guard band to protect EESS operations in the
31.3-31.8 GHz band, and if so, how large should the guard band be?
ESOA, disagrees with CORF and states that services operating in the
31.3-31.8 GHz band can be protected through ``carefully crafted
operating requirements.'' The Commission seeks comment on ESOA's
statement and ask what these ``carefully crafted operating
requirements'' might be.
22. CORF also expresses concern that ``mobile devices with limited
size and cost will not be able to adequately filter their out-of-band
emissions to meet the stringent requirements'' of the 31.3-31.8 GHz
band. Avanti responds that under agenda item 1.13 for WRC-19 (World
Radiocommunication Conference), the International Telecommunication
Union-Radiocommunication (ITU-R) will develop technical measures, if
necessary, to protect passive services from interference from 5G mobile
[[Page 58274]]
broadband systems. The Commission seeks detailed information concerning
the capability of mobile and other consumer devices to limit out-of-
band emissions into the 31.3-31.8 GHz band, and seek comment on whether
guard bands or other special rules will be necessary to limit emissions
into the 31.3-31.8 GHz band.
c. Band Plan
23. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate band plan
for the 32 GHz band. The Commission proposes to license the band using
channels of either 200 MHz or 400 MHz bandwidth. Given the contemplated
use cases and the nature of this band, what channel size would be best?
The Commission encourages commenters to discuss the specific advantages
and disadvantages of various band plans.
3. 42 GHz Band (42-42.5 GHz)
24. The Commission proposes to authorize fixed and mobile service
operations to operate in the 42 GHz band (42-42.5 GHz) under the Part
30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service rules, as long as the
Commission can ensure that adjacent channel RAS services will be
protected. The band potentially offers 500 megahertz for new flexible
use services, has existing fixed and mobile allocations, and is being
studied internationally for possible mobile use. The Commission also
proposes to adopt geographic area licensing using PEAs as the
geographic area. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, as well
as alternatives.
25. The Commission denies FWCC's request that the Commission
establish service rules to enable fixed service at 42.-42.5 GHz, but
keeps its request pending for the 42.5-43.5 GHz band. The Commission
believes that flexible use licensing, which would allow a variety of
services to be offered, would be more likely to place the spectrum in
its highest and best use, as opposed to rules that would only allow
point-to-point operation. Nevertheless, the Commission does not deny
FWCC's petition with respect to the 42.5-43.5 GHz band because point-
to-point operation may be more likely to co-exist with co-channel RAS.
The Commission will give further consideration to the 42.5-43.5 GHz
band separately.
26. The Commission seeks comment on whether it is possible to
authorize fixed and mobile use in the 42 GHz band while protecting RAS
observations in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band. If protection is
possible, the Commission seeks comment on what protections should be
established. CORF notes that frequency lines at 42.519, 42.821, 43.122,
and 43.424 GHz (for observations of silicon monoxide) are among those
of greatest importance to radio astronomy. CORF represents, ``The
detrimental levels for continuum and spectral line radio astronomy
observations for single dishes are -227 dBW/m2/Hz and -210 dBW/m2/Hz,
respectively, for the average across the full 1 GHz band and the peak
level in any single 500 kHz channel. For observations using the entire
Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), the corresponding limit is -175 dBW/
m2/Hz.'' Does the Commission need to establish special out-of-band
emission limits into the 42.5-43.5 GHz band? Is it necessary or
appropriate to establish a guard band below 42.5 GHz? The Commission
asks proponents of terrestrial use in the 42 GHz band to provide
detailed studies demonstrating how such use can be compatible with RAS
use in the 42.4-43.5 GHz band. The Commission also asks CORF and other
radio astronomy interests to provide additional information on the
locations where observations are made in the 42.4-43.5 GHz band.
27. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate band plan
for the 42 GHz band. Should the band be licensed as a single channel,
split into two channels, or split into multiple 100 megahertz channels?
The Commission recognizes that if the Commission adopts a guard band to
protect adjacent channel radio astronomy, the guard band will affect
the band plan by making less spectrum available. Given the contemplated
use cases and the nature of this band, what channel size would be best?
The Commission encourages commenters to discuss the specific advantages
and disadvantages of various band plans.
28. Finally, the Commission proposes to add Federal fixed and
mobile allocations into this band, and additionally seek comment on
establishing a framework under which Federal and non-Federal users
could share the band. Given the short propagation distances, lack of
incumbent licensees, and other factors, as described in the 37 GHz
sharing section and the rules the Commission adopted in the Report and
Order, the Commission believes it is possible for both Federal and non-
Federal users to coexist on a co-primary basis, particularly using
simple methods of coordination (to enable geographic sharing). The
Commission therefore seeks comment on whether to extend Federal access
to this band, including how to best achieve coexistence with non-
Federal uses. For instance, are there additional considerations in
addition to leveraging the sharing regime adopted for the co-primary
coordinated sharing in the 37 GHz band? Should the Commission use more
static sharing mechanisms? Would an SAS-based sharing approach
facilitate Federal and non-Federal sharing of this band? Are there
other tools the Commission can leverage to create a robust sharing
environment that allows this spectrum to meet both Federal and non-
Federal needs?
4. 47 GHz Band (47.2-50.2 GHz)
29. The Commission proposes to authorize fixed and mobile
operations in the 47 GHz band (47.2-50.2 GHz) under the Part 30 Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service rules. The band potentially offers 3 GHz
of spectrum and is being studied internationally for possible mobile
use.
30. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that this band is
authorized for FSS use. While there are no current authorized
operations, this band may be paired with the 40-42 GHz downlink band.
Unlike in the 28 GHz or 39 GHz bands, where FSS can use other spectrum
to operate user equipment, FSS would have to use some portion of the 47
GHz band to operate user equipment. Sharing between terrestrial mobile
and FSS user equipment is more complicated, particularly when the FSS
user equipment is transmitting.
31. With respect to individually licensed earth stations, it
appears that the Commission could adopt the sharing framework the
Commission has adopted for the 28 GHz band. Specifically, in each PEA,
the Commission proposes that there can be one location where FSS earth
stations can be located on a co-primary basis, subject to the
conditions and limitations the Commission has adopted in other bands.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, as well as alternatives.
32. The Commission seeks comment on the best approach for sharing
between FSS user equipment and terrestrial operations. One option would
be to have geographic area licensing on a PEA basis, but also authorize
database-driven sharing between terrestrial licensees and stationary
FSS user equipment. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on
leveraging a Spectrum Access System (SAS) or other database
coordination mechanism to facilitate sharing between terrestrial
operations and FSS user equipment. Under the SAS proposal, terrestrial
licensees would provide the geographic coordinates and other pertinent
technical information concerning their facilities to the SAS. Satellite
operators would then access
[[Page 58275]]
the information in the SAS to determine where their user equipment
could transmit without causing interference to terrestrial operations.
The Commission recognizes that many terrestrial operators oppose being
required to provide information on their deployments to a database, but
those operators have not presented a viable alternative that would
allow sharing between these services.
33. Another option would be to divide the band into a segment where
FSS has priority and a segment where UMFUS operations has priority.\2\
In the segment where FSS had priority, FSS could operate its user
equipment without any obligation to protect UMFUS operations.
Conversely, in the segment where UMFUS licensees had priority,
satellite user equipment could operate on a purely secondary basis and
would be required to cease transmitting if it caused interference to
fixed or mobile operations. Supporters of this option should propose a
split for the band and explain how their proposed split best balances
the needs of UMFUS and FSS licensees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Commission could maintain the current wireless services
and FSS designations. When the Commission made the separate
designations for the FSS and wireless services in the band, it did
not place any restrictions on the use of either portion of the band
by either the FSS or wireless services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. A third option would be to develop specific criteria for
assigning priority between FSS and terrestrial operations. For example,
the Commission could require both FSS and UMFUS licensees to register
their operations in a database, and the Commission could assign
interference protection on a first-come, first-served basis. The
Commission seeks comment on a first-come, first-served approach, and
the Commission also invites commenters to propose alternative criteria
for assigning priority. Commenters should provide detailed information
on the costs and benefits of their proposed mechanisms for assigning
priorities. The Commission also seeks comment on other alternatives for
sharing between UMFUS and FSS in this band.
35. The Commission also seeks comment on sharing with co-primary
Federal services in the 48.2-50.2 GHz band, as well as protection of
passive services in the adjacent 50.2-50.4 GHz band. Our understanding
is that there are currently no authorized Federal or non-Federal
operations in the 48.2-50.2 GHz band but that there may be future
Federal operations in that band. Are the rules and framework the
Commission adopted in the Order for sharing of the 37 GHz band
applicable to the 48.2-50.2 GHz band? Could a modified first-come,
first-served mechanism be used to establish priority in this band
without precluding use of the band by co-primary Federal users? Should
the Commission leverage the database-driven sharing mechanism? The
Commission intends to work with NTIA and other Federal agencies to
identify an appropriate framework to protect current or planned Federal
interests in and ensure future access to this band on a co-primary
shared basis. The Commission also seeks comment on protecting radio
astronomy in the 48.94-49.04 GHz band. Are there any steps the
Commission needs to take to protect radio astronomy over and above
implementing the existing prohibition on aeronautical use in that
segment? The Commission encourages CORF and other radio astronomy
interests to provide information on locations where this band is used
for radio astronomy observations. With respect to the 50.2-50.4 GHz
band, the Commission notes that the international allocation for the
passive services ``shall not impose undue constraints on the use of
adjacent bands by the primary allocated services in those bands.'' On
the other hand, at WRC-12, the WRC recognized ``that long-term
protection of the EESS in the [, inter alia, 50.2-50.4 GHz band] is
vital to weather prediction and disaster management.'' The WRC did
establish emission limits for FSS stations operating in the 49.7-50.2
GHz and 50.4-50.9 GHz bands, but did not address fixed or mobile
stations operating in those bands. Given that framework, what
requirements would be appropriate to protect passive services in the
50.2-50.4 GHz bands?
36. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate band plan
for the 47 GHz band. One possibility would be to divide the band into
six channels of 500 MHz each. One advantage of that band plan is that
the channels would align with 48.2 GHz, which is where the Federal
allocation and current FSS designation begin and where FSS user
equipment can begin to be deployed. On the other hand, 500 megahertz
channels would not align with the band plan in other bands, where the
Commission is using multiples of 200 MHz. Given the contemplated use
cases and the nature of this band, what channel size would be best? The
Commission encourages commenters to discuss the specific advantages and
disadvantages of various band plans.
5. 50 GHz Band (50.4-52.6 GHz)
37. The Commission proposes to authorize fixed and mobile
operations in the 50 GHz band (50.4-52.6 GHz) under the Part 30 Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service rules. The band potentially offers 2 GHz
of spectrum and is being studied internationally for possible mobile
use. The Commission also proposes to use geographic area licensing in
this band and license the band on a PEA basis. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals, as well as alternatives. The Commission
also seeks comment on the non-Federal satellite allocations in the
50.4-51.4 GHz band.\3\ Assuming that the 40-42 GHz (space-to-Earth)
band is paired with the 48.2-50.2 GHz (Earth-to-space) band, the
Commission requests comments on how this uplink band would be used by
FSS operators. The Commission also requests comments on means of
accommodating sharing between terrestrial and satellite operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Commission notes that the NATO Joint Frequency Agreement
identifies the 39-5-40.5 GHz downlink band and the 50.4-51.4 GHz
uplink band for future military FSS and MSS requirements. See NTIA
letter, IB Docket No. 97-95, received May 7, 1997, at p. 4. See also
NTIA's Federal Long-Range Spectrum Plan, September 2000, at p. 122
(available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/final-1rsp.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. The Commission also seeks comment on sharing with co-primary
Federal services in the 50.4-52.6 GHz band, as well as protection of
passive services in the adjacent 50.2-50.4 GHz and 52.6-54.25 GHz
bands. The Commission's understanding is that there are currently no
authorized Federal or non-Federal operations in this band but that
there may be future Federal operations in that band. Are the rules and
framework the Commission adopted in the Order for sharing of the 37 GHz
band applicable to this band? Could a database-driven sharing approach
facilitate sharing between Federal and non-Federal operations? Could a
modified first-come, first-served mechanism be used to establish
priority in this band without precluding use of the band by co-primary
Federal users? The Commission intends to work with NTIA and other
Federal agencies to identify an appropriate framework to protect
current or planned Federal interests and to ensure future access to
this band on a co-primary shared basis. With respect to the 50.2-50.4
GHz band this band is vital to weather prediction and disaster
management, and the international allocation for the passive services
``shall not impose undue constraints on the use of adjacent bands by
the primary allocated services in those bands.'' Given that framework,
what limits on emissions into the 50.2-50.4 GHz would be appropriate?
On the
[[Page 58276]]
other hand, there is a specific limit on fixed emissions into the 52.6-
54.25 GHz band. What impact will that limit have on the suitability of
this band to provide terrestrial service? What limits would be
necessary on mobile service to protect the 52.6-54.25 GHz band?
39. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate band plan
for the 50 GHz band. One option is to establish ten channels of 200 MHz
each, which would be consistent with the channel plan for the 39 GHz
band. Other options include four channels of 500 megahertz each or five
channels of 400 MHz each, with one extra 200 MHz channel. Is there any
value in establishing a guard band immediately below 52.6 GHz to
protect the passive band above 52.6 GHz? Given the contemplated use
cases and the nature of this band, what channel size would be best? The
Commission encourages commenters to discuss the specific advantages and
disadvantages of the various band plans.
6. 70/80 GHz Bands (71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz)
40. When evaluating services or uses that could be viable if the
Commission authorize their introduction into the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz
bands, the Commission must consider three basic issues. First, the
Commission needs to consider whether the bands offer adequate spectrum
for the proposed new services or uses in bands where tens of thousands
of incumbent operations are already registered. Second, the Commission
needs to consider whether the new services or uses are compatible with
the fundamental electromagnetic characteristics of the relevant
spectrum. And third, the Commission needs to consider whether more than
one service or use can coexist in the bands. The Commission addresses
each of these considerations and corollary concerns below.
41. The NPRM posited that it might not be possible to authorize
mobile services or unlicensed access in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands
without causing interference to incumbent point-to-point links. After
further review, the Commission finds that the bands are relatively
lightly used both in terms of the number of registered sites
(especially on a large geographic scale) and with respect to the
quantity of spectrum available. As E-Band Communications notes, ``The
10 GHz of spectrum available [in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands]
represents by far the most ever allocated by the FCC at any one time,
representing 50-times the bandwidth of the entire cellular spectrum.''
Moreover, the great majority of existing links in the bands are
concentrated in just a few localities. As of June 10, 2016, only 16
counties had an average site density of more than one transmission or
reception site per square mile, and those 16 counties contain more than
73 percent of all registered transmitters and receivers in the 71-76
and 81-86 GHz bands. Given the narrow beamwidths and limited path
lengths involved, it would be reasonable to treat the remaining 3,125
counties and county-equivalents as the functional equivalent of a green
field, provided that adequate measures are taken to protect the few
incumbents in them.
42. The Commission must also consider whether the physical
characteristics of the bands are suitable for the kinds of services
that might be authorized in the bands--this is particularly true for
mmW bands where atmospheric and other environmental phenomena affect
the utility of the band. In general, for example, atmospheric
attenuation increases the higher one goes in the electromagnetic
spectrum, limiting the potential length of transmission paths. However,
the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands experience less attenuation than
frequencies in the 50-60 GHz range.
43. In addition to atmospheric attenuation, spreading loss also
becomes an issue in the mmW bands. As the Friis transmission law
states, path loss grows with the square of the frequency, even when
radio waves are traveling through a vacuum. The caveat, however, is
that Friis's law applies only to transmissions from omnidirectional
antennas. As a recent technical study and analysis explains, ``[T]he
smaller wavelength of mmW signals also enables proportionally greater
antenna gain for the same physical antenna size. Consequently, the
higher frequencies of mmW signals do not in themselves result in any
increased free space propagation loss, provided the antenna area
remains fixed and suitable directional transmissions are used.'' In
short, the directionality of the antennas that are feasible at shorter
wavelengths may result in less path loss than theorized. Based upon
this preliminary analysis, the Commission believes the bands might be
valuable for a variety of uses, including mobile as well as fixed uses.
In determining whether new and different services can coexist in these
bands, the Commission must also look at whether the new service use can
be authorized in a manner that does not disrupt the incumbent use (or
otherwise, the Commission could decide to disrupt the incumbent use),
and whether the existing use can and should continue to expand.
Specific to this analysis is whether the current and potential future
fixed point-to-point uses of these bands might be compatible with other
types of fixed or mobile uses.
44. When evaluating the compatibility between fixed and mobile
services in the 70/80 GHz band, one important consideration is the
beamwidths of their transmission paths because tighter beams are less
likely to cause interference. Historically, the Commission has tried to
balance the desire for smaller antennas against the spectrum
efficiencies of narrow beamwidths in the 70/80 GHz band. Over the last
decade, the Commission has continued to explore modifying the technical
rules to allow larger beamwidths. Most recently, on October 13, 2015,
WTB's Broadband Division opened a new docket (Public Notice 30 FCC Rcd
10961 (WTB 2015)) to address two waiver requests seeking a further
relaxation of antenna standards in the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands. As
the waiver requests and comments filed in that docket attest, evidence
suggests that the Commission might further relax the allowed beamwidth
to 2.2 degrees. That step, if taken, would bring the bands' technical
standards into a realm that is at least potentially compatible with
dynamic beamforming technology because a 2.2-degree beamwidth is also
achievable by the kinds of MIMO base stations that will be supporting
mmW mobile services. At least when operating with beamforming MIMO,
these base stations would likely be able to coexist with conventional
point-to-point Fixed Service links.
45. The introduction of fixed services under somewhat relaxed
directionality requirements in addition to mmW mobile services pose a
new coexistence consideration. It is likely that, when both fixed and
mobile mmW services are operated by the same entity, they can
sufficiently plan, coordinate, and time their use to facilitate
coexistence. In looking at whether incumbent fixed services, new more
dynamic fixed services, and potential mobile services (and equipment)
in these bands may coexist, it is apparent that the use of a central
coordinating database capable of calculating and enforcing protections
among different types of users, like a Spectrum Access System, could
facilitate this coexistence.
46. Initially, coordination of non-Federal links with Federal
operations in the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz (70/80/90) bands
was accomplished under a traditional coordination process: that is,
requested non-Federal links were recorded in the Commission's Universal
Licensing
[[Page 58277]]
System (ULS) database and coordinated with the NTIA through the
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) Frequency Assignment
Subcommittee. However, beginning on February 8, 2005, this interim link
registration process was replaced by a permanent process in which
third-party database managers are responsible for recording each
proposed non-Federal link in the third-party database link system and
coordinating with NTIA's automated ``green light/yellow light''
mechanism to determine the potential for harmful interference with
Federal operations. A ``green light'' response indicates that the link
is coordinated with the Federal Government; a ``yellow light'' response
indicates a potential for interference to Federal Government or certain
other operations. In the case of a ``yellow light,'' the licensee must
file an application for the requested link with the Commission, which
in turn will submit the application to IRAC for individual
coordination. This automated process is designed to streamline the
administrative process for non-Federal users in the bands. The
Commission noted that the classified nature of some Federal operations
precludes the use of a public database containing both Federal and non-
Federal links.
47. This system has been effectively used for over a decade to
facilitate coexistence between commercial systems and Federal systems:
the technical data needed to avoid interfering with incumbent non-
Federal licensees is already available in existing registration
databases, and an automated system to prevent interference with Federal
systems is already in place and has been in operation for years.
48. Recently, the Commission has developed other means of
facilitating spectrum sharing. In May 2016, seven parties filed
applications to be certified SAS Administrators for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. The SAS is a critical tool to enable spectrum
sharing in the band. SAS will protect incumbent users based on
technical criteria, authorize all devices in the band, protect a
Priority Access Tier, and coordinate a General Authorized Access (GAA)
Tier. By leveraging the SAS computational power, protections can be
tailored to the characteristics of the systems that require protection,
different uses with different characteristics can be coordinated in a
similar area, and spectrum efficiency can be maximized. Based on the
experience with the coordination system for the 70/80 GHz band, and the
existing rules for the SAS, the Commission proposes to establish a SAS-
based regulatory framework adapted to the constraints and the
opportunities of the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands. In particular, the
Commission invites comments on the following questions and proposals:
The Commission proposes to establish three tiers of users
for the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz band, consisting of: (1) Incumbent Access
users, which would receive the highest level of protection; (2)
Priority Access Licensees (PALs); and (3) GAA users. Each tier would be
required to prevent interference to, and accept interference from,
higher tier users.
The Commission seeks comment on whether the rules for
these bands should be included in Part 30 (Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service) or Part 96 (Citizens Broadband Radio Service).
Incumbent Access: The Commission proposes to continue to
protect existing Federal locations and seek comment on the ability to
add future sites on the same protected basis. The Commission seeks
comment on whether existing 70/80 GHz licensees and registered links
should also qualify for incumbent protection. Alternatively, the
Commission seeks comment on whether they should be grandfathered for
some period of time, then required to transition to the new service the
Commission proposes here (most notably, deploy equipment consistent
with the technical rules and capable of communicating to an SAS). To
the extent grandfathered links are protected, the Commission proposes
to require the links to be operational and in service, and seek comment
on requiring incumbent licensees to certify their construction and
operational status with the Commission. The Commission also seeks
comment on the appropriate means for protecting Federal incumbents,
including whether the Commission should modify the existing system or
utilize a more automated system (like a sensor-based system). Finally,
the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which Federal users could
expand their service area and gain protected status under the incumbent
tier.
Priority Access: As in the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service, the Commission proposes to create a Priority Access Tier in
which the Commission would make PALs available for geographic license
areas. The Commission proposes to authorize PALs within census tracts,
with one-year, non-renewable license terms. The Commission believes
that this approach will provide licensees with the certainty required
to promote investment while maximizing efficient use of the spectrum
and incentivizing a variety of innovative deployment models. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
General Authorized Access: The Commission proposes to
create a GAA tier, and seek comment on whether the tier should be
licensed by rule or subject to a ``licensed light'' regime similar to
the existing structure for the 70/80 GHz band (non-exclusive nationwide
licenses with individual sites authorized). The Commission seeks
comment on whether the GAA tier should have access to a set channels,
(i.e., there would be some first-in-time right that would provide some
level of certainty) or if the Commission should require (or allow) the
SAS to dynamically maximize the number of GAA sites in a given area.
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should
defer authorizing GAA users until the conclusion of initial Priority
Access license terms.
Protection Methodology: The Commission invites comment on
the appropriate technical methodologies for protecting licensees that
are entitled to protection, including but not limited to the following
alternatives:
a. Require SAS to calculate expected aggregate interference at each
incumbent or Priority Access receiver, based on their positions and the
technical parameters of their equipment, together with the
corresponding parameters of intruding transmitters.
b. Establish a maximum aggregate received signal level within
Priority Access license areas, which would be measured in terms of
power flux density (PFD) per megahertz of bandwidth at specified
heights above the ground.
c. Implement an alternate protection scheme whereby the SAS would
protect operator-defined contours around Priority Access base stations
to a protection level at a specified dBm per megahertz of bandwidth
anywhere within the contour.
Technical Rules: The Commission proposes to establish two
classes of licenses for point-to-point operations in these bands that
will be subject to the technical requirements described below.
a. Class A licenses would be authorized only for operations at a
minimum specified height above ground level, would be authorized to use
comparatively high power levels, and would be required to use tight-
beamwidth antennas. Class B point-to-point licenses would be authorized
transmit at streetlamp level, with somewhat relaxed beamwidth
requirements in order to accommodate
[[Page 58278]]
smaller antennas. The Commission invites comment on the appropriate
height limits, power levels, and beamwidth constraints that would be
appropriate for these purposes.
b. The Commission proposes to authorize dynamic beamforming
antennas to provide in-band backhaul so long as they conform to the
same beamwidth requirements, height limitations, and other requirements
that apply to conventional antennas used for point-to-point links.
c. The Commission proposes to authorize the same dynamic
beamforming antennas to serve mobile user equipment, with further
relaxation of beamwidth requirements, provided that they are situated
no higher than streetlamp level and provided further that their
antennas are inclined downward at a minimum specified angle when they
are communicating with mobile user equipment. The Commission invites
comment on appropriate beamwidths, inclination angles, power levels,
and height constraints for these purposes.
d. The Commission proposes to require that Class A license
equipment be professionally installed but that non-professionals be
allowed to install Class B license equipment and mobile base station
equipment, provided that the installer is equipped with the necessary
geo-location equipment or that the equipment itself is capable of
ascertaining its location and its orientation.
e. The Commission invites comment on technical requirements that
would be appropriate for different kinds of user equipment in these
bands, differentiating between point-to-point, handheld mobile
equipment, and mobile equipment that will typically be situated more
than 20 centimeters away from people. The Commission proposes to
require that user equipment be allowed to transmit only when it is
locked onto a serving base station, with the possible exception of
brief pilot or sounding signals.
f. The Commission proposes to require SAS to maintain and verify
information from registered base stations and Fixed Service
transmitters and receiver equipment under their coordination, and the
Commission invites comment on the minimum geographic positioning
accuracy that the Commission should require, including accuracy with
respect to altitude as well as latitude and longitude. The Commission
also seeks comment on requiring licenses to update registration
information if the location or operational status of registered base
station equipment changes. The Commission does not propose to require
SAS to maintain position awareness of mobile user equipment.
g. The Commission proposes to establish out of band emissions
(OOBE) limits for all equipment authorized to operate in these bands,
and the Commission invites comments on the appropriate technical
parameters to apply for that purpose.
Indoor Use: The Commission invites comments on the
feasibility of authorizing unlicensed, indoor-only operations, subject
to Part 15 of our rules. The Commission has decided not to adopt the
NPRM's proposal to authorize unlicensed indoor-only operations in the
37 GHz band, but the Commission believes that the comparative amount of
signal leakage through windows could be much lower in the 71-76 GHz and
81-86 GHz bands, and consequently would be less likely to interfere
with outdoor operations. The Commission seeks further information on
that issue, especially from commenters that have performed relevant
tests or have access to the results of such tests. The Commission notes
that Part 15 already provides technical rules for indoor-only operation
in the 92-95 GHz band that are similar to the rules in the existing 57-
64 GHz band, but require that these devices be AC-powered in order to
ensure that they only operate indoors. If the Commission allows
unlicensed operation at 71-76 GHz/81-86 GHz, should similar technical
rules apply? What additional restrictions should be added to ensure
that this type of equipment will not interfere with authorized services
that are currently operating in these bands? Alternatively, would
registered indoor GAA use be a better mechanism for facilitating indoor
use of these bands? The Commission seeks comment on this and any other
relevant issue regarding unlicensed and indoor operations within this
spectrum.
The Commission proposes to extend the same requirements
and privileges to all parts of the United States, but the Commission
also invites comment on the alternative of establishing a separate
regulatory framework for the 16 counties that are heavily registered
with incumbent users.
The Commission proposes to require SAS to be capable of
performing the following operations:
a. Determine the available frequencies at a given geographic
location and assign them to PAL and/or GAA licensees;
b. Determine the maximum permissible transmission power level for
incumbent, PAL, and GAA licensees at a given location and communicate
that information;
c. Register and authenticate the identification information and
location of incumbent, PAL and GAA licensees;
d. Enforce Exclusion and Protection Zones, including any future
changes to such Zones, to ensure compatibility between non-Federal
users of spectrum in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands and incumbent
Federal operations;
e. Ensure that PAL and GAA licensees protect non-Federal incumbent
users consistent with the rules;
f. Protect Priority Access Licensees from impermissible
interference from other users;
g. Facilitate coordination between GAA users to promote a stable
spectral environment;
h. Ensure secure and reliable transmission of information between
the SAS, ESC, and PAL and GAA licensees;
i. Provide any ESC that the Commission might approve with any
sensing information reported by PAL and GAA licensees if available;
j. Facilitate coordination and information exchange with other SASs
and exchange information, as needed, with NTIA.
49. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative methods of
authorizing additional access to these bands, including exclusive use
licensing and unlicensed. As discussed, authorizing new flexible use
operations in these bands is difficult given the incumbent fixed
commercial and Federal operations. How would an exclusive use licensing
or unlicensed access models work? How would incumbents be protected and
be permitted to expand? Could the Commission auction overlay licenses
that allow the auction winner to negotiate with the incumbents in the
area for their rights? How could unlicensed operations sufficiently
protect incumbents? Have circumstances changed since the Commission
declined to allow unlicensed operations in these bands in 2003? The
Commission seeks comment on these and other issues implicated in any
alternative licensing or authorization scheme.
8. Bands Above 95 GHz
50. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that several parties
expressed support for making additional spectrum available in the upper
reaches of the spectrum, particularly above 95 GHz. The Commission
invited parties to submit proposals for use of this spectrum, including
proposals for authorizing use under our Part 15 rules for unlicensed
devices. Commenters
[[Page 58279]]
generally did not respond to this request, but the Commission
recognizes that the NPRM explored many spectrum issues and commenters
may have chosen to focus on the specific proposals for the frequency
bands below 95 GHz. Moreover, the Commission is aware that operations
above 95 GHz involve nascent technology that is being developed by
small companies that may not be accustomed to participating in FCC
proceedings. Nevertheless, the Commission is committed to developing a
record that will provide a basis for proposing rules that will
encourage the introduction of new services and devices above 95 GHz.
75. The spectrum from 95 to 275 GHz has been allocated for a
variety of different types of Federal and non-Federal radio services.
In addition, the international Table of Frequency Allocations has been
extended from 275 to 1,000 GHz for specific services and, in a separate
proceeding, the Commission is considering how to amend the United
States table. The bands above 95 GHz have already been identified for
services that typically involve the reception of extremely weak
signals, such as radio astronomy, space research, and Earth Exploration
Satellite. All of the bands, with some minor exceptions, are allocated
on a co-primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use.
51. The Commission recognizes that signals in the frequency bands
above 95 GHz will attenuate rapidly, intuitively tending to minimize
the risk of harmful interference to other radio services. However, this
does not by itself provide a basis for proposing to allow use of any
spectrum above 95 GHz. The Commission believes the process of
facilitating technology above 95 GHz can best be advanced by
identifying specific frequency bands rather than attempting to address
all parts of the spectrum above 95 GHz. Accordingly, the Commission
takes this opportunity to solicit information on the specific parts of
the spectrum that would be most attractive from the standpoint of
technology development while successfully coexisting with the types of
radio communications services that operate under the existing
allocations.
52. In identifying specific frequency bands, the Commission asks
commenters to provide specific analyses to justify any claims that
there are no risks of harmful interference to other radio services.
Which bands should be made available for licensed or unlicensed use? Is
there sufficient information to identify where and on what frequencies
both existing and planned radio astronomy, space research, Earth
Exploration Satellite, and similar users will actually operate? What
technical rules may be appropriate? For parties supporting unlicensed
use, will it be necessary to control the locations of operation to
prevent harmful interference to radio astronomy, space research, Earth
Exploration Satellite, or other services? If so, how could the areas of
permissible operations be controlled under the unlicensed rules? For
bands that commenters believe should be made available on a licensed
basis, should the new Part 30 rules or other service rules apply? How
would the Commission create a licensing scheme for signals that
generally propagate over very short distances? Should the Commission
permit both mobile and fixed service? What technical rules should
apply? The Commission encourages parties to file comments addressing
these matters.
B. Federal Sharing Issues--37 GHz Band (37-38.6 GHz)
53. As the Commission indicated in the Report and Order, FCC staff
will--in coordination with NTIA, Department of Defense (DoD), and other
Federal and non-Federal stakeholders--further define the sharing
framework by more fully developing the coordination mechanisms the
Commission adopt for the lower band segment. The Commission also seeks
comment on adopting methods for shared (Federal and non-Federal) access
of the upper band segment, including through a use or share
requirement, and how to facilitate coordination for potential future
Federal access across the licensed portions. Thus the Commission seeks
comment on the issues described below.
1. Coordination Mechanism for the Lower Band Segment
54. As explained in the Report and Order, the lower band segment is
available for coordinated coequal sharing between Federal fixed and
mobile users and non-Federal fixed and mobile users. Non-Federal fixed
and mobile users, which the Commission will identify as Shared Access
Licensees (SALs), will be authorized by rule. Federal and non-Federal
fixed and mobile users will access the band by registering individual
sites through a coordination mechanism. The Report and Order explained
that FCC staff will work with stakeholders, both Federal and non-
Federal, to help develop the details of the coordination process. Here,
the Commission seeks comment on the coordination mechanism--that is,
the regulatory, technical, or procedural tool necessary to actually
facilitate coordinated access. Our expectation is that some of the
issues raised here may be further developed through the collaborative
process between the FCC, NTIA, DOD, and other Federal users set out in
the Report and Order, as well as through comments in response to this
FNPRM.
55. The Commission believes that a robust coordination mechanism is
essential to ensuring that both Federal and non-Federal fixed and
mobile users have effective coordinated access to the lower band
segment. The coordination mechanism will authorize a particular user to
use a particular bandwidth of spectrum at a particular location. To do
so efficiently and effectively, it must be able to obtain information
about the type of equipment used, the signal contour from the
coordinated location, and the bandwidth requested compared with the
bandwidth available. As discussed below, it must also be capable of
regularly updating the status of a coordinated location (on/off or
authorized/unauthorized). Moreover, it will have to incorporate this
type of information for both Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile
uses. Here, the sharing environment is relatively straight forward--
there are limited incumbent uses that need to be protected, and Federal
and non-Federal fixed and mobile users will have coequal rights to the
band. The Commission also believes that the propagation characteristics
of this band might help minimize the complexity of the coordination
mechanism.
56. The Commission notes that historically the Commission has used
manual frequency coordination managed by third party frequency
coordinators. Recently however, the Commission finalized the rules for
the 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband Radio Service, which relies not on a
static frequency coordination mechanism, but on a dynamic mechanism
known as a SAS that coordinates uses among different tiers of users,
rather than on an individual basis. The Commission seeks comment on the
most appropriate mechanism for the lower band segment. Should the
Commission rely on static, manual frequency coordination, a dynamic
SAS-type mechanism, or something in between? For instance, would the
advanced capabilities of automated coordination from SAS present
advantages over other types of coordination? Is a full SAS
implementation, consistent with the Part 96 requirements, appropriate
here?
57. The Commission also seeks comment on the protection or
operation contours necessary for the coordination mechanism to reserve
a quantity of spectrum at a location for a user. In the
[[Page 58280]]
Report and Order, the Commission established technical rules for
operation in the lower band segment, which are consistent with the
rules adopted for the 28 GHz band, the 39 GHz band, and the upper band
segment of the 37 GHz band. Based on this technical information, should
the Commission establish a maximum protection contour for coordinated
sites? Alternatively, should the Commission allow the coordinated party
to request less or more protection?
58. Although non-Federal fixed and mobile users must follow the
coordination requirements that the Commission adopted in the Report and
Order to protect the Federal sites listed in Section 30.205 of our
rules, the Commission seeks comment on how to ensure coexistence
between Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile users. Ideally,
Federal fixed and mobile uses would comply with the same or similar
technical requirements as non-Federal fixed and mobile uses. For
instance, NTIA might establish in its Manual of Regulations and
Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management a set of technical
rules for operations in this band, there could be a notation in the
U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, or the Commission could rely on
some other means. The Commission seeks comment on these and other
mechanisms. Absent consistent (or known) technical rules governing
Federal operations, how should the coordination mechanism account for
their protection or operational area of these operations?
59. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on how best to coordinate
Federal access. Is it feasible for Federal users to rely on the same
coordination mechanism as non-Federal? How should the coordination
mechanism address information security issues particular to Federal
users? The Commission seeks comment on the means of achieving
information security, including ways for the information to be masked,
e.g., by having Federal users coordinate through a Federal intermediary
that interfaces with the non-Federal coordination mechanism, such as
the existing mechanism in the 70/80/90 GHz band.
2. Channelization of the Lower Band Segment
60. As discussed in the Report and Order, the lower band segment
consists of 600 MHz of spectrum from 37-37.6 GHz. Although the
Commission adopted a channelization plan for the upper band segment,
the Commission did not do so for the lower band segment. Thus, the
Commission proposes to guarantee users in the lower band segment a
minimum channel size. Specifically, the Commission proposes to
establish a 100 MHz minimum channel size. The Commission also proposes,
however, to allow users to aggregate 100 MHz channels into larger
channel sizes, up to the maximum of 600 MHz where available (subject to
use requirements as described below).
61. The Commission also finds that our proposal to adopt a minimum
channel size of 100 MHz strikes the right balance between providing
enough spectrum for a diversity of wireless uses with helping to
minimize the complexity of the coordination mechanism. The Commission
notes that while most commenters in this proceeding generally favor
channel sizes of 200 MHz or greater, other commenters suggest that
smaller channel sizes can still facilitate robust wireless broadband
services. By permitting users to aggregate up to 600 MHz channels, the
Commission found that it has enabled maximum flexibility for a variety
of use cases involving a variety of channel sizes. The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on
alternative approaches, including whether the Commission should adopt
100 MHz or a larger minimum channel size. In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on whether the Commission should refrain from setting a
minimum channel size and instead require the coordination mechanism to
attempt to maximize the number of users in a given area.
3. Authorization Expiration/Construction Requirement for the Lower Band
Segment
62. To achieve a robust and efficient sharing environment and
prevent spectrum warehousing, the Commission proposes that registered
non-Federal sites must be put into service within seven days of
coordination and that registered and coordinated sites must reassert
their registration every seven days. For example, if the Commission
relies on a database for coordination, a user could query the database
for available frequencies at a location, and reserve those frequencies
for seven days. Within seven days, it would need to activate a device
that is capable of notifying the database that it is active on the
channel. That device would then check in with the database (or receive
and respond to a message from the database) at least once every seven
days. If the device fails to check in within the seven day period, its
authorization would lapse. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal. Are these time frames appropriate? Are there other tools to
ensure the spectrum is put to use consistent with the public interest?
4. Priority Access for Federal Users of the Lower Band Segment
63. The Commission recognizes that Federal users' needs are not
necessarily commensurate with non-Federal users' needs. The use cases
will likely differ, the level of certainty and protection or a use
related to a critical defense or national security mission may vary.
The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether the Commission should
make a portion of the lower band segment available for priority access
by Federal users. For instance, should the Commission allow Federal
users to claim priority access to up to 200 MHz of the 600 MHz lower
band segment? Could the coordination mechanism statically reserve this
space or dynamically make it available when requested? For instance, if
the entire band is in use, could the database reconfigure the channels
or clear the necessary channel size?
5. Interference Mitigation in the Lower Band Segment
64. The Commission seeks comment on any necessary enforcement
mechanism in the lower band segment to help identify and rectify
interference events. Because the Commission proposes to require users
in the lower band segment to coordinate on a site-basis, it may be
easier to identify and rectify any interference issues that may arise.
The Commission recognizes, however, that there may be users and uses,
both Federal and non-Federal, for which any interference may be
significantly problematic. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on
any additional interference mitigation and enforcement mechanisms that
might be necessary.
6. Secondary Market Policies for the Lower Band Segment
65. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how to
apply secondary market rules to the lower band segment. As proposed,
the band will be made available on a site-by-site basis. Partitioning
and disaggregation generally do not apply in site-based licensing
circumstances. Should they apply here, and if so, how? Should the
Commission apply our leasing rules? What are the benefits to secondary
market rules for the lower band segment relative to other ways to gain
access to the spectrum?
[[Page 58281]]
7. Use It or Share It and Federal Sharing in the Upper Band Segment
66. As described in the Report and Order, the upper band segment,
37.6-38.6 GHz, is divided into five channels each 200 megahertz wide.
The upper band segment will be available on a geographic basis (with
protected Federal sites) via auction. The technical and service rules
the Commission adopted allow continuity between the upper band segment
and the 39 GHz band, which provides 2400 MHz of contiguous spectrum
under the same licensing and technical rules. Given the types of uses
that may be deployed in the 37 GHz band and the flexible build out
requirements that the Commission adopted in the Report and Order, there
may be significant unused spectrum in in the upper band segment at any
given time. To improve the spectrum efficiency and provide an
opportunity for Shared Access Licensees and Federal users to expand in
a manner that does not impact geographically licensed uses, the
Commission proposes to permit shared access of the unused portions of
the five channels in the upper band segment, under certain conditions.
The Commission also seeks comment on establishing a process by which
Federal users could coordinate with licensees for future expanded
access in the upper band segment.
67. The Commission notes that it has found spectrum sharing to be
an effective tool to maximize spectrum efficiency. In the 700 MHz band,
the Commission adopted a performance requirement that results in the
licensee losing its unconstructed license area. In the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service, Priority Access License areas that are not in
use must be made available for General Authorized Access use. Moreover,
in the Report and Order, to meet the applicable performance
requirements, licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz band may choose to
share access to their licensed spectrum. Furthermore, the Commission
believes that the prospect of future shared access (on a coordinated
and non-interference basis) to the remainder of the band may create
incentives for investment and innovation in the shared channel.
68. The Commission understands that upper band segment licensees
may make reasonable business decisions to not serve particular parts of
a licensed area, and that these decisions may change over time. In an
environment where these unserved areas are shared, it is important to
be able to both accurately identify the areas in use and enable the
geographic area licensees to expand or contract their coverage as
necessary. Under our proposal, the upper band segment licensee would
retain the primary right to construct and provide service anywhere
within its license area at any time, and any operations undertaken on a
shared basis would be subject to displacement by the primary licensee.
The Commission therefore proposes to require licensees to provide
information about the extent of their operations at some future point
in order to enable shared access.
69. The Commission also seeks comment on when the Commission should
phase in shared access. Would it be appropriate to phase in shared
access at the end of the initial license term, or would it be
appropriate to adopt a sharing requirement at an earlier time (e.g., 5
years from the date the upper band segment geographic area license is
granted). The Commission seeks comment on the scope of the information
that the incumbent licensee must provide to the coordinating mechanism.
Would a map with simple protection contours be sufficient, or would
additional information be necessary? The Commission also seeks comment
on the appropriate mechanism for dealing with multiple requests to
share the same spectrum in the same location. Should the Commission
adopt a first-come, first-served approach, require multiple parties to
share unused spectrum amongst themselves, or adopt some other
mechanism? In the Report and Order, the Commission established
coordination zones around three Space Research Service (SRS) sites and
14 military sites that apply across the entire 37 GHz band, including
the upper band segment. As the Commission envision non-Federal users
being able to coordinate for access on within the 14 military sites,
the Commission seeks comment on additional circumstances and methods
under which the upper band segment can be made for expanded future
Federal use, in addition to the shared access scheme. For example,
should the Commission establish a required coordination process under
which Federal users could formally request coordinated access from a
licensee? If the Commission establishes such a process, how does the
Commission properly balance the respective rights and interests of
Federal users and non-Federal licensees? How would the Commission
ensure co-existence between deployed commercial systems (or planned
systems) and the Federal system that is seeking coordinated access?
Should the Commission impose an obligation on UMFUS licensees to
consider in good faith such coordination requests from Federal users?
What standards should the Commission establish for consideration of
such coordination requests? Are there alternative ways of ensuring that
Federal users can take advantage of their co-primary fixed and mobile
allocations while protecting the rights of non-Federal licensees? Are
there lessons and recommendations that the Commission can incorporate
form the ongoing work within the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory
Committee? The Commission seeks comment on all issues relating to
Federal access to the upper band segment.
C. Performance Requirements
1. Additional Metrics
70. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a list of
performance metrics for measuring sufficient use of a license to
qualify for renewal. The Commission acknowledged that this list is not
exhaustive, and in particular, does not contain metrics designed to
accommodate new and innovative services that may develop in the
millimeter wave bands. The Commission therefore seeks comment on
additional performance metrics that will better accommodate these new
services while fulfilling our statutory obligation to encourage
productive use of spectrum and avoid warehousing and speculation.
71. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on an appropriate
metric to evaluate the deployment and performance of an Internet of
Things (IoT) type service, which is designed primarily to facilitate
machine-to-machine communication. Such services may or may not be
deployed in areas of substantial residential population, and may or may
not be designed to serve unaffiliated customers. Examples of this type
of service would include the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) systems described by Southern Co. Because of the unique
characteristics of these machine-to-machine services, the Commission
proposes to develop a distinct metric by which to measure the
deployment of such services, rather than attempting to modify a
population coverage approach for this purpose. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal, including specific suggestions for what
aspects of such services should be measured, how they should be
measured, and what specific levels would constitute an acceptable level
of service.
72. In the Order, several commenters suggested that the Commission
measure performance for all services in the
[[Page 58282]]
millimeter wave bands on the basis of actual use of the service,
including number of devices connected, volume of data transmitted, or
number of sessions initiated on the network. The Commission seeks
further comment on these metrics, including specific numbers for the
levels of devices, sessions, and data volume that commenters believe
would be appropriate milestones. Would one of these metrics be the most
appropriate way to measure deployment of an Internet of Things or
machine-to-machine type service? The Commission also seeks comment on
whether and how it would be practical to implement this type of usage-
based requirement. How could the Commission verify information provided
by licensees? Should all kinds of devices, sessions, and/or data be
counted equally? How should such a requirement be structured to ensure
that it both measures and encourages meaningful service, rather than
gamesmanship?
73. As some commenters note in this proceeding, licensees in these
bands may seek to provide service to areas with high daytime or
transient populations but low or no residential populations, such as
corporate campuses, interstate highways, or event venues. The
Commission seeks comment on how to define such locations for the
purposes of evaluating service coverage. The Commission also seeks
comment on the appropriate framework for incorporating coverage of such
locations into an overall performance metric. Would a venue per
population metric be appropriate, similar to the current treatment for
fixed links? Should the applicable milestone be based on the daytime or
transient population served by such venues or traffic corridors? How
should such population be measured?
74. The Commission also seeks comment on any other types of service
being contemplated by potential providers, as well as metrics that
would be appropriate to measure performance or build-out of those
services.
75. Finally, in the Report and Order the Commission explained that
licensees may demonstrate combinations of fixed and mobile deployments
in order to meet their performance requirement, and that the Commission
intended to review the showings on a case-by-case basis. Here, the
Commission seeks comment on whether to establish clear benchmarks or
even guidance for the amount of buildout that might be adequate in
these combined showings. For instance, should the Commission establish
a scale with levels showing acceptable combinations of mobile and fixed
deployment, where either mobile or fixed is increased relative to the
other? Or should the Commission establish variations depending on the
population density of a given license area, the land mass of the area,
or some other factor? The Commission seeks comment on any other means
to provide flexibility and clarity in how the Commission may measure
combined showings, or whether the Commission should continue to review
the showings on a case-by-case basis as contemplated in the Report and
Order.
2. Sharing Mechanisms
76. Given the relatively limited record on the substantive issues
regarding mechanisms for sharing unused portions of UMFUS licenses, the
Commission seeks further comment on the possibility of implementing a
use-or-share regime in the UMFUS bands. The Commission continues to
believe that a use-or-share regime may have the potential to enhance
the efficiency and productivity of spectrum, if properly implemented.
In particular, given the propagation characteristics, and high
potential for re-use, of the mmW spectrum, the Commission seeks comment
on whether such a regime could maximize the efficient use of these
spectrum bands. The Commission further seeks comment on the costs and
benefits of adopting mechanisms for sharing unused UMFUS spectrum, as
well as on the incentives that particular sharing regimes will create.
In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriateness of
requiring UMFUS licensees to share unused portions of their license in
addition to, or in lieu of, meeting specific construction requirements,
particularly in geographically licensed bands such as 28 GHz and 39
GHz.
77. In crafting an effective mechanism to share unused spectrum,
there are two governing considerations: first, ensuring the licensee
has exclusive use of the areas in which it is using the spectrum; and
second, creating an efficient mechanism that both makes unused spectrum
available and protects the licensee from interference. There are a
variety of potential options for enhanced sharing mechanisms that
address these considerations. The Commission seeks comment generally on
the following opportunistic sharing mechanisms: a fully dynamic sharing
solution, facilitated by a SAS or other third-party database; a
modified shared access system that would be less dynamic but simpler;
an unlicensed shared access approach, similar to white spaces, and
other alternatives.
78. The Commission seeks comment on variations of a use it or share
it mechanism. A potential drawback of a keep what you use mechanism is
that the Commission must reclaim, and later re-auction, the unused
portions of the band, which takes time and minimizes a licensee's
ability to decide later to deploy in an area (which is also a feature
of the approach because it incentivizes maximum initial deployment).
Use or share mechanisms permit a licensee to retain control of its
license area, but require the licensee to share with other entrants in
portions of the license area in which it is not operating. A use or
share mechanism may be less administratively burdensome than keep what
you use, and may also allow a greater number of users to access the
shared spectrum. There are a number of possible variations of use or
share, all of which share characteristics of basic frequency
coordination.
79. One option would be to automate shared access to enable dynamic
opportunistic sharing. In a dynamic sharing solution, licensees would
have some initial period of time to build out their networks. After
this period, information about the extent of licensees' deployment
would be made available, and other entities would be free to deploy
outside of the area used by the licensee's operations on a coordinated
basis, subject to further expansion by the licensee. The Commission
seeks comment on whether an automated dynamic use or share mechanism
would be appropriate in the mmW bands. Generally, these shared users
would need to operate similar technologies subject to the same
technical rules as the licensee to maximize spectrum efficiency and
economies of scale with respect to equipment. The Commission seeks
comment on whether the propagation characteristics of these bands might
facilitate shared access with slightly different technical rules. With
respect to the sharing mechanism, what types of information, and what
level of detail, would be required to facilitate dynamic sharing?
Should opportunistic users be authorized on a license-by-rule basis, or
by some other method? Should opportunistic users be afforded some level
of interference protection from each other, and if so what should that
level be?
80. Another option is to rely on more traditional frequency
coordination, typically used in point-to-point microwave, shared
millimeter wave bands, and other services today. Under a simple
frequency coordination process, the licensee's operations would
[[Page 58283]]
be protected around a contour, and new sites would be individually
coordinated into the license area. While a database could further
automate this process, it may not be necessary given the relatively
simple sharing regime. The Commission seeks comment on whether a
sharing mechanism based on traditional frequency coordination would be
appropriate for the mmW bands.
81. Yet another option is to established pre-defined geographic
areas that will be available for shared access, depending on a
licensee's construction. For instance, if a licensee meets its
performance requirement, the Commission could find that any county (or
other unit of geographic area) in which it has any operation is
unavailable for sharing. For example, a licensee of a PEA might deploy
heavily in some counties but not others; the heavily-deployed counties
would then be deemed ``in use,'' while the counties with no deployment
would be available for opportunistic use in undeployed areas. The
Commission seeks comment on the appropriateness of this mechanism as a
whole, and on the specific details. What level of subdivision would
best accommodate both licensee certainty and sharing opportunity?
Should the Commission stop at the county level, or should the
Commission further subdivide into census tracts or census blocks? What
level of deployment in each subdivision should qualify that area for
``used'' status? How should the Commission enable sharing--through a
database, individual coordination, or some other method?
82. Finally, the Commission also seeks comment on implementing
unlicensed shared access, similar to TV white spaces, in the unused
portions of the UMFUS bands. In this case, opportunistic users would
operate on an unlicensed basis at lower power in any area where the
licensee was not actually deployed. The Commission seeks comment on
whether and how to implement such a system in the millimeter wave
bands. Would this system require a third-party database, similar to the
dynamic sharing solution? How should the Commission draw the contours
around licensee deployments? Should the Commission use a fixed radius,
or an interference contour at a certain level, or some other metric?
Would this method be preferable to a dynamic sharing solution where the
opportunistic users and the licensee followed the same technical rules?
Are there technical benefits to this approach? Will there be sufficient
scale to drive more special-purpose equipment development?
83. To the extent that the Commission implements any variation of a
use it or share it mechanism in the mmW bands, certain key aspects of
that mechanism must be defined. Most importantly, the Commission seeks
comment on how to define a licensee's ``use'' of its licensed spectrum.
Should ``use'' be defined geographically, either by the service area of
a network or by a defined radius or contour around deployed equipment?
In the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the Commission recently
adopted an engineering metric to determine the extent to which Priority
Access Licenses are in use. Licensees can define the area of use
subject to an objective maximum. Should the Commission follow this
model? Should ``use'' be defined differently for different types of
deployments, for example mobile vs. fixed links? Additionally, the
Commission seeks comment on how best to allow the licensee room to
expand beyond its area of actual deployment (or its ``used'' spectrum,
however ultimately defined). For example, should the Commission define
a contour for an additional protected area? If so, on what basis and
how often should the Commission do so? Should the Commission set some
level at which a subdivision of a license area would be declared
``used'' in its entirety, and off-limits to opportunistic use? If so,
what subdivisions and what level of deployment would be appropriate
(e.g., 40% of the geographic area of a census tract)? Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate level of protection for
licensees at the boundaries between ``used'' and ``unused'' areas.
Should the level of cross-border interference protection be the same as
that between two licensees, or would some other limit, either higher or
lower, be more appropriate?
84. In addition to the inquiries above, the Commission seeks
comment on any other mechanisms of opportunistic sharing that could
enhance spectrum efficiency in the UMFUS bands, as well as any other
aspects of such a system that would be required to ensure it could be
reliably and effectively implemented. The Commission especially seeks
comment from any entity interested in using spectrum on an
opportunistic basis in these bands. What technologies or business cases
would lend themselves to this type of spectrum access? Which sharing
mechanism, described above or otherwise, would best accommodate that
use?
D. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies
85. In the Order, the Commission adopted an ex ante spectrum
aggregation limit of 1250 megahertz that will apply to licensees
acquiring spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands through
competitive bidding.\4\ By helping to ensure that multiple providers
have access to the spectrum the Commission made available in the Report
and Order, the spectrum aggregation policies the Commission adopted
support our overarching goals of facilitating competition, innovation,
and the efficient use of the spectrum. The Commission seeks comment
below on additional mobile spectrum holdings issues related to how to
implement the spectrum aggregation limit; the appropriate holding
period; and whether a spectrum aggregation limit would be appropriate
as additional ``frontier'' spectrum bands become available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Commission adopted a spectrum threshold of 1250 MHz in
the Order for proposed secondary market transactions, and noted that
while this 1250 MHz threshold would help identify those markets that
provide particular reason for further competitive analysis, the
Commission's consideration of potential competitive harms would not
be limited solely to those markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Implementation of a Spectrum Aggregation Limit at Auction
86. Of the 986 designated license areas in the 28 GHz band, 412
areas have active licenses, which cover about 75 percent of the U.S.
population, while the 37 GHz band is not yet licensed, and in the 39
GHz band, current licensed areas cover about 49 percent of the U.S.
population. Further, in terms of geographic licensed areas, the 28 GHz
band will be licensed on a county basis across the U.S., while the 37
GHz and 39 GHz bands will be licensed by PEA.
87. For purposes of assessing eligibility to bid across the three
spectrum bands any given entity cannot hold more than 1250 MHz of this
spectrum in total. Taking into account existing incumbents' holdings in
the 28 GHz band and the 39 GHz band, as well as different geographical
license areas, the Commission put forward and seeks comment on two
alternative methodologies for assessing bidding eligibility. The
Commission asks for comment on which methodology is more appropriate,
and why. The Commission also asks that interested parties comment on
the likely costs and benefits associated with each methodology. Are
there additional methodologies beyond the two alternatives set out
below that would be more appropriate to adopt? If so, the
[[Page 58284]]
Commission invites interested parties to present their alternatives.
Which methodological approach should the Commission use and how best
would the Commission implement it?
88. The first methodology that the Commission invites comment on is
the ``maximum county-to-PEA'' option. Under this option, if any
incumbent licensee in the 28 GHz band, for example, holds such
spectrum, its spectrum holdings at the county level would be counted at
the PEA level when determining eligibility to bid on 37 GHz and 39 GHz
spectrum. For instance, if an incumbent licensee currently holds two
licenses, or 850 MHz of spectrum, in the 28 GHz band in any county
within a PEA, then that licensee's 28 GHz spectrum holdings would be
counted as 850 MHz for the PEA as a whole. In addition, that same
licensee's 39 GHz holdings, if any, would be added on to its 28 GHz
holdings of 850 MHz. That licensee would then be able to acquire a
maximum of an additional 400 MHz of spectrum across the 37 GHz and 39
GHz bands if it so chose (this maximum of 400 MHz assumes it has no
current holdings in the 39 GHz band). Similar calculations would apply
in the 39 GHz band. For instance, for those licensees that currently
hold more than 400 MHz of spectrum in the 39 GHz band in any county in
a given PEA, such entities would be unable to bid on both licenses in
the 28 GHz band but potentially could still bid for one license in the
28 GHz band, as well as on 37 GHz spectrum and additional 39 GHz
spectrum. To determine bidding eligibility across the three bands for
those entities who do not currently hold licenses in the 28 GHz or 39
GHz band, the Commission would similarly count maximum spectrum
holdings in counties at the PEA level. The ``maximum county-to-PEA''
option is a simple way to calculate spectrum holdings in which the
licensing areas of each band have varied geographies, and the
Commission seeks comment on this first methodology for determining
eligibility to bid.
89. The second methodology that the Commission invites comment on
is the ``population-weighted-average'' option. This option involves
calculating an entity's current spectrum holdings on a county-by-county
basis within a PEA in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, and then
constructing a population the weighted average for that PEA as a whole.
For incumbent licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, the Commission
would sum the product of county spectrum holdings and county population
within the PEA (using U.S. Census 2010 population data), and then
divide that sum by the total population of the PEA. This would provide
us with the population-weighted amount of 28 GHz and 39 GHz spectrum
held by that incumbent in that PEA. The entity would then be able to
bid on 28 GHz spectrum (by county, and any winning bid would be
weighted by the county population divided by the PEA population), and
37 GHz and 39 GHz spectrum (by PEA or partial PEA), up to the
population-weighted limit of 1250 MHz. To determine eligibility to bid
for those entities who do not currently hold licenses in the 28 GHz or
39 GHz bands, the Commission would also calculate prospective holdings
based on a population-weighted average within the PEA. Overall, any
entity would not be able to bid on certain spectrum if, across the
three bands, it would hold 1250 megahertz or more on a population-
weighted basis. The Commission seeks comment on this second methodology
for determining eligibility to bid.
2. Holding Period
90. In addition to the decisions made in the Report and Order, the
Commission seeks comment on our proposal to adopt a holding period that
would preclude certain proposed secondary market transactions for
licensees that acquire certain amounts of 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and/or 39 GHz
spectrum at auction. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order
(see Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings; WT Docket No. 12-269,
Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133 (2014)), the Commission established a
six-year holding period, which represented the interim buildout period
for 600 MHz licensees, restricting certain proposed secondary market
transactions for 600 MHz band licensees. The Commission determined that
establishing a holding period best balanced its goals of preserving the
integrity of the market-based spectrum reserve it had established while
still permitting some flexibility in secondary market transactions.
91. The Commission proposes to adopt a holding period for licensees
acquiring spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and/or 39 GHz bands. In
particular, the Commission seeks comment on our proposal to adopt a
holding period that would restrict certain proposed secondary market
transactions for mmW licensees necessary to support the spectrum
aggregation policies the Commission adopted in the Report and Order, as
well as our objective of ensuring that multiple providers will be able
to access mmW spectrum as it becomes available.
92. The Commission proposes a period of three years, given the
nascent nature of the frontier spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39
GHz bands and the likely rapid development of multiple use cases for
this spectrum. While the Commission could establish a holding period
tied to the length of the license term or build out period for
licensees in these bands, a shorter three-year holding period that is
half of the buildout period the Commission established for incumbent
licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands may best serve the public
interest by allowing flexibility while still preventing entities from
undermining our ex ante spectrum aggregation policies. The Commission
seeks comment on our proposal. To the extent commenters support a
longer holding period, the Commission seeks comment on how a longer
holding period would better help the Commission achieve its objectives
for the use of this spectrum. If a longer holding period is warranted,
how long should it be? For example, should the length of the holding
period be based on the 10 year license term and performance benchmarks
for new licensees that the Commission adopted in the Order or would a
different holding period be appropriate? The Commission asks commenters
to address how it can best balance its general policy of promoting
flexibility in secondary market transactions with our goals of
encouraging competition and facilitating the deployment of new services
and innovation to the benefit of consumers.
3. Spectrum Aggregation Limits for Additional Spectrum Bands
93. The Commission determined in the Order that grouping spectrum
in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands together for purposes of
applying these mobile spectrum holdings policies is appropriate in view
of the similar technical characteristics and potential uses of spectrum
in these bands. The Commission seeks comment on the proposal to apply
spectrum aggregation policies generally in the bands the Commission
proposes making available in this Further Notice. The objective of the
spectrum aggregation polices the Commission adopted in the Order is to
promote competitive conditions and help ensure that multiple providers
have the ability to acquire mmW spectrum as it becomes available, while
avoiding the excessive concentration of licenses. Further, to the
extent these bands to be made available have similar technical
characteristics and potential uses as the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz
bands, the Commission proposes to use
[[Page 58285]]
the approximately one-third threshold of the total amount of spectrum
as our starting point but recognizes that its understanding of the
appropriate approach for these bands is developing and that other
thresholds may be appropriate. Is the approximately one-third threshold
appropriate or are there alternative thresholds that the Commission
should consider? What are the likely benefits and costs of our proposed
threshold? The Commission asks interested parties to provide us with
any alternative approaches to the appropriate spectrum aggregation
policies for these bands as they become available.
E. 37.5-40 GHz Band Satellite Issues
1. Satellite Power Flux Density Limits
94. The Commission does not believe the current record is
sufficient for us to conclude that authorizing satellites to operate at
the higher PFD of -105 dBW/m2/MHz would be consistent with terrestrial
use of the 37.5-40 GHz band. In theory, the same rain storm that
impairs satellite reception might be able to shield earth stations if
the satellite raises its power level; the problem is that rain will
rarely be uniformly present throughout a spot beam's footprint, leaving
at least some terrestrial stations unshielded or inadequately shielded
by rain and, hence, vulnerable to any increase in the spot beam's PFD
level. Unlike with respect to the 28 GHz band, the issue of satellite-
terrestrial coexistence in the 39 GHz band has received relatively
little attention.
95. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that Boeing has
submitted a study which shows that coexistence is possible, even at the
higher PFD level. Boeing's presentation suggests that terrestrial
mobile units might be able to suppress interfering signals from
satellites if the satellite signals arrive at sufficiently high angles
of elevation. On the other hand, Boeing assumes a maximum distance of
200 meters between mobile units and base stations. The Commission
believes the record would benefit from further development on this
issue.
96. Accordingly, the Commission seeks further comment on whether
there are any circumstances under which allowing FSS satellites in the
37.5-40 GHz band to operate at a higher PFD level than permitted under
the existing rules would be consistent with terrestrial use of the
37.5-40 GHz band. If a higher PFD limit would be appropriate, what
limit should the Commission adopt? Commenters should provide detailed
technical studies that explicitly list the assumptions they made
concerning both terrestrial and satellite operations. Studies should
study both fixed and mobile terrestrial operations. If a commenter
believes a study submitted by another commenter is not valid, it should
list the specific assumptions or analysis that it believes are not
valid and provide its own assumptions or analysis. Ultimately, the
Commission believes the burden is on FSS interests to show that the
higher PFD level is consistent with terrestrial use. Terrestrial
interests do have an obligation to provide sufficient information
concerning the nature of their systems to allow other parties to
analyze the interference impact of a higher PFD level.
2. Authorizing Satellite User Equipment
97. The Commission seeks comment on the possibility of repealing
the prohibition on satellite user equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band.
Initially, the Commission asks satellite interests to provide further
information concerning the need and demand for user equipment in that
band. The Commission notes that FSS user equipment can receive in the
40-42 GHz band, which is not licensed for terrestrial operations. Are
there uses for which access to the 40-42 GHz band is insufficient? The
Commission asks FSS providers to provide specific examples and data
demonstrating the need for user equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band.
98. Assuming a need exists, the Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate manner of authorizing satellite user equipment. The
Commission agrees with ViaSat's observation that because user equipment
in this band would be receiving, it would not cause interference to
terrestrial operations. One option would be to adopt ViaSat's proposal
to allow FSS user equipment purely on a secondary basis at their own
risk. If the Commission adopted that proposal, the Commission
emphasizes that the equipment would truly be on a secondary basis and
that FSS user equipment would have no expectation of interference
protection. A variation on that option, based on the analysis Boeing
has done, would be to require terrestrial operators to provide
information on their deployments to FSS providers through a database,
which the FSS providers could then use to determine where user
equipment could operate without interference. The Commission asks other
parties to comment on Boeing's technical analysis. To the extent Boeing
relies on erroneous data concerning the nature of technical operations,
the Commission asks terrestrial operators and equipment manufacturers
to provide a specific analysis in response, with an explanation for the
specific parameters used in their analysis. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the benefit to FSS operators of enhancing the
ability to operate user equipment in the band outweighs the burden to
UMFUS licensees of providing information on their deployments. The
Commission asks both FSS operators and terrestrial operators to provide
specific data on the relative costs and benefits.
F. Digital Station Identification
99. Currently, AM/FM/TV broadcasters are required to announce their
call signs, as are land mobile station operators. Adopting a similar
requirement for millimeter wave band operations could make it easier to
identify and monitor signals, which in turn could make it easier to
find sources of interference to these systems. Accordingly, the
Commission seeks comment on requiring a digital identification (digital
ID) for the millimeter wave band systems under consideration in this
proceeding. Specifically, should operators be required to transmit an
ID that is readily observable and decipherable by the Commission and/or
other users that could be used to identify the operator/licensee of an
unknown and/or interference source?
100. If so, the Commission seeks comment on the details of such a
digital ID requirement. For example, should the ID requirement apply to
all millimeter wave band services, or be limited to licensed services,
non-licensed services, or fixed operations? Alternatively, should it
apply to all transmissions above a certain power limit or antenna
height, or be limited to transmissions with some other technical
parameter? If so, what should those technical parameters be? If there
is an ID requirement for unlicensed equipment, what should the content
of the ID be? Should unlicensed equipment authorization holder or
equipment user be required to register in a nationwide database that
would allow either the FCC and/or anyone to search an ID for operator
contact information? Should the ID be continuously broadcast, similar
to consumer Wi-Fi routers, only when the transmitter is operational, or
only at regular intervals? Finally, should there be a labeling (or
software screen display) requirement for the equipment itself that
identifies the owner/operator? If so, should the requirement apply to
all millimeter wave band equipment, or
[[Page 58286]]
only to fixed or mobile equipment, only to outdoor equipment, or only
to some other subset of millimeter wave band equipment?
G. Technical Issues
1. Antenna Height
101. The Commission seeks further comment on whether antenna height
limits are appropriate and, if so, what thresholds and corresponding
reductions in power should apply at higher antenna heights. Considering
what future wireless networks are envisioned to be, are the antenna
height thresholds and corresponding power reductions in the existing
Part 24 (PCS) or Part 27 rules appropriate for future mmW mobile base
stations? Based on what has been presented on the record, mobile mmW
base stations in this band may be more likely deployed at street lamp
post height, and will not be deployed at the heights of traditional
mobile base station deployments. In that context is the 305 meter
threshold currently in Part 27 valid or would lower thresholds be
appropriate? Is there an alternative maximum height that should be
considered? Conversely, given the existing PFD limits that the
Commission has adopted to control interference at market boundaries and
at the edge of an earth station contour, are additional antenna height
restrictions and corresponding power reductions even necessary? The
Commission tentatively proposes to adopt antenna height and power
limits similar to those in our Part 27 rules. However, the Commission
seeks comment on whether power limits based on antenna height are
necessary and/or whether any modifications should be made to either the
height thresholds or the power limits at specific heights that the
Commission have proposed. The Commission also seeks comment on whether
there would there be any benefit in requiring antenna downtilt for
antennas above a certain height?
2. Minimum Bandwidth for Given BS/MS/Transportable Transmit Power
Levels
102. For applications and technologies that operate under the
umbrella of the next generation of wireless networks, is it worth
considering a sub-set of networks that might operate with band widths
less than 100 MHz and how the maximum power limits adopted should be
evaluated? What minimum band width should be established for base
stations, transportable station, and mobile station classes of
equipment? Is there value in establishing these bandwidth scaling
limits for mobile and transportable classes such as the Commission did
for base stations? If so what should the minimum band width scaling
factors be for these classes of equipment based on the power levels the
Commission adopted in the Report and Order? What is the minimum
bandwidth that should be established for these two classes of equipment
in relation to the adopted transmit power limits? Should the
establishment of these limits be comparable to the rules that currently
exist for part 27 frequency bands?
3. Coordination Criteria at Market Borders for Fixed Point-to-Point
Operations
103. In the Report and Order, in particular with smaller licensed
areas, the Commission recognized that the existing coordination
distances of 16 km for 39 GHz and 20 km for 28GHz result in
coordination zones that encompass a large part of many license areas.
In fact, in the context of 28 GHz county based licenses, the entire
market area is subject to the coordination requirement in many cases.
In adopting market border limits and coordination requirements our goal
is to ensure that there is a mechanism in place to mitigate
interference between adjacent area licensees without creating an
unnecessary burden on licensees. While the Commission recognizes that
under our rules adjacent area licensees are able to negotiate and agree
to mutual terms and criteria that deviate from the market border and
coordination limits imposed in our rules, the Commission also believes
that the changes that the Commission adopted to market sizes warrants
re-examination of the market boundary coordination requirements that
were originally developed in the context of larger market sizes.
Therefore, the Commission now seeks to create a record with an eye
toward reducing the coordination burden on licensees. The Commission
notes that in its comments in response to the NPRM, Sprint recommends
that the Commission require an operator proposing to initiate new fixed
operations to coordinate those operations with the adjacent block
operator when a new fixed transmitter would be located within 3 km and
within +/- 10 degrees of the receive azimuth of an existing fixed
receiver, or a new fixed transmitter would be within 1 km of an
existing fixed receiver, but outside the +/- 10 degree receive antenna
main lobe, in order to avoid adjacent channel OOBE interference or
brute force receiver overload. While Sprint's comments were in relation
to adjacent channel interference a similar approach might be
appropriate for co-channel coordination. The Commission seeks comment
first on whether the existing coordination distances for traditional
fixed point-to-point operations are still appropriate given smaller
market area sizes. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the
coordination distance should incorporate other technical criteria into
factoring the distance. For example, should the coordination distances
be dependent on the orientation of the fixed point-to-point antenna
relative to the market boundary? Should the coordination distance be
reduced in cases where a directional antenna is pointed away from the
market boundary? Should the coordination distance be dependent on other
technical factors such as the EIRP of the transmitting station, gain of
the antenna, or other factors? The Commission requests comment on these
issues. The Commission requests that commenters support any proposal
with technical analysis.
4. Sharing Analysis and Modeling
104. The wireless industry, standards groups, government
organizations, and academia are currently engaged in developing
propagation models for millimeter wave bands. The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) and the European Commission's 5G
partnership with industry have active study groups looking at
millimeter wave propagation modeling. Academia have published papers
describing several models such as the Close In (CI) and alpha-beta-
gamma (ABG) free space reference distance models. The Commission seeks
comment on whether these or other models are appropriate propagation
models to apply when analyzing inter-service interference between
terrestrial-based transmitters and receivers of different services.
There are several factors that are common to the interference effects
in both directions to and from 5G stations, including antenna beam
forming, the location and height of antennas, and the propagation
distance and environment between other systems and the 5G stations.
Lower gain 5G antennas that are mostly indoors in cluttered
environments and at lower heights will reduce the degree of RF coupling
in both directions, and therefore reduce the propagation path loss
required to meet interference threshold limits. Which millimeter wave
propagation models are most appropriate for sharing analyses where the
interfering emitters may be assembled from a group of indoor and
outdoor emitters? When applying transmitter or receiver isolation
factors
[[Page 58287]]
such as antenna directionality, should a degree of statistical
probability be associated with the factor versus the assumption of
worse case interference? The Commission asks parties to submit
propagation analysis and path loss models of 5G deployment in both
indoor and outdoor environments for use in determining interference
impact and potential mitigation.
105. If the terrestrial receiver or transmitter is fixed at a
specific location then a terrain-based propagation loss model can be
employed; what terrain based propagation models are most appropriate
for millimeter wave analyses? When the terrestrial receiver is not at a
known location, what are the most appropriate millimeter wave models to
apply? How much isolation could one typically assume due to antenna
beam forming techniques? What other interference mechanism, such as
clutter, should be considered when modeling inter-service interference
in millimeter wave bands? Generally, the Commission seeks further
comment on millimeter wave propagation models appropriate for spectrum
sharing studies between fixed, mobile and satellite systems, as well as
active and passive services.
5. Part 15 Operation On-Board Aircraft in the 57-71 GHz Band
107. The Commission is seeking further technical analyses and
sharing studies, specifically with respect to the various types of
unlicensed applications envisioned on-board aircraft, the priority/
order of their planned introduction, as well as their associated
potential harmful interference profile with respect to passive sensor
services. For example, is the intent to provide only for applications
that are used by the aircraft itself to reduce weight by replacing
cabling and wiring with radio for applications, such as for connecting
inflight entertainment systems, seatback display consoles, or
connecting with sensors used to monitor the health of the aircraft
structure and its critical systems in wireless avionics intra-
communication (WAIC)? Or is the intent to provide for the direct
streaming of movies/news/internet service from ceiling-mounted access
points to portable electronic devices carried aboard the aircraft by
passengers in nearby seats? Are there additional inflight applications
that commenters further envision?
108. What harmful interference profile could be expected from each
of these various types of on-board aircraft provisions of 60 GHz
transmitters? How much difference would the type of aircraft body make
in providing additional protection to passive sensor services from
operation of these transmitters? Should the Commission propose, as a
first cautious step, to allow WiGig transmissions on-board aircraft
only for certain applications, such as inflight entertainment provision
beaming from seatback display to user-provided devices, because such
transmissions would be at a very short distance (1-2 feet, or 30 to 60
cm), in a direct line-of-sight between each seatback display and user-
provided device, with little risk of escaping through cabin windows? If
the Commission were to prohibit the first WiGig channel (57.24-59.4
GHz) as CORF suggested to protect EESS, would this limitation
ameliorate in any way the need to protect RAS, as WiGig devices will be
using the rest of the spectrum from 59.4 GHz to 71 GHz? How would RAS
and EESS be protected from potential WAIC applications using external
structural sensors or cameras mounted on the outside of the aircraft
structure to monitor the performance of the aircraft during various
phases of aircraft operation (taxi, take-off, landing, cruise, etc.)?
Commenters should provide detailed technical analyses, with possible
real-world transmission scenarios on aircraft, including expected
signal leakage in this particular frequency band through unshielded
cabin windows for the various types of inflight applications (e.g.,
entertainment provisions, WAIC provisions, etc.) in different aircraft
body structures if the fuselage type and cabin window placements make a
difference in signal shielding, etc., and any other additional harmful
interference considerations involving use of 60 GHz transmitters on-
board aircraft.
H. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
109. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified in the FNPRM for
comments. The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
110. In this FNPRM, the Commission proposes to authorize mobile
operations in the 24.25-24.45 and 24.75-25.25 GHz band (24 GHz band),
the 31.8-33.4 GHz band (32 GHz band), the 42-42.5 GHz band (42 GHz
band), the 47.2-50.2 GHz band (47 GHz band), the 50.4-52.6 GHz band (50
GHz band) and the 71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands (70/80 GHz bands). The
Commission is also seeking comment on possible uses of bands above 95
GHz. Together with the bands that are the subject of our Report and
Order--namely the 28, 37, 39 and 57-71 GHz bands, these bands are known
as the ``mmW bands''.
111. Until recently, the mmW bands were generally considered
unsuitable for mobile applications because of propagation losses at
such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to propagate
around obstacles. As increasing congestion has begun to fill the lower
bands and carriers have resorted to smaller and smaller microcells in
order to re-use the available spectrum, however, industry is taking
another look at the mmW bands and beginning to realize that at least
some of its presumed disadvantages can be turned to advantage. For
example, short transmission paths and high propagation losses can
facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting the
amount of interference between adjacent cells. Furthermore, where
longer paths are desired, the extremely short wavelengths of mmW
signals make it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals
into highly focused beams with enough gain to overcome propagation
losses. The short wavelengths of mmW signals also make it possible to
build multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small
enough to fit into handsets--a feat that might never be possible at the
lower, longer-wavelength frequencies below 6 GHz where cell phones
operate today.
112. The Commission proposes to include the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz,
47 GHz, 50 GHz and 70/80 GHz bands in the Part 30 Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service. The Commission also proposes to add a mobile
allocation in the 24 GHz and 32 GHz bands. This additional spectrum for
mobile use will help ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of
the nation's wireless networks keeps pace with the skyrocketing demand
for mobile service. It could also make possible new types of services
for consumers and businesses.
[[Page 58288]]
113. In proposing service rules for these bands, which include
technical rules to protect against harmful interference, licensing
rules to establish geographic license areas and spectrum block sizes,
and performance requirements to promote robust buildout, the Commission
advances toward enabling rapid and efficient deployment. The Commission
does so by proposing flexible service, technical, assignment, and
licensing rules for this spectrum, except where special provisions are
necessary to facilitate shared use with other co-primary users.
114. For the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 47 GHz and 50 GHz bands the
Commission proposes to assign PEA-based licenses through competitive
bidding. In the 48.2-50.2 GHz portion of the 47 GHz band, the
Commission proposes to require licensees to provide information on
their facilities to enable sharing with FSS user equipment. Finally, in
the 71-76/81-86 GHz bands, the Commission seeks comment on various
systems managed by database operators which will coordinate use as
between mmW base stations, fixed point-to-point links used for
backhaul, and Federal operations.
115. A portion of the 24 GHz band is allocated for satellite
service but is limited to only feeder links for the Broadcast Satellite
Service (BSS), and the Commission has proposed to either retain
existing coordination procedures or to adopt the sharing regime used
for the 28 GHz band to manage interference between terrestrial and
satellite operations. Meanwhile, the 47 GHz band is also allocated for
satellite and is intended to be used for FSS user equipment. The
Commission has proposed that FSS operation at 47 GHz be limited to
individually licensed earth stations subject to the same sharing
framework the Commission adopted in the 28 GHz band except with SAS-
based sharing between terrestrial and satellite operations. Finally,
although the 50 GHz band is also allocated for satellite, it contains
no present satellite use and the Commission is exploring sharing
mechanisms for the band in the future, including SAS.
116. Overall, these proposals are designed to provide for flexible
use of this spectrum by allowing licensees to choose their type of
service offerings, to encourage innovation and investment in mobile
broadband use in this spectrum, and to provide a stable regulatory
environment in which fixed, mobile, and satellite deployment would be
able to develop through the application of flexible rules. The market-
oriented licensing framework for these bands would ensure that this
spectrum is efficiently utilized and will foster the development of new
and innovative technologies and services, as well as encourage the
growth and development of a wide variety of services, ultimately
leading to greater benefits to consumers.
117. In the FNPRM, the Commission also seeks comment on various
proposals for refining the rules the Commission have adopted in the
Report and Order. The Commission seeks comment on various ways of
developing the shared access framework the Commission has adopted for
the 37-37.6 GHz band. That framework creates an innovative shared space
that can be used by a wide variety of Federal and non-Federal users, by
new entrants and by established operators--and smaller businesses in
particular--to experiment with new technologies in the mmW space. The
Commission proposes to adopt additional performance requirement metrics
for uses such as Internet of Things and machine-to-machine
communications. Adopting these additional metrics will allow licensees
to use the mmW bands for innovative uses with the certainty that they
can meet performance requirements and renew their licenses. For
example, the Commission seeks further comment on whether the Commission
should impose a ``use-or-share'' obligation on UMFUS licensees in order
to efficiently make as much unused spectrum available as possible. Such
a ``use-or-share'' regime could take varying forms, such as a fully
dynamic sharing solution whereby opportunistic users could indefinitely
deploy outside a licensee's geographic build-out area subject to the
latter's potential expansion--as coordinated by a third-party database
administrator; a modified shared access system whereby meeting a
defined level of deployment in a set of geographic areas would
foreclose their opportunistic use; and, an unlicensed shared access
approach whereby opportunistic users would operate wherever licensees
were not actually deployed.
118. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission can
allow FSS satellites in the 37.5-40 GHz band to operate at higher power
and transmit a higher power flux density at the Earth's surface. If the
Commission can allow such higher power without causing interference to
terrestrial operations, this change could allow FSS operators to make
greater use of the band. The Commission also asks whether the
Commission should repeal the prohibition on satellite (FSS) user
equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band and seek comment on whether
terrestrial operators should have to divulge their deployments to FSS
providers through a database in order to allow individual users to
install their own receiving equipment without interfering with
terrestrial operations. In addition, the Commission asks whether the
Commission should adopt a requirement that millimeter wave band systems
transmit an ID identifying themselves to enable better identification
and control of sources of interfering signals much the same way that
TV, radio or even WiFi systems presently identify themselves. Finally,
the Commission seeks comment on revisions to the technical rules for
the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, including revising
coordination criteria between adjacent licensees for point-to-point
operations; establishing a minimum bandwidth and bandwidth scaling
factor corresponding to various power levels; proposing a reduction in
transmit power limits responsive to increasing antenna height, and
obtaining further information on millimeter wave propagation models,
and whether Part 15 operations in the 57-71 GHz band can be allowed on
board aircraft. These portions of the FNPRM will help ensure that
licensees have maximum flexibility to operate while not causing
interference to other licensees.
B. Legal Basis
119. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310,
316, 319, 332, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303,
304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 336 and Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
120. 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
[[Page 58289]]
additional criteria established by the SBA.
D. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions
121. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describe here,
at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size
standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2
million businesses, 99.7 percent of which are small, according to the
SBA. In addition, 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, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental
jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of
this total, as many as 88, 506 entities may qualify as ``small
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, the Commission estimates that most
governmental jurisdictions are small.
1. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except Satellite)
122. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census Bureau data for 2012, show that there were 967 firms in this
category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 had
employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 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 action.
2. Fixed Microwave Services
123. Microwave services include common carrier, private-operational
fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also include the
Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic
Message Service (DEMS), the 39 GHz Service (39 GHz), the 24 GHz
Service, and the Millimeter Wave Service where licensees can choose
between common carrier and non-common carrier status. At present, there
are approximately 61,970 common carrier fixed licensees, 62,909 private
and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,349 broadcast
auxiliary radio licensees, 412 LMDS licenses, 35 DEMS licenses, 870 39
GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz licenses, and 408 Millimeter Wave
licenses in the microwave services. The Commission has not yet defined
a small business with respect to microwave services. For purposes of
the FRFA, the Commission will use the SBA's definition applicable to
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite)--i.e., an
entity with no more than 1,500 persons is considered small. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census Bureau data for 2012, show that there were 967 firms
in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955
had employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 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 proposed action. The Commission
notes that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of
licensees. The Commission estimates that virtually all of the Fixed
Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
3. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications
124. Two economic census categories address the satellite industry.
The first category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million
or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The second also
has a size standard of $32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
125. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing 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.'' Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 333
Satellite Telecommunications firms operated for that entire year. Of
this total, 275 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 58
firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications
firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
126. The second category, i.e., ``All Other Telecommunications,''
comprises ``establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category,
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 1442 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1400 firms had annual
receipts of under $25 million and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25
million to $49,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that
might be affected by our action.
4. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing
127. The proposed rules relating to Part 15 operation pertain to
manufacturers of unlicensed communications devices. 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 2007, there
were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for
part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 784 had less than 500
employees and 155 had more than 100 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
[[Page 58290]]
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
128. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements proposed in the FNPRM will apply to all entities in the
same manner. The revisions the Commission adopts should benefit small
entities by giving them more information, more flexibility, and more
options for gaining access to wireless spectrum.
129. Any applicants for UMFUS licenses will be required to file
license applications using the Commission's automated ULS. ULS is an
online electronic filing system that also serves as a powerful
information tool, one that enables potential licensees to research
applications, licenses, and antenna structures. It also keeps the
public informed with the weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings,
processing utilities, and a telecommunications glossary. UMFUS
applicants that must submit long-form license applications must do so
through ULS using Form 601, FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for
the Wireless Telecommunications Services using FCC Form 602, and other
appropriate forms.
130. Applicants in the UMFUS will be required to meet buildout
requirements at the end of their initial license terms. In doing do,
they will be required to provide information to the Commission on the
facilities they have constructed, the nature of the service they are
providing, and the extent to which they are providing coverage in their
license area.
131. The Commission also proposes to require UMFUS licensees to
provide information on their proposed operations in order to facilitate
sharing with other authorized services. This may include the
possibility that UMFUS licensees will have to digitally identify their
stations in order to help identify and eliminate causes of
interference. In the 48.2-50.2 GHz band, terrestrial licensees may have
to report their deployment information to FSS providers to facilitate
the deployment of FSS user equipment. The Commission seeks comment on
the scope of the information to be provided and the manner in which it
should be provided.
132. The Commission expects that all of the filing, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements associated with the demands described above,
including professional, accounting, engineering or survey services used
in meeting these requirements will be the same for large and small
businesses that intend to utilize these new UMFUS licenses, but the
Commission seeks comment on any steps that could be taken to minimize
any significant economic impact on small businesses.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
133. 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. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of
burdens associated the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
described above can be minimized for small businesses. In particular,
the Commission seeks comment on whether any of the costs associated
with our construction or performance requirements in these bands can be
alleviated for small businesses.
134. The Commission intends to license the 24 GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz,
and 50 GHz bands on a PEA basis, but the Commission will also permit
partitioning and disaggregation by licensees in the mmW bands. As the
Commission noted in the Report and Order, while PEAs are small enough
to provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller carriers and PEAs
could even be further disaggregated, PEAs also nest within, and may be
aggregated to form, larger license areas. Therefore, the benefits and
burdens resulting from assigning spectrum in PEA license areas would be
equivalent for small and large businesses. Depending on the licensing
mechanisms the Commission adopts for these bands, licensees may adjust
their geographic coverage through auction or through the secondary
markets. This proposal should enable providers, or any entities,
whether large or small, providing service in the mmW bands to more
easily adjust their spectrum to build their networks pursuant to
individual business plans. And the Commission believes this ability to
adjust spectrum holdings will make it easier for small entities to
acquire or access spectrum. The Commission seeks comment from the
public concerning whether these license area determinations would
indeed benefit the small businesses or whether there are other
alternatives the Commission should consider.
135. For UMFUS bands for which the Commission accept mutually
exclusive initial applications, the Commission will resolve such
applications by competitive bidding conducted pursuant to Part 1
Subpart Q of the Commission's rules, including rules governing
designated entity preferences. In the Report and Order, the Commission
adopted bidding credits for applicants for UMFUS licenses who qualify
as small businesses. An entity with average annual gross revenues for
the preceding three years not exceeding $55 million will qualify as a
``small business'' and be eligible to receive a 15 percent discount on
its winning bid. An entity with average annual gross revenues for the
preceding three years not exceeding $20 million will qualify as a
``very small business'' and be eligible to receive a 25 percent
discount on its winning bid. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether to
apply these same small business definitions and associated bidding
credits to the auction of licenses in the additional bands the FNPRM
proposes, as well as any other spectrum bands the Commission may
subsequently decide to include in the UMFUS. The Commission believes
providing small businesses and very small businesses with bidding
credits, in addition to the protections built into the auction rules
themselves should provide an economic benefit to small businesses by
making it easier for them to acquire or access spectrum in these bands.
The Commission seeks comment on this assessment and on whether there
are any alternative steps the Commission could take to better assist
small businesses.
136. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted service rules
that will permit licensees the flexibility to provide any fixed or
mobile service that is consistent with their spectrum allocation. The
Commission proposes that the same flexibility shall apply to the 24
GHz, 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 47 GHz, and 50 GHz bands and the Commission seeks
comment concerning whether this flexibility will benefit small
businesses by giving them more avenues for gaining access to valuable
wireless spectrum. Finally, as noted above, the Commission is proposing
to create a SAS-based regulatory framework in the 70/80 GHz band that
will permit an innovative shared space in these bands. The SAS serves
as an advanced, highly automated frequency coordinator across the band,
potentially allowing this shared space to be used by a wide
[[Page 58291]]
variety of Federal and non-Federal users, by new entrants, by
established operators, and small businesses in particular--to
experiment with new technologies in the mmW space and innovate. Our
proposals require that small businesses register with an SAS and comply
with the rules established for the service and in return they receive
the ability to access spectrum currently unavailable to them. The
Commission believes this should constitute a significant benefit for
small businesses, and the Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
137. The technical rules the Commission now proposes will allow
licensees of mmW band spectrum to operate while also protecting
licensees of nearby spectrum, some of whom are small entities, from
harmful interference, and the Commission also seeks comment on these
proposals.
J. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
138. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2, 25, 30, and 101
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Communications equipment.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2, 25, 30 and
101 as follows:
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
1. 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
2. Amend Sec. 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, by revising
pages 54, 56, and 58 through 62 to read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
[[Page 58292]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.115
[[Page 58293]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.116
[[Page 58294]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.117
[[Page 58295]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.118
[[Page 58296]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.119
[[Page 58297]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.120
[[Page 58298]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU16.121
[[Page 58299]]
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
3. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Interprets or applies Sections 4, 301, 302, 303, 307,
309, 319, 332, 705, and 721 of the Communications Act, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 332, 605, and 721,
unless otherwise noted.
0
4. Amend Sec. 25.208 by revising paragraphs (q) and (r) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.208 Power flux density limits.
* * * * *
(q) In the band 37.5-40.0 GHz, the power flux-density at the
Earth's surface produced by emissions from a geostationary space
station for all methods of modulation shall not exceed the following
values:
-127 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 0
and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
-127 + 4/3 ([delta]-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of
arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 20 degrees above the
horizontal plane; and
-107 + 0.4 ([delta]-20) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of
arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 20 and 25 degrees above the
horizontal plane;
-105 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 25
and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(r) In the band 37.5-40.0 GHz, the power flux-density at the
Earth's surface produced by emissions from a non-geostationary space
station for all methods of modulation shall not exceed the following
values:
-120 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 0
and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
-120 + 0.75 ([delta]-5) dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of
arrival [delta] (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above the
horizontal plane; and
-105 dB(W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between 25
and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
* * * * *
0
5. Add part 30 to read as follows:
PART 30--UPPER MICROWAVE FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE
Subpart A--General
Sec.
30.1 Creation of upper microwave flexible use service.
30.2 Definitions.
30.3 Eligibility.
30.4 Frequencies.
30.5 Service areas.
30.6 Permissible communications.
30.7 37-37.6 GHz Band--Shared Coordinated Service
30.8 5G Provider Cybersecurity Statement Requirements
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses
30.101 Initial authorizations.
30.102 Authorization of operation of local area networks in 37-38.6
GHz band.
30.103 Transition of existing local multipoint distribution service
and 39 GHz licenses.
30.104 License term.
30.105 Construction requirements.
30.106 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
30.107 Discontinuance of service.
Subpart C--Technical Standards
30.201 Equipment authorization.
30.202 Power limits.
30.203 Emission limits.
30.204 Field strength limits.
30.205 Federal coordination requirements.
30.206 International coordination.
30.207 RF safety.
30.208 Operability.
30.209 Duplexing.
30.210 Information sharing requirements in the 48.2-50.2 GHz band.
Subpart D--Competitive Bidding Procedures
30.301 Upper microwave flexible use service subject to competitive
bidding.
30.302 Designated entities and bidding credits.
Subpart E--Special Provisions for Fixed Point-to-Point, Fixed Point-to-
Multipoint Hub Stations, and Fixed Point-to-Multipoint User Stations
30.401 Permissible service.
30.402 Frequency tolerance.
30.403 Bandwidth.
30.404 Emission limits.
30.405 Transmitter power limitations.
30.406 Directional antennas.
30.407 Antenna Polarization.
Subpart F--Shared operation in the 71-76 GHz and 81/86 GHz bands
30.501 Scope.
30.502 Authorization required.
30.503 Frequency assignments.
30.504 Technical rules.
30.505 Protection of Federal incumbents.
30.506 Priority Access Licenses.
30.507 General Access.
30.508 Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.
30.509 Registration, authentication, and authorization of devices.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 304, 307,
309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.
Sec. 30.1 Creation of upper microwave flexible use service, scope and
authority.
As of [effective date of final rule], Local Multipoint Distribution
Service licenses for the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, and licenses issued in
the 38.6-40 GHz band under the rules in part 101 of this chapter shall
be reassigned to the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service. Local
Multipoint Distribution Service licenses in bands other than 27.5-28.35
GHz shall remain in that service and shall be governed by the part 101
of this chapter applicable to that service.
Sec. 30.2 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part:
Authorized bandwidth. The maximum width of the band of frequencies
permitted to be used by a station. This is normally considered to be
the necessary or occupied bandwidth, whichever is greater. (See Sec.
2.202 of this chapter).
Authorized frequency. The frequency, or frequency range, assigned
to a station by the Commission and specified in the instrument of
authorization.
Fixed satellite earth station. An earth station intended to be used
at a specified fixed point.
Local Area Operations. Operations confined to physical facility
boundaries, such as a factory.
Point-to-Multipoint Hub Station. A fixed point-to-multipoint radio
station that provides one-way or two-way communication with fixed
Point-to-Multipoint Service User Stations.
Point-to-Multipoint User Station. A fixed radio station located at
users' premises, lying within the coverage area of a Point-to-
Multipoint Hub station, using a directional antenna to receive one-way
communications from or providing two-way communications with a fixed
Point-to-Multipoint Hub Station.
Point-to-Multipoint Service. A fixed point-to-multipoint radio
service consisting of point-to-multipoint hub stations that communicate
with fixed point-to-multipoint user stations.
Point-to-point station. A station that transmits a highly
directional signal from a fixed transmitter location to a fixed receive
location.
Portable device. Transmitters designed to be used within 20
centimeters of the body of the user.
Prior coordination. A bilateral process conducted prior to filing
applications which includes the distribution of the technical
parameters of a proposed radio system to potentially affected parties
for their evaluation and timely response.
Secondary operations. Radio communications which may not cause
interference to operations authorized on a primary basis and which are
not protected from interference from these primary operations
Transportable Station. Transmitting equipment that is not intended
to be used while in motion, but rather at stationary locations.
Universal Licensing System. The Universal Licensing System (ULS) is
the consolidated database, application filing system, and processing
system for all Wireless Radio Services. ULS supports electronic filing
of all applications and
[[Page 58300]]
related documents by applicants and licensees in the Wireless Radio
Services, and provides public access to licensing information.
Sec. 30.3 Eligibility.
Any entity who meets the technical, financial, character, and
citizenship qualifications that the Commission may require in
accordance with such Act, other than those precluded by section 310 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible
to hold a license under this part.
Sec. 30.4 Frequencies.
The following frequencies are available for assignment in the Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service:
(a) 27.5 GHz-28.35 GHz band--27.5-27.925 GHz and 27.925-28.35 GHz.
(b) 38.6-40 GHz band:
(1) New channel plan:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency band
Channel No. limits (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................... 38,600-38,800
2.................................................... 38,800-39,000
3.................................................... 39,000-39,200
4.................................................... 39,200-39,400
5.................................................... 39,400-39,600
6.................................................... 39,600-39,800
7.................................................... 39,800-40,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Pending transition to the new channel plan, existing 39 GHz
licensees licensed under part 101 of this chapter may continue
operating on the following channel plan:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Group A Channel Group B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency band Frequency band
Channel No. limits (MHz) Channel No. limits (MHz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-A....................................................... 38,600-38,650 1-B 39,300-39,350
2-A....................................................... 38,650-38,700 2-B 39,350-39,400
3-A....................................................... 38,700-38,750 3-B 39,400-39,450
4-A....................................................... 38,750-38,800 4-B 39,450-39,500
5-A....................................................... 38,800-38,850 5-B 39,500-39,550
6-A....................................................... 38,850-38,900 6-B 39,550-39,600
7-A....................................................... 38,900-38,950 7-B 39,600-39,650
8-A....................................................... 38,950-39,000 8-B 39,650-39,700
9-A....................................................... 39,000-39,050 9-B 39,700-39,750
10-A...................................................... 39,050-39,100 10-B 39,750-39,800
11-A...................................................... 39,100-39,150 11-B 39,800-39,850
12-A...................................................... 39,150-39,200 12-B 39,850-39,900
13-A...................................................... 39,200-39,250 13-B 39,900-39,950
14-A...................................................... 39,250-39,300 14-B 39,950-40,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 37-38.6 GHz band: 37,600-37,800 MHz; 37,800-38,000 MHz; 38,000-
38,200 MHz; 38,200-38,400 MHz, and 38,400-38,600 MHz. The 37,000-37,600
MHz band segment shall be available on a site-specific, coordinated
shared basis with eligible Federal entities;
(d) 24.25-24.45 GHz band:
(e) 24.75-25.25 GHz band: 24.75-25.00 GHz, 25.00-25.25 GHz;
(f) 31.8-33.4 GHz band:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel No. Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................... 31,000-32,000
2.................................................... 32,000-32,200
3.................................................... 32,200-32,400
4.................................................... 32,400-32,600
5.................................................... 32,600-32,800
6.................................................... 32,800-33,000
7.................................................... 33,000-33,200
8.................................................... 33,200-33,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) 42-42.5 GHz band:
(h) 47.2-50.2 GHz band:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel No. Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................... 47,200-47,700
2.................................................... 47,700-48,200
3.................................................... 48,200-48,700
4.................................................... 48,700-49,200
5.................................................... 49,200-49,700
6.................................................... 49,700-50,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 50.4-52.6 GHz band:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel No. Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................... 50,400-50,600
2.................................................... 50,600-50,800
3.................................................... 50,800-51,000
4.................................................... 51,000-51,200
5.................................................... 51,200-51,400
6.................................................... 51,400-51,600
7.................................................... 51,600-51,800
8.................................................... 51,800-52,000
9.................................................... 52,000-52,200
10................................................... 52,200-52,400
11................................................... 52,400-52,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(j) The 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands shall be available on a
shared basis pursuant to the rules in subpart F of this part.
Sec. 30.5 Service areas.
(a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, and
except for the shared 37-37.6 GHz, 71-76 GHz, and 81-86 GHz bands, the
service areas for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service are Partial
Economic Areas.
(b) For the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, the service areas shall be
counties.
(c) Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Stations licensed
in the 38.6-40 GHz bands licensed with Rectangular Service Areas shall
maintain their Rectangular Service Area as defined in their
authorization. The frequencies associated with Rectangular Service Area
authorizations that have expired, cancelled, or otherwise been
recovered by the Commission will automatically revert to the applicable
county licensee.
(d) In the 37.5-40 GHz band, Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
licensees shall not place facilities within the protection zone of
Fixed-Satellite Service earth stations authorized pursuant to Sec.
25.136 of this chapter, absent consent from the Fixed-Satellite Service
earth station licensee.
Sec. 30.6 Permissible communications.
(a) A licensee in the frequency bands specified in Sec. 30.4 may
provide any services for which its frequency bands are allocated, as
set forth in the non-Federal Government column of the Table of
Frequency Allocations in Sec. 2.106 of this chapter (column 5).
(b) Fixed-Satellite Service shall be provided in a manner
consistent with part 25 of this chapter.
Sec. 30.7 37-37.6 GHz Band--Shared Coordinated Service.
(a) The 37-37.6 GHz band will be available for site-based
registrations on a coordinated basis with co-equal eligible Federal
entities.
(b) Any non-Federal entity meeting the eligibility requirements of
Sec. 30.3 of this part may operate equipment that complies with the
technical rules of this
[[Page 58301]]
part pursuant to a Shared Access License.
(c) Licensees in the 37-37.6 GHz band must register their
individual base stations and access points prior to placing them in
operation.
(d) The minimum authorized channel bandwidth in this band is 100
megahertz.
(e) Registered non-Federal sites must be put placed service within
seven days of coordination.
(f) Equipment in this band must be capable of notifying the
database that it is active on the channel. At least once every seven
days, the equipment must be capable of notifying the coordination
mechanism that the equipment is active and operating. If the equipment
fails to make such a notification, the registration to operate that
equipment is automatically terminated.
(g) Federal licensees may claim access to 200 megahertz of spectrum
in this area on a priority basis.
Sec. 30.8 5G Provider Cybersecurity Statement Requirements.
(a) Statement. Each Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee
is required to submit to the Commission a Statement describing its
network security plans and related information, which shall be signed
by a senior executive within the licensee's organization with personal
knowledge of the security plans and practices within the licensee's
organization. The Statement must contain, at a minimum, the following
elements:
(1) Security Approach. A high-level, general description of the
licensee's approach designed to safeguard the planned network's
confidentiality, integrity, and availability, with respect to
communications from:
(i) A device to the licensee's network;
(ii) One element of the licensee's network to another element on
the licensee's network;
(iii) The licensee's network to another network; and
(iv) Device to device (with respect to telephone voice and
messaging services).
(2) Cybersecurity Coordination. A high-level, general description
of the licensee's anticipated approach to assessing and mitigating
cyber risk induced by the presence of multiple participants in the
band. This should include the high level approach taken toward ensuring
consumer network confidentiality, integrity, and availability security
principles, are to be protected in each of the following use cases:
(i) Communications between a wireless device and the licensee's
network;
(ii) Communications within and between each licensee's network;
(iii) Communications between mobile devices that are under end-to-
end control of the licensee; and
(iv) Communications between mobile devices that are not under the
end-to-end control of the licensee;
(3) Cybersecurity Standards and Best Practices. A high-level
description of relevant cybersecurity standards and practices to be
employed, whether industry-recognized or related to some other
identifiable approach;
(4) Participation With Standards Bodies, Industry-Led
Organizations. A description of the extent to which the licensee
participates with standards bodies or industry-led organizations
pursuing the development or maintenance of emerging security standards
and/or best practices;
(5) Other Security Approaches. The high-level identification of any
other approaches to security, unique to the services and devices the
licensee intends to offer and deploy; and
(6) Plans With Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations.
Plans to incorporate relevant outputs from Information Sharing and
Analysis Organizations (ISAOs) as elements of the licensee's security
architecture. Plans should include comment on machine-to-machine threat
information sharing, and any use of anticipated standards for ISAO-
based information sharing.
(b) Timing. Each Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee
shall submit this Statement to the Commission within three years after
grant of the license, but no later than six months prior to deployment.
(c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
(i) Confidentiality. The protection of data from unauthorized
access and disclosure, both while at rest and in transit.
(ii) Integrity. The protection against the unauthorized
modification or destruction of information.
(iii) Availability. The accessibility and usability of a network
upon demand.
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses
Sec. 30.101 Initial authorizations.
Except with respect to in the 37-37.6 GHz band, an applicant must
file a single application for an initial authorization for all markets
won and frequency blocks desired. Initial authorizations shall be
granted in accordance with Sec. 30.4. Applications for individual
sites are not required and will not be accepted, except where required
for environmental assessments, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 1.1301
through 1.1319 of this chapter.
Sec. 30.103 Transition of existing local multipoint distribution
service and 39 GHz licenses.
Local Multipoint Distribution Service licenses in the 27.5-28.35
GHz band issued on a Basic Trading Area basis shall be disaggregated
into county-based licenses and 39 GHz licenses issued on an Economic
Area basis shall be disaggregated into Partial Economic Area-based
licenses on [effective date of final rule]. For each county in the
Basic Trading Area or Partial Economic Area in the Economic Area which
is part of the original license, the licensee shall receive a separate
license. If there is a co-channel Rectangular Service Area licensee
within the service area of a 39 GHz Economic Area licensee, the
disaggregated license shall not authorize operation with the service
area of the Rectangular Service Area license.
Sec. 30.104 License term.
Initial authorizations will have a term not to exceed ten years
from the date of initial issuance or renewal.
Sec. 30.105 Construction requirements.
(a) Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees must make a
buildout showing as part of their renewal applications. Licensees
relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service to demonstrate that
they are providing reliable signal coverage and service to at least 40
percent of the population within the service area of the licensee, and
that they are using facilities to provide service in that area either
to customers or for internal use. Licensees relying on point-to-point
service must demonstrate that they have four links operating and
providing service, either to customers or for internal use. If the
population within the license area is equal to or less than 268,000. If
the population within the license area is greater than 268,000, a
licensee relying on point-to-point service must demonstrate it has at
least one link in operation and providing service for each 67,000
population within the license area.
(b) Showings that rely on a combination of multiple types of
service will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
(c) If a licensee in this service is also a Fixed-Satellite Service
licensee and uses the spectrum covered under its UMFUS license in
connection with a satellite earth station, it can demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of this section by demonstrating that
the earth station in question is in service,
[[Page 58302]]
operational, and using the spectrum associated with the license. This
provision can only be used to demonstrate compliance for the county in
which the earth station is located.
(d) Failure to meet this requirement will result in automatic
cancellation of the license. In bands licensed on a Partial Economic
Area basis, licensees will have the option of partitioning a license on
a county basis in order to reduce the population within the license
area to a level where the licensee's buildout would meet one of the
applicable performance metrics.
(e) Existing 28 GHz and 39 GHz licensees shall be required to make
a showing pursuant to this rule by June 1, 2024.
Sec. 30.106 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
(a) Parties seeking approval for partitioning and disaggregation
shall request from the Commission an authorization for partial
assignment of a license pursuant to Sec. 1.948 of this chapter. Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees may apply to partition their
licensed geographic service area or disaggregate their licensed
spectrum at any time following the grant of their licenses.
(b) Technical standards--(1) Partitioning. In the case of
partitioning, applicants and licensees must file FCC Form 603 pursuant
to Sec. 1.948 of this chapter and list the partitioned service area on
a schedule to the application. The geographic coordinates must be
specified in degrees, minutes, and seconds to the nearest second of
latitude and longitude and must be based upon the 1983 North American
Datum (NAD83).
(2) Spectrum may be disaggregated in any amount.
(3) The Commission will consider requests for partial assignment of
licenses that propose combinations of partitioning and disaggregation.
(4) For purposes of partitioning and disaggregation, part 30
systems must be designed so as not to exceed the signal level specified
for the particular spectrum block in Sec. 30.204 at the licensee's
service area boundary, unless the affected adjacent service area
licensees have agreed to a different signal level.
(c) License term. The license term for a partitioned license area
and for disaggregated spectrum shall be the remainder of the original
licensee's license term as provided for in Sec. 30.104.
(d)(1) Parties to partitioning agreements must satisfy the
construction requirements set forth in Sec. 30.105 by the partitioner
and partitionee each certifying that it will independently meet the
construction requirement for its respective partitioned license area.
If the partitioner or partitionee fails to meet the construction
requirement for its respective partitioned license area, then the
relevant partitioned license will automatically cancel.
(2) Parties to disaggregation agreements must satisfy the
construction requirements set forth in Sec. 30.105 by the
disaggregator and disaggregatee each certifying that it will
independently meet the construction requirement for its respective
disaggregated license area. If the disaggregator or disaggregatee fails
to meet the construction requirement for its respective disaggregated
license area, then the relevant disaggregated license will
automatically cancel.
Sec. 30.107 Discontinuance of service.
(a) An Upper Microwave Flexible Use License authorization will
automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if the
licensee permanently discontinues service after the initial license
term.
(b) For licensees with common carrier regulatory status, permanent
discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days during
which a licensee does not provide service to at least one subscriber
that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the licensee
in the individual license area. For licensees with non-common carrier
status, permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180
consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate.
(c) A licensee that permanently discontinues service as defined in
this section must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10
days by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting license cancellation. An
authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission
action, if service is permanently discontinued as defined in this
section, even if a licensee fails to file the required form requesting
license cancellation.
Subpart C--Technical Standards
Sec. 30.201 Equipment authorization.
(a) Except as provided under paragraph (c) of this section, each
transmitter utilized for operation under this part must be of a type
that has been authorized by the Commission under its certification
procedure.
(b) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in
these services may request equipment authorization following the
procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. Equipment
authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an
applicant for a station authorization by following the procedures set
forth in part 2 of this chapter.
(c) Unless specified otherwise, transmitters for use under the
provisions of subpart E of this part for fixed point-to-point microwave
and point-to-multipoint services must be a type that has been verified
for compliance.
Sec. 30.202 Power limits.
(a) For fixed and base stations operating in connection with mobile
systems, the average power of the sum of all antenna elements is
limited to a maximum equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP)
density of +75dBm/100MHz, except as specified in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(b) For mobile stations, the average power of the sum of all
antenna elements is limited to a maximum EIRP density of +43 dBm/
100MHz.
(c) For transportable stations, as defined in Sec. 30.2, the
average power of the sum of all antenna elements is limited to a
maximum EIRP density of +55 dBm/100MHz.
(d) For fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint limits see
Sec. 30.405.
(e) Antenna Height Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective
isotropic
Antenna height (AAT) in meters (feet) radiated power
density (EIRP)
(dBm/100 MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above 1372 (4500).................................... 62
Above 1220 (4000) To 1372 (4500)..................... 63
Above 1067 (3500) To 1220 (4000)..................... 64
Above 915 (3000) To 1067 (3500)...................... 65
Above 763 (2500) To 915 (3000)....................... 67
Above 610 (2000) To 763 (2500)....................... 69
[[Page 58303]]
Above 458 (1500) To 610 (2000)....................... 71
Above 305 (1000) To 458 (1500)....................... 73
Up to 305 (1000)..................................... 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 30.203 Emission limits.
(a) The conductive power or the total radiated power of any
emission outside a licensee's frequency block shall be -13 dBm/MHz or
lower. However, in the bands immediately outside and adjacent to the
licensee's frequency block, having a bandwidth equal to 10 percent of
the channel bandwidth, the conductive power or the total radiated power
of any emission shall be -5 dBm/MHz or lower.
(b)(1) Compliance with this provision is based on the use of
measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1
megahertz or greater.
(2) When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier
frequency shall be adjusted as close to the licensee's frequency block
edges as the design permits.
(3) The measurements of emission power can be expressed in peak or
average values.
(c) For fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint limits see
Sec. 30.404.
Sec. 30.204 Field strength limits.
(a) Base/Mobile Operations. The predicted or measured Power Flux
Density (PFD) from any Base Station operating in the 27.5-28.35 GHz
band, 37-38.6 GHz band, and 38.6-40 GHz bands at any location on the
geographical border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed -
76dBm/m\2\/MHz (measured at 1.5 meters above ground) unless the
adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different PFD.
(b) Fixed Point-to-Point Operations:
(1) Prior to operating a fixed point-to-point transmitting facility
in the 27,500-28,350 MHz band where the facilities are located within
20 kilometers of the boundary of the licensees authorized market area,
the licensee must complete frequency coordination in accordance with
the procedures specified in Sec. 101.103(d)(2) of this chapter with
respect to neighboring licensees that may be affected by its
operations.
(2) Prior to operating a fixed point-to-point transmitting facility
in the 37,000-40,000 MHz band where the facilities are located within
16 kilometers of the boundary of the licensees authorized market area,
the licensee must complete frequency coordination in accordance with
the procedures specified in Sec. 101.103(d)(2) of this chapter with
respect to neighboring licensees that may be affected by its
operations.
Sec. 30.205 Federal coordination requirements.
(a) Licensees in the 37-38 GHz band located within the zones
defined by the coordinates in the tables below must coordinate their
operations with Federal Space Research Service (space to Earth) users
of the band via the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA). All licensees operating within the zone defined
by the 60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates in the tables below must
coordinate all operations. Licensees operating within the area between
the zones defined by the 60 dBm and 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates in
the tables below must coordinate all operations if their base station
EIRP is greater than 60 dBm/100 MHz or if their antenna height exceeds
100 meters above ground level. Licensees operating outside the zones
defined by the 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates in the tables below are
not required to coordinate their operations with NTIA.
Table 1--Goldstone, California Coordination Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude/Longitude Latitude/Longitude Latitude/Longitude
Latitude/Longitude (decimal degrees) (decimal degrees) (decimal degrees) (decimal degrees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34.69217/-115.6491.................................. 34.19524/- 34.69217/-115.6491 34.19524/-
117.47963 117.47963
35.25746/-115.32041................................. 34.24586/- 35.25746/- 34.24586/-
117.36210 115.32041 117.36210
36.21257/-117.06567................................. 35.04648/- 36.11221/- 34.21748/-
117.03781 116.63632 117.12812
36.55967/-117.63691................................. 35.04788/- 36.54731/- 34.20370/-
117.00949 117.48242 116.97024
36.66297/-118.31017................................. 34.22940/- 36.73049/- 34.12196/-
117.22327 118.33683 116.93109
36.06074/-118.38528................................. 34.20370/- 36.39126/- 34.09498/-
116.97024 118.47307 116.75473
35.47015/-118.39008................................. 34.12196/- 36.36891/- 34.13603/-
116.93109 118.47134 116.64002
35.40865/-118.34353................................. 34.09498/- 35.47015/- 34.69217/-115.6591
116.75473 118.39008
35.35986/-117.24709................................. 34.19642/- 35.40865/- 34.69217/-115.6491
116.72901 118.34353
35.29539/-117.21102................................. 34.64906/- 35.32048/- ..................
116.62741 117.26386
34.67607/-118.55412................................. 34.44404/- 34.63725/- ..................
116.31486 118.96736
34.61532/-118.36919................................. 34.52736/- 34.55789/- ..................
116.27845 118.36204
34.91551/-117.70371................................. 34.76685/- 34.51108/- ..................
116.27930 118.15329
34.81257/-117.65400................................. 34.69217/-115.6591 34.39220/- ..................
118.28852
34.37411/-118.18385................................. 34.69217/-115.6491 34.38546/- ..................
118.27460
34.33405/-117.94189................................. .................. 34.37524/- ..................
118.24191
34.27249/-117.65445................................. .................. 34.37039/- ..................
118.22557
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58304]]
Table 2--Socorro, New Mexico Coordination Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude/Longitude Latitude/Longitude Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees) (decimal degrees) (decimal degrees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
34.83816/-107.66828 33.44401/-108.67876 33.10651/-108.19320
34.80070/-107.68759 33.57963/-107.79895 33.11780/-107.99980
34.56506/-107.70233 33.84552/-107.60207 33.13558/-107.85611
34.40826/-107.71489 33.85964/-107.51915 33.80383/-107.16520
34.31013/-107.88349 33.86479/-107.17223 33.94554/-107.15516
34.24067/-107.96059 33.94779/-107.15038 33.95665/-107.15480
34.10278/-108.23166 34.11122/-107.18132 34.08156/-107.18137
34.07442/-108.30646 34.15203/-107.39035 34.10646/-107.18938
34.01447/-108.31694 34.29643/-107.51071 35.24269/-107.67969
33.86740/-108.48706 34.83816/-107.66828 34.06647/-108.70438
33.81660/-108.51052 ....................... 33.35946/-108.68902
33.67909/-108.58750 ....................... 33.29430/-108.65004
33.50223/-108.65470 ....................... 33.10651/-108.19320
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--White Sands, New Mexico Coordination Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude/ Latitude/
Latitude/ Latitude/ Longitude Longitude
Longitude Longitude (decimal (decimal
(decimal degrees) (decimal degrees) degrees) degrees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33.98689/- 31.78455/- 31.7494/- 32.88382/-
107.15967 106.54058 106.49132 108.16588
33.91573/- 32.24710/- 32.24524/- 32.76255/-
107.46301 106.56114 106.56507 108.05679
33.73122/- 32.67731/- 32.67731/- 32.56863/-
107.73585 106.53681 106.53681 108.43999
33.37098/- 32.89856/- 32.89856/- 32.48991/-
107.84333 106.56882 106.56882 108.50032
33.25424/- 33.24323/- 33.04880/- 32.39142/-
107.86409 106.70094 106.62309 108.48959
33.19808/- 33.98689/- 33.21824/- 31.63664/-
107.89673 107.15967 106.68992 108.40480
33.02128/- ................. 33.24347/- 31.63466/-
107.87226 106.70165 108.20921
32.47747/- ................. 34.00708/- 31.78374/-
107.77963 107.08652 108.20798
32.31543/- ................. 34.04967/- 31.78322/-
108.16101 107.17524 106.52825
31.79429/- ................. 33.83491/- 31.7494/-
107.88616 107.85971 106.49132
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Licensees in the 37-38.6 GHz band located within the zones
defined by the coordinates in the table below must coordinate their
operations with the Department of Defense via the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
Table--Coordination Areas for Federal Terrestrial Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordination area
Location Agency (Decimal Degrees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Lake, CA.............. Navy........... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 35.59527 and
longitude -117.22583.
30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 35.52222 and
longitude -117.30333.
30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 35.76222 and
longitude -117.60055.
30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 35.69111 and
longitude -117.66916.
San Diego, CA............... Navy........... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 32.68333 and
longitude -117.23333.
Nanakuli, HI................ Navy........... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 21.38333 and
longitude -158.13333.
Fishers Island, NY.......... Navy........... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 41.25 and
longitude -72.01666.
Saint Croix, VI............. Navy........... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 17.74722 and
longitude -64.88.
Fort Irwin, CA.............. Army........... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 35.26666 and
longitude -116.68333.
Fort Carson, CO............. Army........... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 38.71666 and
longitude -104.65.
Fort Hood, TX............... Army........... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 31.11666 and
longitude -97.76666.
Fort Bliss, TX.............. Army........... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 31.8075 and
longitude -106.42166.
[[Page 58305]]
Yuma Proving Ground, AZ..... Army........... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 32.48333 and
longitude -114.33333.
Fort Huachuca, AZ........... Army........... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 31.55 and
longitude -110.35.
White Sands Missile Range, Army........... 30 kilometer radius
NM. centered on
latitude 33.35 and
longitude -106.3.
Moody Air Force Base, GA.... Air Force...... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 30.96694 and
longitude -83.185.
Hurlburt Air Force Base, FL. Air Force...... 30 kilometer radius
centered on
latitude 30.42388 and
longitude -86.70694.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 30.206 International coordination.
Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37-38.6, and 38.6-40 GHz bands
are subject to existing and future international agreements with Canada
and Mexico.
Sec. 30.207 RF safety.
Licensees and manufacturers are subject to the radio frequency
radiation exposure requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b),
1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.
Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices
operating under this section must contain a statement confirming
compliance with these requirements. Technical information showing the
basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon
request.
Sec. 30.208 Operability.
Mobile and transportable stations that operate on any portion of
frequencies within the 27.5-28.35 GHz or the 37-40 GHz bands must be
capable of operating on all frequencies within those particular bands.
Sec. 30.209 Duplexing.
Stations authorized under this rule part may employ frequency
division duplexing, time division duplexing, or any other duplexing
scheme, provided that they comply with the other technical and
operational requirements specified in this part.
Sec. 30.210 Information sharing requirements in the 48.2-50.2 GHz
band.
(a) Each operator of a Fixed Service or Mobile Service system in
the 48.2-50.2 GHz band will make the technical information about its
system listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section available to
FSS operators by one or more of the following means:
(1) An online database operated by the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
licensee;
(2) An online database operated by a third-party database manager,
or
(3) A continuously transmitted pilot signal receivable throughout
the terrain within which a FSS facility could cause interference to or
receive interference from the terrestrial system.
(b) All licensees deploying fixed systems in the48.2-50.2 GHz bands
will make the following information about each such system available to
FSS operators in those bands by one or more of the means described in
paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Licensee's name and address.
(2) Transmitting station name.
(3) Transmitting station coordinates.
(4) Frequencies and polarizations.
(5) Transmitting equipment, its stability, effective isotropic
radiated power, emission designator, and type of modulation (digital).
(6) Transmitting antenna(s), model, gain, and a radiation pattern
provided or certified by the manufacturer.
(7) Transmitting antenna center line height(s) above ground level
and ground elevation above mean sea level.
(8) Transmitting antenna boresight(s) angle of elevation with
respect to the horizon.
(9) Receiving station name.
(10) Receiving station coordinates.
(11) Receiving antenna(s), model, gain, and, if required, a
radiation pattern provided or certified by the manufacturer.
(12) Receiving antenna center line height(s) above ground level and
ground elevation above mean sea level.
(13) Receiving antenna boresight(s) angle of elevation with respect
to the horizon.
(14) Path azimuth and distance.
(c) All licensees deploying mobile service base stations in the
48.2-50.2 GHz bands will make the following information about each such
base station available to FSS operators by one or both of the means
described in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Licensee's name and address.
(2) Transmitting station name.
(3) Transmitting station coordinates.
(4) Frequencies and polarizations.
(5) Transmitting equipment, its stability, maximum effective
isotropic radiated power, emission designator, and types of modulation.
(6) Transmitting antenna(s), model, maximum gain, and maximum
extent of all possible radiation patterns provided or certified by the
manufacturer.
(7) Transmitting antenna center line height(s) above ground level
and ground elevation above mean sea level.
(8) Transmitting antenna boresight(s) maximum and minimum angles of
elevation with respect to the horizon.
(9) Transmitting antenna boresight minimum and maximum azimuths, or
designation of omnidirectionality.
(10) Boundary of the area served by the base station for purposes
of communication with mobile user equipment.
(11) Receiving antenna(s), model, gain, and maximum extent of all
possible radiation patterns provided or certified by the manufacturer.
(12) Receiving antenna center line height(s) above ground level and
ground elevation above mean sea level.
(13) Receiving antenna boresight maximum and minimum angles of
elevation with respect to the horizon.
(14) Receiving antenna boresight minimum and maximum azimuths, or
designation of omnidirectionality.
Subpart D--Competitive Bidding Procedures
Sec. 30.301 Upper microwave flexible use service subject to
competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for Upper Microwave
Flexible User Service licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The
general competitive bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q
of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
Sec. 30.302 Designated entities and bidding credits.
(a) Eligibility for small business provisions. (1) A small business
is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its
[[Page 58306]]
controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests,
have average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the
preceding three (3) years.
(2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its
affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its
controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more
than $20 million for the preceding three (3) years.
(b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small
business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of small
businesses may use a bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in
Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter. A winning bidder that
qualifies as a very small business, as defined in this section, or a
consortium of very small businesses may use a bidding credit of 25
percent, as specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
(c) A rural service provider, as defined in Sec. 1.2110(f)(4) of
this chapter, who has not claimed a small business bidding credit may
use a bidding credit of 15 percent bidding credit, as specified in
Sec. 1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this chapter.
Subpart E--Special Provisions for Fixed Point-to-Point, Fixed
Point-to-Multipoint Hub Stations, and Fixed Point-to-Multipoint
User Stations
Sec. 30.401 Permissible service.
Stations authorized under this subpart may deploy stations used
solely as fixed point-to-point stations, fixed point-to-multipoint hub
stations, or fixed point-to-multipoint user stations, as defined in
Sec. 30.2 subject to the technical and operational requirements
specified in this subpart.
Sec. 30.402 Frequency tolerance.
The carrier frequency of each transmitter authorized under this
subpart must be maintained within the following percentage of the
reference frequency (unless otherwise specified in the instrument of
station authorization the reference frequency will be deemed to be the
assigned frequency):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency
Frequency (MHz) tolerance
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27,500 to 28,350........................................ 0.001
38,600 to 40,000........................................ 0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 30.403 Bandwidth.
(a) Stations under this sub-part will be authorized any type of
emission, method of modulation, and transmission characteristic,
consistent with efficient use of the spectrum and good engineering
practice.
(b) The maximum bandwidth authorized per frequency to stations
under this subpart is set out in the table that follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency band (MHz) Maximum authorized bandwidth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27,500 to 28,350.......................... 850 MHz.
38,600 to 40,000.......................... 200 MHz.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For channel block assignments in the 38,600-40,000 MHz bands when
adjacent channels are aggregated, equipment is permitted to operate
over the full channel block aggregation without restriction.
Sec. 30.404 Emission limits.
(a) The mean power of emissions must be attenuated below the mean
output power of the transmitter in accordance with the following
schedule:
(1) When using transmissions other than those employing digital
modulation techniques:
(i) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency by more
than 50 percent up to and including 100 percent of the authorized
bandwidth: At least 25 decibels;
(ii) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency by more
than 100 percent up to and including 250 percent of the authorized
bandwidth: At least 35 decibels;
(iii) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency by more
than 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: At least 43 + 10
Log10 (mean output power in watts) decibels, or 80 decibels,
whichever is the lesser attenuation.
(2) When using transmissions employing digital modulation
techniques in situations not covered in this section:
(i) In any 1 MHz band, the center frequency of which is removed
from the assigned frequency by more than 50 percent up to and including
250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: As specified by the following
equation but in no event less than 11 decibels:
A = 11 + 0.4(P - 50) + 10 Log10 B. (Attenuation greater
than 56 decibels or to an absolute power of less than -13 dBm/1MHz is
not required.)
(ii) In any 1 MHz band, the center frequency of which is removed
from the assigned frequency by more than 250 percent of the authorized
bandwidth: At least 43 + 10 Log10 (the mean output power in
watts) decibels, or 80 decibels, whichever is the lesser attenuation.
The authorized bandwidth includes the nominal radio frequency bandwidth
of an individual transmitter/modulator in block-assigned bands.
Equipment licensed prior to April 1, 2005 shall only be required to
meet this standard in any 4 kHz band.
(iii) The emission mask in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section
applies only to the band edge of each block of spectrum, but not to
subchannels established by licensees. The value of P in the equation is
the percentage removed from the carrier frequency and assumes that the
carrier frequency is the center of the actual bandwidth used. The
emission mask can be satisfied by locating a carrier of the subchannel
sufficiently far from the channel edges so that the emission levels of
the mask are satisfied. The emission mask shall use a value B
(bandwidth) of 40 MHz, for all cases even in the case where a narrower
subchannel is used (for instance the actual bandwidth is 10 MHz) and
the mean output power used in the calculation is the sum of the output
power of a fully populated channel. For block assigned channels, the
out-of-band emission limits apply only outside the assigned band of
operation and not within the band.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 30.405 Transmitter power limitations.
On any authorized frequency, the average power delivered to an
antenna in this service must be the minimum amount of power necessary
to carry out the communications desired. Application of this principle
includes, but is not to be limited to, requiring a licensee who
replaces one or more of its antennas with larger antennas to reduce its
antenna input power by an amount appropriate to compensate for the
increased primary lobe gain of the replacement antenna(s). In no event
shall the average equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP), as
referenced to an isotropic radiator, exceed the following:
Maximum Allowable EIRP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency band (MHz) Fixed (dBW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27,500-28,350 \1\....................................... + 55
38,600-40,000........................................... + 55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For Point-to-multipoint user stations authorized in these bands, the
EIRP shall not exceed 55 dBw or 42 dBw/MHz.
Sec. 30.406 Directional antennas.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized upon specific request by the
applicant, each station authorized under the rules of this subpart must
employ a directional antenna adjusted with the center of the major lobe
of radiation in the horizontal plane directed toward the receiving
station with which it communicates; provided, however, where a station
communicates with more than one
[[Page 58307]]
point, a multi- or omni-directional antenna may be authorized if
necessary.
(b) Fixed stations (other than temporary fixed stations) must
employ transmitting and receiving antennas (excluding second receiving
antennas for operations such as space diversity) meeting the
appropriate performance Standard A indicated below, except that in
areas not subject to frequency congestion, antennas meeting performance
Standard B may be used. For frequencies with a Standard B1 and a
Standard B2, in order to comply with Standard B an antenna must fully
meet either Standard B1 or Standard B2. Licensees shall comply with the
antenna standards table shown in this paragraph in the following
manner:
(1) With either the maximum beamwidth to 3 dB points requirement or
with the minimum antenna gain requirement; and
(2) With the minimum radiation suppression to angle requirement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum radiation suppression to angle in degrees from centerline of main
Maximum Minimum beam in decibels
beamwidth to 3 antenna ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency (MHz) Category dB points\1\ gain 10[deg] 15[deg] 20[deg] 30[deg] 100[deg] 140[deg]
(included angle (dbi) 5[deg] to to to to to to
in degrees) to10[deg] 15[deg] 20[deg] 30[deg] 100[deg] 140[deg] 180[deg]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38,600 to 40,000\2\.......... A............... n/a............ 38 25 29 33 36 42 55 55
B............... n/a............ 38 20 24 28 32 35 36 36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If a licensee chooses to show compliance using maximum beamwidth to 3 dB points, the beamwidth limit shall apply in both the azimuth and the
elevation planes.
\2\ Stations authorized to operate in the 38,600-40,000 MHz band may use antennas other than those meeting the Category A standard. However, the
Commission may require the use of higher performance antennas where interference problems can be resolved by the use of such antennas.
Sec. 30.407 Antenna polarization.
In the 27,500-28,350 MHz band, system operators are permitted to
use any polarization within its service area, but only vertical and/or
horizontal polarization for antennas located within 20 kilometers of
the outermost edge of their service area.
Subpart F--Shared operation in the 71-76 GHz and 81/86 GHz bands
Sec. 30.501 Scope.
(a) This section sets forth the regulations governing use of
devices in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands. The operation of all
equipment in this band shall be coordinated by one or more authorized
Spectrum Access Systems (SASs).
(b) Operations in this band include Priority Access and General
Authorized Access tiers of service. Priority Access Licensees and
General Authorized Access Users must not cause harmful interference to
Incumbent Users and must accept interference from Incumbent Users.
General Authorized Access Users must not cause harmful interference to
Priority Access Licensees and must accept interference from Priority
Access Licensees.
Sec. 30.502 Authorization required.
(a) Devices must be used and operated consistent with the rules in
this subpart.
(b) Authorizations for PALs may be granted upon proper application,
provided that the applicant is qualified in regard to citizenship,
character, financial, technical and other criteria established by the
Commission, and that the public interest, convenience and necessity
will be served. See 47 U.S.C. 301, 308, 309, and 310. The holding of an
authorization does not create any rights beyond the terms, conditions,
and period specified in the authorization and shall be subject to the
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the
Commission's rules and policies thereunder.
(c) Grandfathered registered fixed links are authorized to operate
consistent with Sec. 101.1529 of this chapter.
Sec. 30.503 Frequency assignments.
(a) Any frequencies designated for Priority Access that are not in
use by a Priority Access Licensee may be utilized by General Authorized
Access Users.
(b) An SAS shall assign authorized devices to specific frequencies,
which may be reassigned by that SAS, consistent with this part.
Sec. 30.504 Technical rules.
Devices in these bands shall be subject to the technical rules in
subpart C of this part.
Sec. 30.505 Protection of Federal incumbents.
Prior to commencing operation, all operations in these bands must
complete coordination with Federal Government links according to the
coordination standards and procedures adopted in Report and Order, FCC
03-248, and as further detailed in subsequent implementation public
notices issued consistent with that order.
Sec. 30.506 Priority Access Licenses.
(a) Applications for Priority Access Licenses must:
(1) Demonstrate the applicant's qualifications to hold an
authorization;
(2) State how a grant would serve the public interest, convenience,
and necessity;
(3) Contain all information required by FCC rules and application
forms;
(4) Propose operation of a facility or facilities in compliance
with all applicable rules; and
(5) Be amended as necessary to remain substantially accurate and
complete in all significant respects, in accordance with the provisions
of Sec. 1.65 of this chapter.
(b) Devices used for Priority Access must register with a Spectrum
Access System and comply with its instructions pursuant to Sec.
30.508.
(c) Records pertaining to PALs, including applications and
licenses, shall be maintained by the Commission in a publicly
accessible system.
Sec. 30.507 General Access.
(a) Devices used for General Authorized Access must register with
the Spectrum Access System and comply with its instructions.
(b) General Authorized Access Users shall be permitted to use
frequencies assigned to Priority Access Licenses when such frequencies
are not in use, as determined by the Spectrum Access System.
(c) Frequencies that are available for General Authorized Access
Use shall be made available on a shared basis.
(d) General Authorized Access Users shall have no expectation of
interference protection from other General Authorized Access Users
operating in accordance with this part.
(e) General Authorized Access Users must not cause harmful
interference to and must accept interference from
[[Page 58308]]
Priority Access Licensees and Grandfathered Registered Links in
accordance with this part.
Sec. 30.508 Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.
The Spectrum Access System shall:
(a) Enact and enforce all policies and procedures developed by the
SAS Administrator.
(b) Determine and provide to devices the permissible channels or
frequencies at their location.
(c) Determine and provide to devices the maximum permissible
transmission power level at their location.
(d) Register and authenticate the identification information and
location of devices.
(e) Ensure that devices protect Grandfathered Register Links from
harmful interference.
(f) Protect Priority Access Licensees from interference caused by
other Priority Access Licenses and from General Authorized Access
Users.
(g) Resolve conflicting uses of the band while maintaining, as much
as possible, a stable radio frequency environment.
(h) Ensure secure and reliable transmission of information between
the SAS and devices.
(i) Protect Grandfathered Registered Links consistent with Sec.
101.1529 of this chapter.
(j) Implement the terms of applicable current and future
international agreements.
Sec. 30.509 Registration, authentication, and authorization of
devices.
(a) A Spectrum Access System must register, authenticate, and
authorize operations of devices consistent with this part.
(b) Devices composed of a network of base and fixed stations may
employ a subsystem for aggregating and communicating all required
information exchanges between the SAS and devices.
(c) A Spectrum Access System must also verify that the FCC
identifier (FCC ID) of any device seeking access to its services is
valid prior to authorizing it to begin providing service. A list of
devices with valid FCC IDs and the FCC IDs of those devices is to be
obtained from the Commission's Equipment Authorization System.
PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
0
6. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
0
7. Add Sec. 101.1529 to read as follows:
Sec. 101.529 Grandfathered operation and transition to upper
microwave flexible use service.
Links registered with a third party database administrator on or
before [insert effective date of rules] that are constructed, in
service, and fully compliant with the rules in part 101, subpart Q as
of [insert date one year after effective date of rules] will be
afforded protection from harmful interference caused by Upper Microwave
Flexible Use users until the end of their license term.
[FR Doc. 2016-19793 Filed 8-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P