4.9 GHz Band, 76505-76513 [2020-23514]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 230 (Monday, November 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76505-76513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23514]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 90

[WP Docket No. 07-100; FCC 20-137; FRS 17147]


4.9 GHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), 
the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes rules for a 
new state-based licensing regime for public safety operations in the 
4.9 GHz band, which would complement the new leasing regime adopted in 
the Sixth Report and Order. The Seventh FNPRM proposes to make 
permanent the current freeze on new applications and grandfather all 
current public safety licensees. It also proposes to allow states 
without a statewide license to obtain such a license and seeks comment 
on the creation of a voluntary state band manager to coordinate 
operations in the band. Lastly, it seeks comment on additional ways to 
implement and facilitate robust use of the band, including steps to 
address expanded access in states that divert 911 fees, the use of 
dynamic spectrum sharing, and ways to encourage collaboration across 
jurisdictions.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before December 30, 
2020; and reply comments on or before January 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WP Docket No. 07-100, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
    See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and 
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 
2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Markman of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-7090 or 
[email protected] Thomas Eng of the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau at 202-418-0019 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WP Docket No. 07-100, 
FCC 20-137 adopted September 30, 2020 and

[[Page 76506]]

released October 02, 2020. The full text of the Seventh Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, including all Appendices, is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's website at 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-expands-access-and-investment-49-ghz-band-0. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities 
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an 
email to [email protected] or calling the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Ex Parte Rules

    This proceeding 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 
section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by 
section 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made 
available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations 
and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all 
attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment 
filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their 
native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 
in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's 
ex parte rules.

Synopsis

    1. In this Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we 
propose to license the 4.9 GHz band at the state level going forward, 
while grandfathering 4.9 GHz licenses that were in effect at the time 
of the Freeze Public Notice and those granted pursuant to a waiver of, 
or modification of, the freeze. We seek comment on enabling state 
governments to manage voluntarily 4.9 GHz operations and coordination 
within their states, so that each state can determine the appropriate 
use of the band given its unique situation. We anticipate that 
transitioning to a voluntary state band manager model would allow state 
governments to coordinate new public safety deployments in the band, 
alongside non-public safety operations deployed through lease 
arrangements, through the state entity selected to be the State Lessor. 
We also seek comment on actions that we can take to further encourage 
robust use of the 4.9 GHz band and to implement the new leasing 
framework adopted in the accompanying Sixth Report and Order.

A. Revised 4.9 GHz Licensing and Grandfathering Incumbent Licenses

    2. State-Based Licensing. Under the Freeze Public Notice, the 
Bureaus will not accept 4.9 GHz applications or issue new or modified 
licenses absent grant of a waiver. In anticipation of a proposed 
transition to state-based management of 4.9 GHz public safety 
operations going forward, we propose to amend our 4.9 GHz licensing 
rules to limit future licensing to state entities seeking a statewide 
license in states without an existing statewide licensee. Under this 
approach, the Commission would not accept new or modified applications 
for a license authorizing operations of any kind (geographic area or 
permanent fixed site operations) in the 4.9 GHz band below the state 
level. License applications would only be accepted and processed if 
they are filed by a state governmental entity for a statewide license 
in a state with no statewide licensee, or if they meet other limited 
exceptions. We seek comment on this approach, which we anticipate will 
maximize opportunities for states to voluntarily facilitate more 
efficient 4.9 GHz band operations.
    3. Grandfathering Incumbent Licenses. We seek to ensure continued 
access for important incumbent 4.9 GHz band public safety operations 
under any revised 4.9 GHz band licensing structure. We therefore 
propose to grandfather licensees authorized as of the date of the 
Freeze Public Notice and any 4.9 GHz licensees granted an authorization 
pursuant to a waiver of, or modification of, the freeze. We seek 
comment on whether this is the appropriate scope of any grandfathering. 
Specifically, we propose that grandfathered geographic area licensees 
would be able to obtain renewal of existing licenses. They would also 
be permitted to add base stations, mobile units, and temporary fixed 
sites within their authorized license area, up to the limits of their 
jurisdiction--all of which they can do under our rules without 
Commission approval. Incumbent fixed point-to-point and fixed point-to-
multipoint system licensees would also be permitted to obtain renewal 
and continue operations under existing technical parameters, but would 
not be permitted to modify their licenses in any way to increase their 
spectral or geographic coverage or obtain a license for a new fixed 
system. We seek comment on this approach and on potential alternatives. 
If we grandfather licenses as proposed, should we apply this treatment 
to all incumbent 4.9 GHz band operations or only to some specific class 
of licenses? Should nongovernmental operations receive the same 
protections as those of public safety agencies? If we grandfather fixed 
site licenses, should we also grandfather the ``primary'' status 
certain fixed links enjoy under section 90.1207(d) of our rules? How 
would removing primary status affect current and future public safety 
operations in the 4.9 GHz band? If we grandfather these licenses as 
proposed, to what extent should licensees be permitted to modify those 
licenses as their deployment needs change? Commenters should describe 
the costs and benefits of any approach they support.

B. State Management of 4.9 GHz Operations

    4. In the accompanying Sixth Report and Order, we adopt a leasing 
framework in which state governments, acting through a single state 
entity holding a statewide 4.9 GHz band license (the State Lessor) will 
have the authority to lease 4.9 GHz band access to public safety and to 
non-public safety entities. The State Lessor also will be authorized to 
engage in non-public safety use of the band on behalf of the state 
government and, upon issuance of the Bureaus' freeze modification 
public notice, will be permitted to add permanent fixed sites to its 
network. In this Seventh Further Notice of Proposed

[[Page 76507]]

Rulemaking, we seek comment on enabling state governments to exercise 
similar centralized control over 4.9 GHz band public safety operations 
in their jurisdictions. Under this voluntary model, a state government 
would have the option to oversee all 4.9 GHz band operations in the 
state: Non-public safety and/or public safety operations through its 
role as State Lessor, and public safety operations through its role as 
a State Band Manager.
1. State Band Manager Model
    5. Commission Use of Band Manager Model. In 2000, the Commission 
created a new class of licensee known as ``guard band managers'' in the 
700 MHz band. A guard band manager was defined as a ``commercial 
licensee . . . that functions solely as a spectrum broker by 
subdividing its licensed spectrum and making it available to system 
operators or directly to end users for fixed or mobile communications 
consistent with Commission Rules.'' In establishing this ``new class of 
commercial licensee . . . engaged in the business of leasing spectrum 
for value to third parties on a for-profit basis,'' the Commission 
issued authorizations to licensees for the purpose of overseeing and 
coordinating, through private contractual lease agreements, the 
operations of third parties, rather than for their own use. The Guard 
Band Manager was responsible for coordinating the use of frequencies 
among its customers to minimize interference and for resolving 
interference conflicts among its customers and, in the first instance, 
among its customers and neighboring users of spectrum licensed to other 
Guard Band Managers or other licensees. The Commission found that Guard 
Band Manager licensing represented an ``innovative spectrum management 
approach that should enable parties to more readily acquire spectrum 
for varied uses, while streamlining the Commission's spectrum 
management responsibilities.'' The Commission further expected Guard 
Band Managers not to engage in unjust or unreasonable discrimination 
among spectrum users and to honor all reasonable requests by potential 
users for access to the licensed spectrum, while recognizing that a 
Guard Band Manager may have valid business reasons for denying a 
potential user's request for spectrum.
    6. Notwithstanding that the Commission ultimately moved away from 
relying on Guard Band Managers in the 700 MHz band, this model points 
to the Commission's authority to rely on band managers to provide and 
manage spectrum access where appropriate and with necessary 
restrictions in place. Further, we believe that the band manager 
concept can inform our approach to future access and coordination of 
operations in the 4.9 GHz band given its specific characteristics, 
including shared spectrum use by public safety licensees with 
overlapping jurisdictions and extensive licensee coordination of 
operations (rather than extensive Commission regulation of technical 
parameters) to prevent harmful interference. Additionally, unlike 700 
MHz Guard Band Managers, a state that takes on a band manager role 
would likely already be part of the 4.9 GHz ecosystem, increasing the 
opportunities for efficiencies and fostering an environment that brings 
order to overcome the current challenges of the 4.9 GHz coordination 
landscape. We seek comment on this assumption.
    7. 4.9 GHz State Band Manager. Under this approach, a state entity 
would have the opportunity to oversee and coordinate use of the 4.9 GHz 
band by public safety entities. Specifically, we seek comment on 
allowing each state to select voluntarily a statewide entity, whether 
the State Lessor or another statewide licensee, as State Band Manager 
with authority to manage access to, and public safety operations 
within, the 4.9 GHz band. A public safety entity seeking new access to 
the 4.9 GHz band or a licensee seeking to expand operations beyond its 
grandfathered license parameters would be authorized to operate (if 
agreed to) under a State Band Manager's license, tantamount to a 
``customer'' of a Guard Band Manager in the former 700 MHz paradigm. A 
State Band Manager also would coordinate operations to prevent harmful 
interference amongst and between public safety and non-public safety 
entities. We seek comment on this approach, including its potential 
costs and benefits.
    8. We expect that empowering each state to choose to transition to 
a State Band Manager model would streamline and facilitate more 
efficient spectrum use by consolidating oversight with the state 
government. We seek comment on this assumption. A State Band Manager 
model could replace the existing informal coordination model that is 
the basis for shared use of the 4.9 GHz band, while also avoiding the 
need for substantial regulatory oversight of licensee technical 
parameters. Under this model, public safety entities (and 
nongovernmental organizations operating in support of public safety) 
that seek to deploy in the 4.9 GHz band would work with a State Band 
Manager to coordinate and plan this deployment based on the policies 
and procedures it determines are best for its situation, rather than 
based on individual licensing and interference resolution rules issued 
by the Commission. We seek comment on this overall approach, including 
the associated costs and benefits.
    9. Rights and Responsibilities of a State Band Manager. We 
anticipate that a State Band Manager would, at a minimum, coordinate 
operations among grandfathered public safety licensees and 4.9 GHz 
lessees. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we should require a 
State Band Manager to also be a State Lessor. What are the costs and 
benefits of adopting such an approach? We also seek comment on what 
additional responsibilities and rights should be assigned to a State 
Band Manager. For example, as prospective 4.9 GHz public safety users 
would be authorized to operate through a State Band Manager's license, 
what flexibility should we provide regarding its consideration of 
requests for spectrum access for new or modified public safety 
operations in the band? Should we adopt the approach applicable to 700 
MHz Guard Band Managers that created an expectation that all reasonable 
requests by potential users for access to the licensed spectrum would 
be honored, while recognizing that there may be valid reasons for 
denying a potential user's request for spectrum? Should we establish 
other criteria or guidelines for a State Band Manager to use in 
determining whether to grant requests for expanded or new public safety 
operations--e.g., from counties or municipalities within the state? 
Should a State Band Manager have authority to deny public safety access 
or prioritize some operations (such as non-public safety operations 
conducted pursuant to a lease) over others? How much discretion should 
it have in making these determinations? Should we impose requirements 
on a State Band Manager to treat its own operations as it would those 
of other entities under its jurisdiction? What should be the limits of 
a State Band Manager's authority to grant public safety access to 
nongovernmental organizations operating in support of public safety?
    10. Commission Oversight. We also seek comment on the role the 
Commission should play in overseeing a State Band Manager's decisions. 
Should we adopt the 700 MHz Guard Band Manager approach and rely on a 
State Band Manager to be primarily responsible for resolving 
interference disputes, at least in the first instance, thereby 
minimizing Commission involvement? Alternatively, should that

[[Page 76508]]

authority remain solely with the Commission? To what extent should the 
Commission impose rules governing the coordination among different 
operations, either formal or informal, other than through a State Band 
Manager and a State Lessor? In addition, to what extent should the 
Commission assess the success of the voluntary leasing framework 
adopted in the Sixth Report and Order? Should we monitor leasing 
activities or take further steps to facilitate widespread leasing and, 
if so, in what form and to what extent?
    11. Implementation of a State Band Manager Model. We seek comment 
on the extent to which states are equipped to take on this management 
and coordination role. Do states have an entity already capable of 
undertaking this role, or will further expertise be required? Are there 
legal issues involved in granting a state entity this authority over 
other state and local entities, such as applicable state laws? We 
believe that a State Band Manager should be a state entity and a 4.9 
GHz band licensee, but we seek comment on the extent to which we should 
combine the role of State Band Manager with that of a State Lessor. 
Should we grant states the authority to determine if they should be the 
same or separate entities? Or should this be a Commission 
determination? How should a state select its State Band Manager if that 
entity will be different from a State Lessor? In the accompanying Sixth 
Report and Order, we established a process for an existing statewide 
licensee to select a different entity to be the State Lessor and for 
the Commission to authorize that assignment. We seek comment on whether 
to apply the same or a similar process to allow for states to select a 
different entity to be a State Band Manager. We also seek comment on 
various potential approaches to incentivizing state participation in a 
State Band Manager construct. Specifically, should we establish a 
voluntary construct for state government participation, or should we 
require that any State Lessor benefiting from our flexible leasing 
approach also become a State Band Manager? Should we require a state 
with statewide 4.9 GHz licensee(s) to select a State Band Manager? In 
the alternative, in lieu of a State Band Manager model, should we 
instead rely solely on a State Lessor entering into secondary markets 
transactions to accommodate the needs of existing and future 4.9 GHz 
public safety users? We request that commenters be specific in 
providing the associated costs and benefits of each of these potential 
approaches. How can the Commission work with equipment manufacturers, 
licensees, and lessees to incentivize equipment development and reduce 
the cost of deploying in this band for both public safety and non-
public safety entities? How could State Band Managers work most 
effectively with those entities? Are there any additional measures the 
Commission should take to promote greater use of the band in support of 
public safety services?
    12. New Individual Deployment Licensing. We seek comment on the 
future of fixed site licensing in the 4.9 GHz band under a potential 
State Band Manager framework. The state government, through a State 
Band Manager and/or a State Lessor, would be in a position to 
coordinate the needs of lessees and public safety entities to build 
sites, whether base stations servicing mobile devices or fixed sites 
for point-to-point or point-to-multipoint systems. This approach 
potentially eliminates the need for the Commission to license permanent 
fixed sites individually. We recognize the continuing need for the 
Commission to exercise its authority and require individual licensing 
of certain facilities, even under a State Band Manager model (e.g., 
coordination required by international agreement, environmental 
assessment required, or where a station impacts a quiet zone). We seek 
comment on the impact of a State Band Manager model and on the scope of 
appropriate rules for any continued Commission licensing of 4.9 GHz 
band fixed site deployments. We also seek comment on whether to 
continue to afford ``primary'' status to certain fixed links under a 
State Band Manager model. Would there be a need to continue to grant 
such status to some sites under a State Band Manager model? Should it 
be solely within a State Band Managers' discretion as to whether and 
how to prioritize the status of fixed sites within its jurisdiction?
    13. We also seek comment on the interplay of a State Band Manager 
framework and grandfathering the 4.9 GHz licenses that are in effect at 
the time of the Freeze Public Notice or that are granted through waiver 
of, or modification of, the freeze. For example, is there any need to 
grandfather other statewide licenses if a statewide entity will be 
acting as a State Band Manager? How should our rules define that status 
if we adopt a State Band Manager approach? We anticipate that allowing 
a State Band Manager to determine the status of all fixed links in its 
jurisdiction without Commission involvement may be the most efficient 
way to maximize flexibility in determining the best use of the band in 
its jurisdiction. We seek comment on this approach, including the 
associated costs and benefits.
2. Maximizing Efficiencies To Coordinate 4.9 GHz Operations
    14. 4.9 GHz Licensing Data. In the Sixth FNPRM, the Commission 
sought comment on a proposal to expand the 4.9 GHz deployment data in 
the Universal Licensing System to include locations and other technical 
parameters of base stations deployed through geographic area licenses. 
Although we did not adopt this proposal in the accompanying Sixth 
Report and Order, we seek further comment on the need to more 
comprehensively reflect 4.9 GHz band deployments beyond fixed sites 
given our new leasing framework and our proposed State Band Manager 
framework. To what extent should the Commission have a continued role 
in maintaining data on deployments, as opposed to State Band Managers? 
To the extent we delegate such data management duties to the State Band 
Managers, should we require the more expansive data collection and 
maintenance that the Commission was considering? If the Commission 
should continue to have a role, what should that role be, and what is 
the most efficient method to effectuate it?
    15. Sharing Arrangements for Public Safety. Under our current 
rules, 4.9 GHz licensees are permitted to enter into sharing 
arrangements for the use of spectrum with entities that do not meet the 
eligibility requirements for a license. Entities sharing with a 4.9 GHz 
licensee, however, must use the spectrum in support of public safety 
services. We seek comment on whether to eliminate the current rules 
providing for such sharing, given our adoption of rules providing for 
increased flexibility in leasing and the proposed adoption of a State 
Band Manager construct. For example, a nongovernmental entity seeking 
to deploy in the 4.9 GHz band, either in support of public safety or 
for its own operational needs, is now permitted to enter into a leasing 
arrangement with a State Lessor. In the alternative, should we permit a 
non-public safety entity seeking to support public safety to simply 
work with a State Band Manager to obtain the necessary access, or to 
enter into a sharing agreement with another 4.9 GHz band licensee? If a 
State Band Manager model were not adopted, what is the appropriate 
method for accommodating this sharing in a revised, and substantially 
more limited, licensing environment (aside from leasing)?
    16. We also seek comment on eliminating our similar current rule

[[Page 76509]]

allowing operation outside a licensee's jurisdiction with the 
permission of that jurisdiction. We expect that such operations would 
be conducted instead under the authority of a State Band Manager in the 
event we adopt such an approach. What are the specific costs and 
benefits of no longer permitting by rule these types of operations?
    17. Interference Protection and Resolution. The existing structure 
of informal coordination in the 4.9 GHz band relies on licensees 
cooperating amongst themselves to resolve any interference concerns 
that may arise from their operations. As use of the band increases 
through leasing activity and as a variety of potentially disparate 
technologies and network architectures are introduced into a shared 
band, will coordination be possible in the absence of more clearly-
defined technical rules and interference resolution procedures? Or will 
a State Band Manager structure be sufficient to prevent or resolve any 
instances of harmful interference?
    18. We seek comment on whether any additional steps are necessary 
to reduce the likelihood of harmful interference between shared users 
of the 4.9 GHz band, particularly where we anticipate new and different 
types of deployments generated by a robust secondary market. Should we 
adopt additional rules standardizing different types of operations to 
avoid harmful interference? If so, what type of rules would be 
appropriate? Should we leave standardization to a State Band Manager or 
impose some requirements by rule? To what extent should the Commission 
facilitate interference resolution between lessees and public safety 
operations, as opposed to leaving these decisions to the state 
governmental entities charged with coordinating the band? If there is 
no State Band Manager, what should the resolution process be? We also 
encourage licensees and lessees to work together to develop best 
practices for preventing harmful interference and seek comment on how 
the Commission can encourage these efforts.
    19. Absence of a State Band Manager/State Lessor. We also seek 
comment on how to structure our rules for states without a State Band 
Manager under this framework, either because we determine that states 
should have the right to decline this role or because there is no 
statewide licensee eligible for it. In the event a state without a 
State Band Manager has a State Lessor, public safety entities seeking 
to gain access to the 4.9 GHz band will be able to do so through 
leasing arrangements with the State Lessor. We seek comment on whether 
there are any other implications for public safety access to the 4.9 
GHz band in that scenario, and whether there are additional changes we 
should make to our rules to accommodate public safety use in that 
event. Also, we recognize that currently there are a few states/
territories with no existing 4.9 GHz statewide licensee, and we seek 
comment on how to provide for future public safety use beyond 
grandfathered operations if this remains unchanged. How should local or 
nongovernmental entities, or state entities not seeking status as a 
State Lessor or State Band Manager, obtain 4.9 GHz band access in the 
absence of a statewide licensee that has voluntarily assumed either of 
those roles? How can we best encourage states without a statewide 
license to obtain one, either for purposes of public safety use and/or 
to facilitate leasing to commercial entities, critical infrastructure 
or other users? Are there barriers to such licensing, either logistical 
or in state law?

C. Supporting and Encouraging Greater 4.9 GHz Band Usage

    20. Encouraging Collaboration Across Jurisdictions. In the Sixth 
FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on ways to increase the 
flexibility of regional planning committees in facilitating use of the 
4.9 GHz band. Although we decline to adopt any specific changes related 
to regional planning committees in the accompanying Sixth Report and 
Order, we seek comment more broadly on whether and how to encourage 
cross-jurisdictional cooperation, whether directly among State Lessors 
of different states or through regional planning committees. Are there 
ways State Lessors (or State Band Managers) could leverage regional 
planning committees to standardize spectrum availability over larger 
geographic areas to facilitate spectrum access through secondary 
markets? Should we modify section 90.1211 of our rules to provide for a 
different role for regional planning committees in this process? How 
would this cross-jurisdictional cooperation interact with a State Band 
Manager framework?
    21. States that Divert 911 Fees. In the Sixth Report and Order, we 
create leasing opportunities for the vast majority of states, 
contingent upon their having not been identified in the Commission's 
December 2019 911 Fee Report as a state that diverts 911 fees for non-
911 purposes. We now seek comment on how to address 911-fee-diverting 
states. Should we require such states to stop diversion before they are 
permitted to benefit from the leasing framework, including the ability 
to create a State Lessor, or extend the leasing framework to such 
states? Would extending the framework to such states increase 
innovation and enable access to rural WISPs, electric utilities, and 5G 
wireless operators that may be able to put this too-fallow spectrum to 
use? Or would such an extension inappropriately reward states that 
continue to hurt public safety by diverting 911 fees to non-911 
purposes? Should we limit our proposal in this Seventh FNPRM to allow 
states to create a State Band Manager only to states that do not divert 
911 fees? Should we create an exception for states seeking to establish 
a State Lessor solely for the purpose of leasing to public safety 
entities? How would these approaches impact future public safety, 
commercial, and critical infrastructure access to spectrum in the band 
and operations? We seek comment on the costs and benefits of adopting 
any of the above approaches to addressing this important public safety 
issue.
    22. We also seek comment on how to address states that start or 
stop diverting 911 fees. First, we recognize in the Sixth Report and 
Order that states may stop diverting 911 fees and allow them to 
petition the Commission to access the 4.9 GHz leasing framework based 
on documented proof of such a change. Should we continue that process 
going forward, or should we automatically allow a state that is no 
longer identified as a fee diverter in a future report to start 
leasing? To access the leasing framework, is it sufficient for a state 
to show that it has stopped diverting 911 fees, or must it replenish 
the diverted funds as well (specifically those that triggered the 
designation as a fee-diverting state)? Second, how should we treat 
states that are identified as diverters in a subsequent Commission 
annual 911 fee report to Congress? Should we prohibit such states from 
signing new leases until they establish they no longer divert 911 fees? 
Should we require them to cease diverting 911 fees within some period 
of time or else face termination of their leasing rights? If so, how 
long should they have to correct the error? Three months? One year? 
Three years? In the event a state begins diverting 911 fees, how do we 
ensure that any lessees are held harmless and can continue to access 
the spectrum they have leased? Does the Commission have authority to 
prohibit a lessee from making any payments to use the spectrum during a 
period in which a state is identified as a fee diverter? Third, should 
there be a new mechanism for states to challenge the Commission's 
inclusion of a state a fee-

[[Page 76510]]

diverter in annual fee reports, or is the ability to petition the 
Commission envisioned by today's Sixth Report and Order sufficient for 
these purposes?
    23. Finally, should we create alternative means of accessing unused 
spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band for serial diverters? Specifically, if the 
Commission's annual 911 fee report identifies a state as a diverter for 
three years in a row, should the Commission itself establish a band 
manager to oversee operations in the states? If so, should we do so 
through a request for proposal process? Or should we conduct an overlay 
auction in such states to allow a commercial operator full access to 
the 50-megahertz band (while protecting incumbent public safety uses)? 
In short, how can the Commission maximize use of 4.9 GHz band spectrum 
while further discouraging 911 fee diversion?
    24. Dynamic Spectrum Sharing. We seek comment on whether a dynamic 
spectrum access system in the 4.9 GHz band would make it easier for a 
State Lessor to implement the spectrum leasing structure adopted in the 
accompanying Sixth Report and Order. If so, which type of spectrum 
access systems would be most useful in this band? Would a State Lessor 
be more likely to engage in spectrum leasing if it could rely on 
dynamic spectrum sharing to ensure continued spectrum availability to 
suit the needs of public safety entities? How would such dynamic 
spectrum sharing arrangements work within a State Band Manager 
framework? As sharing between public safety and non-public safety 
operations increases, are there particular public safety operations 
that require protection above and beyond those currently found in the 
Commission's rules?
    25. The Commission has adopted rules facilitating dynamic spectrum 
access in several spectrum bands, including the TV white spaces, the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service, and the 6 GHz band. In those bands, 
the Commission enabled a range of different dynamic spectrum access 
solutions that could be implemented in the 4.9 GHz band. Could any of 
these different models help facilitate coordination of leasing and 
future public safety operations in this band? Commenters should discuss 
the costs and benefits of any proposed sharing regime, as well as the 
logistics of its implementation. What other rule changes or Commission 
actions would be required to foster dynamic spectrum access? If the 
Commission were to implement such a system, should it be mandatory or 
voluntary? How should it differ from existing dynamic spectrum access 
systems?
    26. Aeronautical Mobile Operations. In both the Fifth FNPRM and 
Sixth FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether to authorize 
aeronautical mobile operations in the 4.9 GHz band, which are currently 
prohibited by our rules. The Commission, however, has granted numerous 
waivers of the section 90.1205(c) prohibition on aeronautical use. 
Although we decline in the accompanying Sixth Report and Order to adopt 
any changes related to the band plan with respect to aeronautical 
mobile operations, we seek comment today on whether we should amend our 
rules to permit these operations given our new leasing framework. 
Commenters generally support our proposals related to aeronautical 
mobile operations, and we seek comment on the interplay of these 
operations and our new leasing framework, as well as a State Band 
Manager framework. If we permit aeronautical mobile operations in the 
band, should we permit transmissions by unmanned aerial systems or only 
manned aircraft? What are the costs and benefits of permitting 
aeronautical mobile operations in the 4.9 GHz band? Would such 
operations be likely to increase the potential for harmful interference 
to public safety operations, or to new non-public safety operations 
deployed in the band through leasing? Should the Commission make these 
decisions by rule or allow State Band Managers the flexibility to make 
these decisions?

II. Procedural Matters

    27. Regulatory Flexibility Act.--The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.''
    28. The Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of rule and policy 
change proposals in the Seventh FNPRM on small entities. The IRFA is 
set forth in Appendix E.
    29. Paperwork Reduction Act.--The Seventh Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking may result in new or revised information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''

III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    30. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as 
amended, the Commission has prepared this 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 Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Seventh 
FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. As required 
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended, the 
Commission has prepared this 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 
Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Seventh 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 for 
comments as specified in the Seventh FNPRM. The Commission will send a 
copy of the Seventh FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, 
the Seventh FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in 
the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    31. In the Seventh FNPRM, we propose to modify the licensing regime 
for the 4.9 GHz band to adopt licensing at the state level going 
forward to allow only state entities in states without a statewide 
licensee in the 4.9 GHz band to receive a new license. States with an 
existing statewide licensee will not see any new licensing, and local 
entities will not be permitted to obtain licenses. We seek comment on 
this proposal. We also propose to grandfather existing public safety 
licenses as of the date of the Freeze Public Notice and licensees 
granted pursuant to a waiver of, or modification of, the freeze, in 
order to protect incumbent public safety operations and will prohibit 
expansion of spectral rights by local entities other than through 
agreement with statewide

[[Page 76511]]

licensees. We seek comment on the appropriate scope and application of 
grandfathering if we adopted this proposal.
    32. In the Seventh FNPRM, we also seek comment on a new State Band 
Manager model for coordination of public safety entity access to the 
4.9 GHz band similar to the band manager model the Commission adopted 
in the 700 MHz band. Under this framework, the state government will be 
responsible for coordinating all 4.9 GHz band operations, whether 
through leasing (through the State Lessor role) or by public safety 
(through the State Band Manager role) in each state, as well as 
assisting in cross-jurisdictional cooperation to avoid harmful 
interference. This model will also ensure that each state determines 
the balance of public safety and non-public safety use that is best for 
its own situation. We seek comment on the role of the Commission in 
oversight of the decisions of the state government as part of its role 
as State Band Manager. We also seek comment on the extent to which 
states are equipped to take on such a management and coordination and 
the costs and benefits of this approach. Further, we seek comment on 
the future of individual site licensing under this model, and on the 
continued use of primary status for some sites in the band. In 
addition, we seek comment on the future of the band where no statewide 
licensee exists, or where the state chooses not to take on the role of 
State Band Manager or State Lessor. We also seek comment on whether and 
how we should permit access to the leasing framework for states that 
start or stop diverting 911 fees, including whether to have an 
exception for leasing solely to public safety entities, and if there 
should be a new mechanism for a state to challenge the Commission's 
designation of the state as a fee-diverter in annual fee reports.
    33. Finally, we seek comment on the implementation of this approach 
and any changes which can facilitate the transition to this model. 
Given our new leasing framework and a State Band Manager framework on 
which we seek comment, we seek comment on a proposal raised in the 
Sixth FNPRM to expand the data included in our Universal Licensing 
System to more comprehensively reflect 4.9 GHz band deployments beyond 
fixed site licenses, to include locations and other technical 
parameters of base station deployed through geographic area licenses. 
We also seek comment on whether and how to encourage cross-
jurisdictional cooperation, whether directly between State Lessors of 
different states or through regional planning committees and inquire 
whether to modify section 90.1211 of our rules to provide for a 
different role for regional planning committees in this process. Within 
the scope dynamic spectrum sharing, we ask whether we should implement 
rules similar to those governing the use of dynamic spectrum access 
systems in other spectrum bands (i.e. Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
and 6 GHz band), in the 4.9 GHz band to make the spectrum leases we 
authorize in the Sixth Report and Order and a new State Band Manager 
model we propose in the Seventh FNPRM easier to implement. Further, 
with respect to aeronautical mobile operations, we seek comment on 
whether we should amend our rules to permit these operations, given our 
new leasing approach and a proposed State Band Manager framework.

B. Legal Basis

    34. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 
4(j), 4(o), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, 332, and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
154(o), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, 332, and 403.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    35. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    36. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of 
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having 
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 30.7 
million businesses.
    37. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2018, there were 
approximately 571,709 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    38. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school 
districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, 
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at 
least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    39. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio 
(PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial, 
business, land transportation, and public safety activities. Companies 
of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories use these 
radios. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not 
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to 
PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses 
business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. The 
appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that 
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this 
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967 
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had 
employment of 999

[[Page 76512]]

or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. 
Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR licensees are small 
entities.
    40. According to the Commission's records, a total of approximately 
269,953 licenses comprise PLMR users. Of this number there are a total 
of 3,565 PLMR licenses in the 4.9 GHz band. The Commission does not 
require PLMR licensees to disclose information about number of 
employees, and does not have information that could be used to 
determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities under this 
definition. The Commission however believes that a substantial number 
of PLMR licensees may be small entities despite the lack of specific 
information.
    41. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a size standard for 
this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this industry in that 
year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees, 7 establishments operated with between 1,000 and 2,499 
employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or more employees. 
Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in 
this industry are small.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    42. The proposals in the Seventh FNPRM may impose new or additional 
reporting or recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations on small 
entities, if adopted. The Commission seeks comment on information 
collections related to the implementation of a State Band Manager 
model, and what entity that information should be submitted to. To the 
extent the Commission adopts a State Band Manager model similar to the 
Guard Band Manager model it adopted for the 700 MHz band, 
implementation of this model could include reporting by a State Band 
Manager on the policies and procedures (including recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements by small entities and other lessees in its 
jurisdiction) adopted to facilitate and manage shared use by non-public 
safety entities as well as annual reporting on information about the 
manner in which the spectrum is being utilized, including but not 
limited to the number and type of non-public safety entities operating 
in the band, the amount of spectrum being used by non-public safety 
entities pursuant to lease agreements with unaffiliated third parties, 
and the length of the term of such lease agreements.
    43. At this time, the Commission cannot quantify the cost of 
compliance for small entities if the proposals and other matters under 
consideration in the Seventh FNPRM are adopted, and is not in a 
position to determine whether small entities will be required to hire 
attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals to meet any 
compliance obligations. We expect the information we receive in 
comments to help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant matters 
for small entities, including compliance costs and other burdens that 
may result from the proposals and matters raised in the Seventh FNPRM.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    44. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    45. The Commission's reliance on policies and frameworks utilized 
in other spectrum bands as the basis of proposals and inquires in 
Seventh FNPRM potentially provides regulatory policies and frameworks 
that small entities are operationally familiar with and may therefore 
minimize any substantial economic impact if similar requirements are 
adopted in this proceeding. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of 
the economic impact on small entities as a result of the actions that 
have been proposed in this proceeding, and the options and alternatives 
for such entities, the Commission has raised questions and sought 
comment on these matters in the Seventh FNPRM. As part of the inquiry, 
the Commission has specifically requested that commenters include costs 
and benefit analysis data in their comments. The Commission is hopeful 
that the comments it receives will specifically address matters 
impacting small entities and include data and analyses relating to 
these matters. Further, while the Commission believes the rules that 
are eventually adopted in this proceeding should benefit small 
entities, whether public safety or non-public safety, by giving them 
more options for gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum, the 
Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact and 
alternatives for small entities following the review of comments filed 
in response to the Seventh FNPRM. The Commission's evaluation of such 
comments will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final 
alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this 
proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur 
on small entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    46. None.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    47. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
found in sections 4(i), 302, 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 405 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302a, 
303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 405, this Seventh Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    48. it is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90

    Communications equipment; Radio; Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.


[[Page 76513]]


    Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Proposed Rules

PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7), 
1401-1473.

0
2. Revise Sec.  90.1203 to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1203   Licensing.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 
no new licenses will be issued for the 4940-4990 MHz band. Licenses 
issued prior to the effective date of these rules are subject to 
renewal but may not be modified in any way to increase a licensee's 
spectral or geographic coverage.
    (b) Operations conducted pursuant to a license held by a State 
Lessor (as defined in Sec.  90.1217), whether conducted by the State 
Lessor or its lessee(s), are not limited to operations in support of 
public safety. All other operations in this band are limited to those 
in support of public safety.
    (c) Where there is no statewide license in a state, a state entity 
may apply for a license covering the entire state, provided it includes 
with Form 601 a letter, signed by the elected chief executive 
(Governor) for that state, or his or her designee, affirming that the 
entity is to act as the State Lessor for that state.
    (d) The following applications may also be submitted by entities 
holding a license under this subpart:
    (1) applications to renew existing licenses without modification;
    (2) applications that seek to modify existing licenses by deleting 
frequencies or fixed sites;
    (3) applications that seek to modify existing licenses by changing 
technical parameters in a manner that does not expand the station's 
spectral or geographic coverage, such as decreases in bandwidth, power 
level, or antenna height;
    (4) applications to assign or transfer;
    (5) notifications of construction for permanent fixed site licenses 
or consummation of assignments or transfers;
    (6) requests for extensions of time to construct or consummate 
previously granted assignment or transfer applications;
    (7) applications to cancel licenses;
    (8) applications for special temporary authority for short-term 
operations; and
    (9) applications from geographic area licensees that require 
individual licensing under Sec.  90.1207(b).

[FR Doc. 2020-23514 Filed 11-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P