Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band, 23323-23340 [2021-08801]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23323-23340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08801]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 15, 90, and 95

[ET Docket No. 19-138; FCC 20-164; FRS 17508]


Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission addresses issues remaining to 
finalize the restructuring of the 5.9 GHz band. Specifically, the 
Commission addresses: The transition of ITS operations in the 5.895-
5.925 GHz band from Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) based 
technology to Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X) based technology; 
the codification of C-V2X technical parameters in the Commission's 
rules; other transition considerations; and the transmitter power and 
emissions limits, and other issues, related to full-power outdoor 
unlicensed operations across the entire 5.850-5.895 GHz portion of the 
5.9 GHz band. The Commission modified the Further Notice released on 
November 20, 2020, with an Erratum released on December 11, 2020. The 
Commission released a Second Erratum on February 9, 2021. The 
corrections from these errata are included in this document.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before June 2, 2021; 
and reply comments on or before July 2, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 19-138, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    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: Jamie L. Coleman of the Office of 
Engineering and Technology, at 202-418-2705 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) in ET Docket No. 
19-138, FCC 20-164 adopted November 18, 2020, and released November 20, 
2020. The full text of the Further Notice, including all Appendices, is 
available by downloading the text from the Commission's website at 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-164A1.pdf. When the FCC 
Headquarters reopens to the public, the full text of this document also 
will be available for public inspection and copying during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20554. 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).

Comment Filing Procedures

    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, 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

[[Page 23324]]

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 & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document does not contain proposed information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act 
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose

    The proceeding this Further Notice initiates shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. Simultaneous with this Further Notice, the Commission adopted a 
First Report and Order that revised the band plan for the 5.9 GHz band, 
authorizing unlicensed use in the lower 45 megahertz of the band 
(5.850-5.895 GHz) and retaining the upper 30 megahertz of the band 
(5.895-5.925 GHz) for the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) radio 
service. As of the effective date of the First Report and Order, 
unlicensed indoor operations are permitted in the 5.850-5.895 GHz 
portion of the 5.9 GHz band, under specified power and other technical 
limitations designed to protect incumbent ITS service and federal radar 
operations from harmful interference. The Commission decided to 
consider requests for unlicensed outdoor operations in the 5.850-5.895 
GHz band through the Commission's existing regulatory process for 
individualized and temporary access to spectrum, to be coordinated with 
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 
to ensure that federal incumbents are protected from harmful 
interference.
    2. The Commission implemented a period of one year from the 
effective date of the First Report and Order for the ITS licensees to 
transition all operations into the 5.895-5.925 GHz portion of the band. 
The Commission further adopted rules designating C-V2X technology as 
the ITS delivery system once the Commission adopts a deadline and the 
transition to the revised ITS band is complete. Pending resolution of 
the transition of ITS operations to C-V2X, ITS licensees will be able 
to continue their DSRC-based operations or, alternatively, to seek to 
deploy C-V2X-based operations through the Commission's existing 
regulatory processes.
    3. In this Further Notice, we address the remaining issues to 
finalize the 5.9 GHz band restructuring. Specifically, the Further 
Notice addresses: (1) The transition of all ITS operations to C-V2X-
based technology; (2) the codification of C-V2X technical parameters in 
the Commission's rules; (3) other transition considerations; and (4) 
the transmitter power and emissions limits, and other issues, related 
to full-power outdoor unlicensed operations across the 5.850-5.895 GHz 
band.

II. Discussion

A. Transitioning Licensed ITS Operations in the 5.9 GHz Band to C-V2X 
Technology

    4. Under the First Report and Order, all existing ITS operations 
using channels in the lower 45 megahertz of the 5.9 GHz band (5.850-
5.895 GHz) are required to transition out of that spectrum into the 
upper 30 megahertz of the 5.9 GHz band (5.895-5.925 GHz) that will 
continue to be designated for ITS. ITS licensees must take necessary 
steps to assess their existing equipment and infrastructure and either 
retune their devices to access only the spectrum in the 30 megahertz 
that will remain available for ITS operations or replace their 
equipment with transmitters designed to use only the revised ITS band. 
In this Further Notice, we propose to address remaining issues that 
must be resolved regarding the transition of ITS from DSRC to C-V2X 
operations in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band, including the timing and 
procedures needed to ensure a smooth transition. We also seek comment 
on additional or alternative measures that may be helpful, appropriate, 
or necessary.
    5. Timeline. In the First Report and Order, we require that ITS 
operations in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band ultimately must use C-V2X 
technology. In order to complete the transition of the band to C-V2X, 
we propose that all ITS operations in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band either 
convert to C-V2X or cease operating two years after the effective date 
of a Second Report and Order to be adopted in response to this Further 
Notice. We seek comment on this proposal.
    6. Since the Commission first proposed in December 2019 to 
authorize C-V2X operations in the 5.9 GHz band, manufacturers and 
licensees have had significant time to begin planning for the possible 
entry of C-V2X into the band. We seek comment on the state of 
development and availability of C-V2X equipment, both roadside units 
(RSUs) and on-board units (OBUs). We believe that two-years beyond the 
effective date of the rules the Commission will adopt in the Second 
Report and Order will allow the ITS supply chains to become replete 
with C-V2X equipment. This timeframe is consistent with the Department 
of Transportation's view

[[Page 23325]]

that vehicle manufacturer product cycles necessitate two years lead 
time to ensure new V2X equipment is installed in new vehicles. And in 
some instances, this timeframe may not be needed as some commenters 
have explained that they have already deployed equipment that is both 
DSRC and C-V2X compatible. We seek comment on whether manufacturers can 
distribute C-V2X equipment through their existing supply chains, and on 
whether vehicle manufacturers can install C-V2X equipment into new 
vehicles, within this timeframe. Moreover, we expect that many 
licensees will begin planning for the eventual transition to C-V2X now 
and, thus, may take advantage of available opportunities to immediately 
operate C-V2X facilities in the upper 30 megahertz of the band under 
our STA, experimental licensing, or other existing regulatory process 
without first implementing interim DSRC operations. We seek comment on 
the number of licensees that may decide to operate in such a fashion 
and the number that plan to continue offering DSRC in the 30-megahertz 
band during the transition period. We assume that the transition 
process to C-V2X would primarily involve replacing DSRC transmitters 
with C-V2X transmitters, since we propose C-V2X technical rules 
consistent with the current rules for DSRC and therefore no antenna 
changes are needed to cover the same area based on the identical 
propagation characteristics between DSRC and C-V2X. We seek comment on 
the steps involved with converting all ITS operations in the 5.9 GHz 
band to C-V2X technology and the expected time to complete the entire 
process. We note that, as stipulated in the First Report and Order, 
licensees will not need to initiate changes to their authorizations 
when they transition to C-V2X; they simply will need to use equipment 
that meets the operational and technical rules the Commission will 
adopt in the Second Report and Order for C-V2X technology. If, however, 
a licensee needs to concurrently make adjustments to its system to add 
sites, increase power, or modify emissions, those changes will require 
modifications to the underlying RSU registration information.
    7. We also seek comment on how to treat DSRC OBUs at the final 
transition date. Can manufacturers or DSRC system operators send over-
the-air instructions to these units to turn off? Can OBUs be modified 
through software or hardware changes to operate using C-V2X-based 
technology? Absent other operating DSRC infrastructure (such as RSUs), 
would OBUs continue to communicate with each other and, if so, what 
would such communications entail? Is there any potential for harmful 
interference into C-V2X operations that could occur if DSRC OBUs 
continue to operate after the final transition date and, if so, how can 
such interference best be prevented? We seek comment on our proposed 
two-year sunset date for DSRC-based OBU operations and any alternative 
date that commenters might suggest. Commenters should be specific as to 
the merits of any date they recommend for ceasing DSRC operations in 
the 5.9 GHz band.
    8. We note that OBUs are licensed-by-rule under the part 95 
Personal Radio Services rules. ``Licensed-by-rule'' means that an 
authorized user can access the entire available spectrum without an 
individual station license document and is instead authorized to 
operate as long as the operations are in accordance with the applicable 
service rules. As a result, the Commission does not have detailed 
information and records on the exact number and location of users of 
such equipment. We seek comment on whether there are any specific 
issues related to modifying OBUs that are not reflected in the 
questions already raised. As an initial matter, we assume that most 
OBUs should be easily identified because very few vehicles sold to date 
are equipped with OBUs and the vast majority of existing units are 
associated with the various ITS trial programs occurring throughout the 
U.S. We seek comment on this notion. Are there estimates of the number 
of vehicles on the road today that incorporate DSRC-based OBUs 
independent of a trial or pilot program (i.e., as part of a commercial 
deployment of DSRC services)? Does the Commission need to take steps to 
make owners of these vehicles aware of the changes being adopted? Or 
would automobile manufacturers take primary responsibility for 
notifying their customers of these rule changes? If the Commission 
should make owners aware of rule changes affecting OBUs, then how 
should the Commission conduct such consumer outreach? Commenters should 
provide specific details to justify their positions regarding our 
proposals.
    9. Technical Parameters. The Commission's ITS rules set forth basic 
technical parameters such as power, height, and available channels. 
Further, to ensure interoperability within the ITS, DSRC operations are 
required to adhere to the provisions specified in the ASTM E2213-03 
Standard (ASTM-DSRC), which is incorporated by reference in the 
Commission's rules. These rules divide the current 5.9 GHz band into 
seven, 10-megahertz channels, with an allowance to combine two pairs of 
channels into 20-megahertz channels. Further, specific channels are 
intended for public safety use only; one channel in particular, the 
``control channel,'' which is outside the modified ITS band plan, is 
intended to be used for messages that coordinate channel usage and 
prioritize public safety messages. The modified ITS band plan 
eliminates the lower four, 10-megahertz channels, including the current 
control channel, and one of the public safety channels. These changes 
necessitate that we further propose to modify the ITS technical rules 
to ensure that ITS delivers its intended safety-related applications to 
the American public.
    10. Our goal is to facilitate a smooth transition and ensure that 
existing ITS services continue with minimal or no interruption. 
Accordingly, we must address the technical rules through the transition 
process whereby C-V2X will replace DSRC technology in the 5.9 GHz band 
and after that transition when C-V2X is the sole technology in the 5.9 
GHz ITS band. In the sections below, we seek comment on the technical 
considerations related to the simultaneous operation of DSRC and C-V2X 
in the 5.895-5.925 GHz portion of the 5.9 GHz band and, ultimately, 
exclusive operation of C-V2X in that band. In particular, as commenters 
consider the various technical issues addressed here, they should also 
frame their comments around considerations necessary during and after 
the transition. Specifically, for each technical issue, commenters 
should also answer whether there are technical issues that preclude 
simultaneous DSRC and C-V2X operations in this band. What spectral and/
or geographic separation requirements, if any, are necessary to prevent 
harmful interference between the two types of operations? As ITS 
licenses generally specify a defined geographic area and are required 
to operate within as small a ``communications zone'' as necessary, can 
we permit existing licensees to modify to C-V2X operations premised 
simply on not exceeding their existing footprint? Can new licensees be 
authorized to use C-V2X before the final transition date, provided that 
they avoid existing geographic licensed areas or simply avoid existing 
registered RSUs? Are there any adjacent-channel issues that need to be 
considered between DSRC and C-V2X to enable nearby operation? For 
example, do C-V2X operations in the upper 30 megahertz need to initiate 
any mitigation measures to accommodate DSRC operations that

[[Page 23326]]

continue in the lower 45 megahertz during the one-year transition 
period? What accommodations can be made to protect RSU sites operated 
pursuant to the four incumbent nationwide ITS authorizations? 
Commenters should consider how best to balance C-V2X band entry and co-
existence with DSRC during the transition period, in light of the 
technical rules we are proposing herein and recommend if there are any 
interim measures that may be needed to ensure short-term compatibility 
prior to exclusive C-V2X use. We also seek information informed by 
current C-V2X tests being conducted under experimental licenses as to 
how best to enable a smooth transition from DSRC to C-V2X.
    11. Bandwidth. We propose light touch changes to minimize 
disruption and simplify the transition from DSRC-based technology to C-
V2X-based technology. The existing ITS band plan contains three, 10-
megahertz channels that will comprise the new ITS band: Channels 180, 
182, and 184 corresponding to 5.895-5.905, 5.905-5.915 and 5.915-5.925 
GHz, respectively. We seek comment on whether this band plan, 
specifying three 10-megahertz channels, should continue for C-V2X. We 
also seek comment on whether the band plan should continue to 
accommodate combining two channels to provide a single 20-megahertz 
channel. Currently, channels 180 and 182 can be combined into channel 
181 (5.895-5.915 GHz). Should such channel combining be permitted under 
the modified ITS band plan? Alternatively, should channels 182 and 184 
be permitted to combine into a single 20-megahertz channel spanning 
5.905-5.925 GHz? Should the Commission permit maximum flexibility by 
allowing each of these potential channel combinations to be used as 
necessary to accommodate various ITS applications and services? What 
about allowing all three channels to be combined and used as a single 
30-megahertz channel? What are the consequences for any of these 
channel bandwidth choices on the deployment and adoption of C-V2X? How 
would a completely flexible band plan versus a prescriptive band plan 
affect the ability of C-V2X to maximize efficient use of the band? We 
seek comment on each of these possibilities and how best to strike the 
right balance to ensure efficient and effective band use can be 
maximized. Further, commenters should provide sufficient detail 
regarding their preferred band plan and how that may work with C-V2X 
and all other operational and technical rules that are addressed 
herein, such as power limits, out-of-band emissions (OOBE) limits, and 
channel use designations.
    12. The control channel and the public safety priority channel. 
Currently the rules designate channel 178 (5.885-5.895 GHz) as the 
control channel and channel 184 (5.915-5.925 GHz) as a public safety 
channel. We seek comment on whether there is a compelling reason to 
have specific use designations on any or all of the channels used by C-
V2X. Would designating any of the channels for a specific purpose, 
e.g., a control channel, help maximize band use efficiency? Does C-V2X 
need access to a control channel in a similar fashion as DSRC? If so, 
what is the best alternative for accommodating a control channel for C-
V2X? Commenters should provide specific reasoning to support their 
preference. How would any channel designation work with the potential 
flexibility to combine any two or all three channels?
    13. Commenters in favor of any channel designations should include 
detail regarding which designations they prefer we retain, which 
channel(s) those designations should pertain to, why they make those 
particular choices and how those choices will maximize use of the band 
and promote safety-related vehicular services. Alternatively, we could 
leave the issue of how best to use any of the channels to the 
standards-setting process and permit the industry to agree on use 
standards, but not designate those in our rules. We seek comment on the 
advantages and disadvantages of deferring to industry standardization 
processes in lieu of adopting prescriptive rules. Commenters in favor 
of using the standards process should also comment on expected 
timeframes for such bodies to produce relevant standards and how those 
timeframes complement the transition timeframe we propose in this 
Further Notice.
    14. Relatedly, the existing ITS rules lay out a hierarchical 
priority system for messages. Communications involving the safety of 
life have access priority over all other ITS communications. 
Communications involving public safety have the next priority level 
with a presumption that RSUs operated by state or local governmental 
entities are engaged in public safety priority communications. At the 
lowest tier of the hierarchy are non-priority communications, which are 
all other communications. We seek comment on whether to retain this 
message priority hierarchy for C-V2X deployment. Because the stated 
purpose of the ITS is to promote safety, our inclination is that this 
message prioritization system should be retained as it helps to ensure 
that the most important messages are successfully transmitted. This may 
become even more important as ITS operations must adjust to delivering 
service in less spectrum than under the current band plan. We seek 
comment on this position. Would such a system work with C-V2X? If we 
retain the channel designations, do they need to be modified for C-V2X? 
More broadly, are the existing channel designations and operating 
protocols still technically relevant under the new band plan? Further, 
commenters should address whether this priority system should be 
modified in any way. Should there be more granularity in the priority 
tiers? If so, then how should such messages be designated? Should they 
continue to be associated with specific types of licensees or should 
the message type be the determining factor? Should we continue to 
maintain a priority system based on our expectation that dedicated ITS 
spectrum will be used primarily (if not exclusively) for safety-of-life 
applications?
    15. Power and antenna height. The 5.9 GHz band ITS spectrum is 
shared and licensed on a non-exclusive geographic area basis based on 
geo-political boundaries. To maximize the use within this shared 
spectrum, the rules require that each registered RSU designate its 
intended area of operation or ``communication zone'' and that such 
communication zones be the smallest necessary. The rules provide for 
four communication zones designated ``A'' through ``D'' for coverage 
areas ranging from 15 meters to 1000 meters. Correspondingly, each zone 
is associated with a maximum permitted output power ranging from 0 dBm 
to 28.8 dBm. While this rule specifies output power, which is power 
supplied to the antenna, another rule specifies the maximum radiated 
power permitted on each channel ranging generally from 23 dBm to 33 
dBm, but permitting state and local government entities to radiate at 
higher levels on the control channel (channel 178) at up to 44.8 dBm 
and on the public safety priority channel (channel 184) at up to 40 
dBm. The Commission's rules also limit RSU antenna height as another 
way of ensuring these units do not transmit beyond their designated 
zone. RSU antenna height is limited to 8 meters at full power and may 
be as high as 15 meters with a corresponding power reduction. Notably, 
these rules working together require licensees in many cases to use 
directional antennas to attain the highest radiated power levels, which

[[Page 23327]]

also serves to focus the energy to only the desired coverage areas.
    16. We seek comment on what the appropriate power levels under the 
modified ITS band plan should be. As an initial matter, to maximize 
spectrum use among all users, we propose to retain the ``communication 
zone'' designations currently in the rules and require RSUs to specify 
their intended zone. We believe this will continue to ensure that 
stations only cover their intended area and provide opportunities for 
other licensees to install RSUs for other nearby areas without mutually 
interfering. We seek comment on this proposal and what effect, if any, 
it will have on C-V2X. 5GAA in a recent filing modified its initial 
position and now requests that the Commission delete the 
``communication zone'' rules. Thus, we ask commenters to address 
whether the current communication zone distance limits should be 
retained or are there reasons to modify or eliminate them? Should they 
provide for more extended coverage areas? Or smaller areas? Or are they 
effective without change? Commenters advocating changes to the 
communication zones should provide specific information on what limits 
they favor and why and what effect those changes will have on the 
ability for C-V2X to deploy new systems and continue operating into the 
future.
    17. We also seek comment on the appropriate output and radiated 
power levels that should be associated with each communication zone, 
channel, and user. The Commission, based on 5GAA's waiver petition, 
proposed in the 5.9 GHz NPRM power limits based on the most recent 3GPP 
standard (which at the time was Release 14). Specifically, the 
Commission proposed that C-V2X devices limit output power to no more 
than 20 dBm and limit EIRP to no more than 33 dBm. We are not aware of 
any changes to the power requirements in subsequent iterations of the 
3GPP standard and thus, propose that C-V2X RSUs comply with that limit. 
Should the rules continue to permit higher radiated power for state and 
local governmental entities? Or should the rules be consistent among 
all users as a way of maximizing spectrum use and controlling potential 
interference between users? Should we limit radiated power to 23 dBm as 
specified for some channels, 33 dBm as specified for others or some 
other value, such as permitting higher power on a control channel? 
Likewise, should we continue to specify both output power and radiated 
power levels for communication zone/channel combinations? Or would it 
be more appropriate to specify only a radiated power limit, as 
requested by 5GAA in its comments? Based on how parties envision future 
use of the ITS band, are there advantages to continuing to specify both 
limits and requiring certain installations to use directional antennas 
to reach maximum power?
    18. An alternative would be to specify power as a power density to 
normalize power for wider bandwidth channels, if we continue to permit 
such operations. We seek comment on whether that would serve C-V2X 
better than the current method, which associates a lower power density 
with wider bandwidth channels. We also seek comment on whether the 
current antenna height limitations are justified. Are there reasons to 
permit higher antenna heights? Should we continue to require that 
licensees reduce their power for higher antenna heights as a way of 
controlling coverage area and reducing the potential for interference? 
Further, we seek comment on whether we should specify measurement 
standards for equipment approval and compliance purposes. For example, 
should the Commission specify that these values should be measured as 
root mean square (i.e., average) or peak values? And should the 
Commission specify the resolution bandwidth settings for compliance 
measurements in the rules? Commenters should address these questions in 
conjunction with their comments regarding retention or modifications of 
the existing communication zones and provide technical information 
regarding their preference for rules and how they would work to ensure 
maximum access to the band.
    19. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should modify the power 
rules for C-V2X OBUs. The current rules specify a 1 mW output power 
maximum for portable OBUs. As with RSUs, the Commission proposed in the 
5.9 GHz NPRM limits compatible with the 3GPP Release 14 standard for C-
V2X vehicular and portable (i.e. on-board) units, which would limit 
output power to no more than 20 dBm and EIRP to no more than 23 dBm. We 
believe these power levels continue to be appropriate for C-V2X 
vehicular and portable devices and propose those levels here. 5GAA, 
however, recently requested that the Commission eliminate the output 
power requirement and increase the OBU EIRP limit to 33 dBm. Should we 
adopt this higher power level instead? What effect would such an 
increase have on the ability of C-V2X RSUs to co-exist with and protect 
federal radiolocation stations? In commenting on these power levels, 
commenters should keep in mind the need to simultaneously ensure that 
such portable OBUs comply with the Commission's RF radiation exposure 
limits.
    20. We also seek comment on how we should handle the standards 
issue with respect to C-V2X. The 5.9 GHz NPRM sought comment on 
incorporating 3GPP Release 14 by reference in the Commission's rules. 
We did not receive significant comment on this issue. Subsequent to the 
NPRM, in July 2020, 3GPP announced the completion of Release 16, which 
further enhanced the 5G network capabilities, including C-V2X that were 
addressed in Release 15.
    21. The 3GPP Release 14 standard referenced in this Notice is 
formally known as: 3GPP TR 21.914 V14.0.0 (2018-05) 3rd Generation 
Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System 
Aspects; Release 14 Description; Summary of Rel-14 Work Items (Release 
14). Release 14, inter alia, focuses on introducing Vehicle-to-
Everything (V2X) communications, in particular Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) 
communications. The V2X feature encompasses all aspects of the 3GPP 
work needed to support vehicle-based communications: Enhancements of 
the air interface, protocols, and impacts on the Long Term Evolution 
(LTE) core network. Release 14 defines two modes of operation for V2X 
communication (V2X communication via direct over-the-air connections 
between user equipment and V2X communication over the LTE network 
interface), which may be used by user equipment independently for 
transmission and reception. Release 14 also defines service 
requirements (e.g., message transfer latency) for typical V2X 
applications; specifies architecture enhancements for LTE support of 
V2X services (e.g., V2X architectures, functional entities involved for 
V2X communications, interfaces, provisioned parameters, and 
procedures); and specifies security aspects (e.g., security aspects for 
LTE-based V2X communication, including security architecture, security 
requirements, as well as procedures and solutions to meet those 
requirements). Release 14 specifies core network and user equipment 
protocol aspects, including protocols for V2X authorization between 
user equipment and the V2X Control Function, communication among user 
equipment, and communication between the user equipment and the V2X 
Application Server over the LTE interface. Release 14 also describes 
support for V2V services based on LTE sidelink communications (direct 
communication

[[Page 23328]]

between two LTE devices without going through a base station).
    22. In light of the evolution of the C-V2X standard to a 5G network 
technology, we seek comment on whether our rules should incorporate the 
3GPP standard by reference. Commenters in favor of incorporation by 
reference should also provide details regarding which version should be 
incorporated--Release 14 which is based on LTE technology or Release 16 
which incorporates 5G technology. Commenters who advocate for Release 
16 should address how vehicular safety applications will be delivered 
to all users given that 5G is not backwards compatible with LTE. One 
alternative could be to incorporate Release 14 now with a planned 
transition to Release 16 (or the current version) at some date certain 
in the future. We seek comment on such an option. Alternatively, is 
there a compelling argument for not incorporating any C-V2X standard 
into the rules? We seek comment on each of these options. Commenters 
should address how the option they favor would promote safety services 
among all users. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should only 
incorporate by reference specific aspects of either the 3GPP Release 14 
or Release 16 standard? If so, which sections? Or if the Commission 
does not incorporate by reference any 3GPP standard, are there portions 
of the standard that need to be placed in our rules? Given our adoption 
of C-V2X as the sole technology permitted in the 5.9 GHz ITS band after 
the transition, Continental has raised concerns about the resolution of 
potential licensing disputes regarding that technology. We also request 
comment on this issue.
    23. C-V2X OOBE limits. Because the existing rules for DSRC do not 
specify OOBE limits necessary to protect adjacent band services from 
harmful interference, the Commission sought comment in the 5.9 GHz NPRM 
on appropriate OOBE limits for C-V2X devices. Regardless of whether we 
incorporate the 3GPP standard or not, we continue to believe it is good 
practice to adopt specific OOBE limits into our rules. Doing so would 
provide equipment manufacturers with clear guidelines for equipment 
approval compliance. Furthermore, it would provide adjacent-channel 
licensees and equipment manufacturers with clear guidelines regarding 
the expected spectrum environment so they can incorporate appropriate 
filters and mitigation measures into their products to protect from 
harmful interference from adjacent channel emissions. Because our 
previous proposals were consistent with the current 3GPP standard, we 
propose the same OOBE limits for C-V2X here as we did in the 5.9 GHz 
NPRM. Specifically, we propose that all C-V2X equipment limit OOBE 
limits measured at the antenna input (i.e., conducted limits) to: -29 
dBm/100 kHz at the band edge; -35 dBm/100 kHz  1 megahertz 
from the band edge; -43 dBm/100 kHz  10 megahertz from the 
band edge; and -53 dBm  20 megahertz from the band edge. We 
also propose to limit out-of-band radiated emissions to -25 dBm/100 kHz 
EIRP or less outside the band edges of 5.895 GHz and 5.925 GHz.
    24. We seek comment on these OOBE limits and whether they continue 
to be appropriate for C-V2X equipment. In this connection, we note that 
5GAA recently requested that we adopt more relaxed OOBE requirements. 
It specifically requests that RSUs limit OOBE to: -16 dBm/100 kHz 
 1 megahertz of the band edge; -13 dBm/MHz  5 
megahertz of the band edge; -16 dBm/MHz  30 megahertz of 
the band edge; and -28 dBm/MHz beyond 30 megahertz from the band edges.
    25. Should we adopt these alternative OOBE limits instead? What 
would the effect of these relaxed limits be on the ability to design 
and manufacture C-V2X equipment? How would they affect equipment cost? 
Will these limits ensure compatibility with adjacent U-NII devices in 
both the U-NII-4 and U-NII-5 bands, which are below and above the 
modified ITS band, respectively? What effect would these limits have on 
adjacent band fixed services in the 6 GHz band? We also seek comment on 
the measurement standards that should be associated with equipment 
approval compliance for verifying that C-V2X equipment meets whatever 
OOBE limits we adopt.
    26. Other Transition Considerations. In 5.9 GHz NPRM, we requested 
comment generally on the various transition-related considerations that 
we should take into account if we adopted our proposal to provide only 
30 megahertz for ITS. For example, we asked about any re-channelization 
of DSRC-based operations in the upper 30 megahertz or the migration of 
ITS to C-V2X-based technology in the spectrum that remains reserved for 
ITS. To inform our consideration of issues relating to transitioning of 
ITS operations, we asked that commenters provide up-to-date information 
on actual DSRC operations under existing licenses (including the number 
of RSUs and OBUs) and the various uses that have been implemented. The 
Commission received several comments that involved some estimation of 
the potential cost considerations associated with these transition 
issues.
    27. We take this opportunity to update the record on our inquiry in 
the 5.9 GHz band NPRM regarding transition cost considerations in light 
of the 5.9 GHz band plan that we have adopted in the First Report and 
Order. We recognize that, in light of our decision, commenters will be 
in a much better position to evaluate the necessary transitions of 
their respective systems We note that many of the DSRC projects 
appeared to be associated with demonstration projects designed to 
address particular traffic and safety concerns, and we seek any updates 
about DSRC demonstration projects or deployment, as well as any C-V2X 
demonstration or pilot projects, including any funding grants that have 
been provided or are anticipated. As the U.S. DOT has indicated, ITS 
operations to date have received substantial research and deployment 
investments, including federal, state, and local investment, over the 
years, and we seek comment on the availability of that or similar 
funding for transitioning associated with the new band plan for ITS. To 
what extent can existing funding at the federal or state or local level 
readily be used with regard to the necessary transition costs, 
including use of C-V2X-based technology?
    28. While we did not propose in the 5.9 GHz NPRM to provide 
compensation for such relocation, we nonetheless seek further comment, 
including suggestions on which particular types of costs should be 
considered as appropriate for possible compensation (including how such 
costs would be documented) as well as the process by which such 
compensation might be determined or implemented. Finally, we request 
comment on any other actions the Commission should consider that would 
be helpful to ITS licensees with respect to these transition matters.
    29. We seek comment on whether we should limit use of the 5.895-
5.925 GHz band to non-commercial services or safety-of-life 
applications. Open Technology Institute at New America and Public 
Knowledge previously filed a petition for rulemaking asking the 
Commission to prohibit commercial operations in ITS spectrum. Should we 
modify our rules to prohibit commercial operations in this spectrum or 
otherwise limit services to safety-of-life applications? How would the 
Commission define ``safety-of-life'' applications? How would the 
Commission delineate between safety-of-life and non-safety-of-life 
applications? In such instances, would the Commission need to 
specifically list

[[Page 23329]]

permitted applications in its rules or would a general prohibition 
suffice? Or, could such a prohibition on commercial operations be 
accomplished by limiting license eligibility to only certain licensees, 
such as governmental entities or entities eligible for licensing in the 
Private Land Mobile Radio Service Public Safety Pool under part 90? At 
what point would a use or licensing restriction so alter the current 
authorizations so as to constitute a fundamental license change that 
would exceed the Commission's authority to effectuate under section 316 
of the Communications Act, as amended? We seek comment on the 
challenges and benefits associated with adopting restrictions on the 
types of ITS services that may operate in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band.

B. More Flexible Use of Unlicensed Service

    30. The First Report and Order takes an initial step at providing 
unlicensed U-NII device access to the 5.850-5.895 GHz band. Our 
decision to generally restrict U-NII devices to indoor locations until 
ITS operations transition to the 5.895-5.925 GHz band provides 
flexibility for unlicensed devices to begin using the 5.850-5.895 GHz 
band, but in a way that avoids the potential for harmful interference 
to vehicular safety-related applications. Once ITS operations have 
finished transitioning to the upper 30 megahertz, however, we can 
permit outdoor operations at full power, subject to such outdoor use 
protecting from harmful interference both co-channel federal 
radiolocation operations (which will remain in the band) and adjacent-
band ITS operations.
    31. Federal Radiolocation System Protection from Outdoor Unlicensed 
Operations. In the 5.9 GHz NPRM, we sought comment on whether there are 
any mitigation measures, such as technical or operational conditions or 
constraints that the Commission should consider for U-NII-4 operations 
to protect federal radars in the 5.9 GHz band. Comcast submitted that 
the Commission should adopt its proposal to implement the same 
technical rules as U-NII-3 with respect to U-NII-4 devices and federal 
DoD radar operations. WISPA agreed with the Commission's suggestion 
that no other mitigation measures are required to protect DoD radar 
operations in the 5.9 GHz band from U-NII-4 devices. NCTA stated that 
the Commission should adopt its proposal to authorize U-NII-4 devices 
without requiring any special frequency avoidance techniques or similar 
constraints since U-NII-3 devices have shared spectrum with co-channel 
federal incumbents for years without any specialized frequency 
avoidance techniques, and in general sharing has been successful.
    32. NTIA reviewed the federal radar operations authorized in the 
5.9 GHz band and determined that the number of radar sites needing 
protection could be reduced to from 59 to 30 sites. NTIA's analysis 
concludes that exclusion zones are needed to protect federal 
radiolocation systems only from U-NII-4 outdoor point-to-point (P2P) 
and point-to-multipoint (P2MP) devices. The exclusion zones recommended 
by NTIA are set forth in Table 2 of its Sept. 8, 2020 letter. To 
enforce the exclusion zones, NTIA recommends that interference 
mitigation techniques such as geo-fencing be employed to protect 
federal radiolocation operations. NTIA emphasizes that it is important 
that outdoor U-NII devices are not permitted to operate inside of these 
exclusion zones to ensure that federal radiolocation systems are 
protected from harmful interference. NTIA also requests that the new 
rules make clear that it may authorize additional exclusion zones or 
modify the existing exclusion zones listed in Table 2 as necessary to 
ensure federal radiolocation stations are protected.
    33. We agree that some mitigation measures are needed to ensure 
that outdoor U-NII point-to-point and point-to-multipoint operations do 
not cause harmful interference to federal radiolocation systems. We 
seek comment on whether exclusion zones would be the best method for 
ensuring such protection. We note that some commenters express 
disagreement with the technical analysis provided by NTIA, including 
questioning whether NTIA's interference analysis is consistent with the 
assumptions in the 6 GHz Report and Order. We seek comment on NTIA's 
technical analysis, as well as comment on any alternate methods for 
determining the parameters of exclusion zones. Commenters advocating 
opinions that differ from NTIA's analysis should provide specific 
technical detail and analysis regarding how unlicensed devices would 
provide the required protection to federal radars. Alternatively, are 
other protection mechanisms, such as coordination, feasible methods of 
protecting federal operations in certain areas? Commenters favoring 
coordination or other methods should describe how such methods can be 
implemented and maintained such that federal radar operators have 
assurances that their installations are and continue to be protected 
from harmful interference in the future as more unlicensed devices may 
be installed or existing devices may be relocated.
    34. Compliance with an exclusion zone implies some degree of 
location awareness, either within a device or by an installer. In 
crafting rules for outdoor use, we seek to protect important DoD radars 
from harmful interference, provide flexibility to U-NII system 
operators, minimize equipment complexity and capitalize on the greatest 
degree of harmonization with U-NII-3 devices as possible. We seek 
comment on how best to adopt rules that satisfy each of these goals to 
the greatest extent possible.
    35. The Commission has required other unlicensed devices to 
incorporate geographic awareness (i.e., a geolocation capability) and 
use a database to avoid areas where the potential for causing harmful 
interference would exist. For example, white space devices are required 
to incorporate a geolocation capability and check a white space 
database for a list of available channels before they can operate and 6 
GHz standard power U-NII devices are similarly required to incorporate 
a geolocation capability and consult an automated frequency 
coordination database prior to operating to avoid causing harmful 
interference to fixed service incumbents. Should the Commission require 
a similar system here? The advantage of using geolocation and a 
database is that such systems have already been successfully deployed 
and we believe protecting only 30 federal radiolocation sites would be 
a relatively simple undertaking under this regime. But incorporating 
geolocation capability does increase the complexity of a device and add 
overhead (both hardware and software) necessary for such a system to 
work. In addition, requiring U-NII-4 devices to operate in this manner 
would entail many differences from U-NII-3 device operation and could 
limit their usefulness in providing the ability to use a 160-megahertz 
wide channel that spans the U-NII-3 and U-NII-4 bands. On the other 
hand, we expect many devices to operate throughout all the U-NII bands 
including the 6 GHz U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands which would already 
require this capability. For example, we expect that new devices would 
have capability to operate across multiple bands including the 5.150-
5.250 U-NII-1 band, the 5.725-5.850 U-NII-3 band, the 5.850-5.895 GHz 
U-NII-4 band, the 5.925-6.425 U-NII-5 band and the 6.525-6.875 U-NII-7 
band. In this case, how difficult would it be to similarly add the 
geolocation and database capability to U-NII-4 devices? Would there be 
any

[[Page 23330]]

incremental cost for incorporating such a requirement? How would such a 
requirement affect the utility of U-NII-4 devices and their ability to 
work seamlessly with U-NII-3 devices to deliver applications over a 
160-megahertz channel? If we were to adopt such a requirement, we 
anticipate the rules being consistent with the 6 GHz automatic 
frequency coordination rules, except that the exclusion zones are 
already known and do not need to be calculated by the automated 
frequency coordination system. We seek comment on using the 6 GHz 
framework for outdoor U-NII-4 devices.
    36. Because the U-NII-4 band exclusion zones are known in advance, 
are there simpler methods for ensuring that outdoor U-NII-4 devices 
respect the need to avoid operating near the federal radiolocation 
systems? For example, could we simply rely on professional installation 
to ensure that outdoor U-NII-4 devices do not operate in those areas? 
Under a professional installation regime, what rules and requirements 
would the Commission need to put in place to ensure that U-NII-4 
devices do not operate in any of the exclusion zones? Similarly, 
because these exclusion zones are known, could devices simply have a 
geolocation capability and either be preloaded with the exclusion zone 
coordinates and/or download those coordinates once or on a periodic 
basis, such as every time the device is turned on or at some set 
interval (e.g., once a week or once a month)? We seek comment on 
whether this is a viable alternative to the other suggested methods. 
Commenters in favor of such a mitigation method should provide detailed 
comment regarding how the internal device database would work, the 
necessary update frequency, and the costs involved in developing 
equipment. We also seek comment on other alternatives that achieve the 
same goal; that is, methods that achieve the required protection and 
are easy and cost effective to implement and maximize utility of the U-
NII-4 band.
Outdoor Unlicensed Operations Transmitted Power and Emissions Limits
    37. Transmitter Power. In the 5.9 GHz NPRM, the Commission proposed 
that U-NII-4 devices be permitted to operate at the same power levels 
(e.g., radiated power, power spectral density) as U-NII-3 devices and 
sought comment on whether it should adopt different power levels.
    38. The Wi-Fi Alliance agrees that the Commission should adopt its 
proposal to apply the same power levels (radiated power, PSD) to U-NII-
4 devices as apply to U-NII-3 devices because their efficacy has been 
proven by years of application in practice. Wi-Fi Alliance contends 
that to recognize the full benefit of the U-NII-4 spectrum, including 
expanded operations of existing U-NII devices, the technical rules 
governing the band must be aligned with the rules covering the U-NII-3 
band; permitting U-NII-4 devices to operate at the same power levels as 
U-NII-3 devices will maximize the utility of both bands. It states that 
if a different power level is adopted for the U-NII-4 band, U-NII 
devices would not be able to operate across both the U-NII-3 and U-NII-
4 bands, eliminating the potential use of wider channels, equipment 
commonality, reduced cost and complexity, superior performance, and 
other benefits that may be realized by the Commission's proposal. WISPA 
states the Commission's proposal to allow U-NII-4 devices to operate at 
the same power level as U-NII-3 devices is a sensible and efficient 
approach and consistent with WISPA's recommendations in ET Docket No. 
13-49 in that it would permit higher-EIRP fixed wireless operations 
that will enable use of the 5.9 GHz band for rural broadband 
deployment, including both outdoor point-to-point operations and point-
to-multipoint operations. Comcast asserts that harmonizing the U-NII-4 
technical rules with those of the U-NII-3 band, particularly the 
Commission's proposal to allow U-NII-4 devices to operate at the same 
power levels as U-NII-3 devices, would substantially improve its 
ability to bring the band into use for consumers quickly and to put it 
to its best use. NCTA states that applying the U-NII-3 power limits to 
U-NII-4 will enable network operators and device manufacturers to build 
on the success of U-NII-3. Microsoft states that extending the U-NII-3 
technical rules to the U-NII-4 band, except for the existing OOBE 
limits, will enable the public to realize the maximum benefits from the 
U-NII-4 band, including accelerating the timeline for initial 
deployments using this 45 megahertz of spectrum; establishing the same 
power levels in the U-NII-4 band as in the U-NII-3 band is essential 
for deployment of larger channels.
    39. On the other hand, 5GAA and Qualcomm separately recommend that 
the Commission impose a power spectral density limit to protect C-V2X 
receivers from portable client devices that may be operating 
temporarily outdoors with relaxed OOBE limits but connected to an 
indoor access point in the U-NII-4 band, but did not recommend any 
specific limit. Car 2 Car and US Technical Advisory Group separately 
urge the Commission to revisit its proposals for maximum transmit power 
from U-NII-4 devices to avoid harmful interference to ITS operations, 
but did not recommend any specific level for the maximum transmit 
power. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation expresses concern that 
the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) 
testing, which showed varying levels of harmful interference, 
underestimates the potential for harmful interference from unlicensed 
operations, since the NHTSA's tests were conducted with a 36 dBm EIRP, 
but fixed point-to-point U-NII devices could operate at power levels of 
62 dBm EIRP using 5G antennas that have 32 dBi of gain. Qualcomm also 
expresses concern that outdoor point-to-point unlicensed operations 
with high EIRP signals in the U-NII-4 band could have serious 
performance impacts to installed RSUs and create C-V2X dead zones when 
vehicles pass nearby, regardless of the OOBE level. Intelligent 
Transportation Society of America (ITSA) also expresses concern that 
outdoor unlicensed point-to-point U-NII-4 band operations from a tower 
or rooftop alongside a roadway could cause harmful interference to ITS 
receivers.
    40. For outdoor operation of U-NII-4 access point device after ITS 
operations move out of the U-NII-4 band, we propose a radiated power of 
23 dBm/MHz or 36 dBm radiated power for all bandwidths. When combined 
with U-NII-3-band spectrum, outdoor access point EIRP can scale to 36 
dBm for 40, 80, and 160 megahertz channels. We agree with the Wi-Fi 
Alliance that permitting U-NII-4 devices to operate at the same power 
levels as U-NII-3 devices is essential to achieving the full benefits 
of the U-NII-4 band and maximizing the utility of both bands while 
protecting incumbent operations in the U-NII-4 band from harmful 
interference. Allowing outdoor U-NII-4 devices to operate at the full 
power level permitted for U-NII-3 devices will enable the use of wider 
channels, promote equipment commonality, reduce costs and complexity, 
and facilitate broadband deployments in rural areas, including both 
outdoor point-to-point operations and point-to-multipoint operations. 
However, to avoid the need for much larger unlicensed exclusion zones 
where unlicensed operations would be prohibited in order to protect 
federal radar operations from harmful

[[Page 23331]]

interference, we propose not to adopt the U-NII-3 point-to-point power 
limits in the U-NII-4 rules. We also propose that client devices be 
permitted to operate in the 5.850-5.895 GHz band at power levels that 
are 6 dB lower than those permitted for outdoor access point devices. 
We seek comment on these proposals.
    41. OOBE Limits. In the 5.9 GHz NPRM, the Commission proposed that 
U-NII-4 devices, or devices that operate across a single channel that 
spans the U-NII-3 and U-NII-4 bands, meet the same OOBE limits as U-
NII-3 devices at the upper and lower edges of those bands with no limit 
at the U-NII-3/U-NII-4 band edge. Proponents of ITS suggest that U-NII-
4 devices, or devices that operate across a single channel that spans 
the U-NII-3 and U-NII-4 bands, meet OOBE limits that are much more 
restrictive than the existing U-NII-3 OOBE limits to protect adjacent-
band ITS operations. Under GM's suggestion (-27 dBm/MHz at or above 
5.905 GHz), U-NII-4 devices' OOBE would need to be 15 dB lower than the 
OOBE limit (-12 dBm/MHz) for a U-NII-3 device at the same frequency; 
under the suggestion from Car 2 Car, IEEE 1609 Working Group, US 
Technical Advisory Group, and Volkswagen (-40 dBm/MHz at 10 megahertz 
above the band edge), U-NII-4 devices' OOBE would need to be 
approximately 28 dB lower than the OOBE limit (-12 dBm/MHz) for a U-
NII-3 device at the same frequency.
    42. Proponents of unlicensed operations suggest more relaxed OOBE 
limits for outdoor unlicensed operations in the U-NII-4 band than 
proposed in the 5.9 GHz NPRM. WISPA submits that outdoor U-NII-4 
operations' OOBE be limited to -5 dBm/MHz at or above 5.895 GHz. 
Broadcom, CableLabs, Facebook, and NCTA together suggest that OOBE for 
outdoor U-NII-4 operations be limited to 7 dBm/MHz at 5.895 GHz, 
decreasing linearly to -9 dBm/MHz at 5.925 GHz, measured using the root 
mean square (RMS) method (agreed to by 5GAA for the top of the 5.9 GHz 
band), to address concerns raised by ITS stakeholders. They claim that 
-9 dBm at 5.925 GHz will provide more than adequate protection for 
adjacent ITS operations and is consistent with the roll-off of the IEEE 
802.11ac and 802.11ax emissions masks. They also assert that this limit 
would allow 5.9 GHz-capable Wi-Fi devices to deliver sufficient power 
and throughput to consumers to enable the wide range of use cases--
including enhanced in-home Wi-Fi speeds and coverage to support remote 
learning, telemedicine, and other high-bandwidth applications, as well 
as more accessible large-scale connectivity to support smart city and 
agricultural applications in communities across the country--that make 
the 5.9 GHz band a unique opportunity; too restrictive an OOBE limit 
would make these kinds of use cases impossible.
    43. The Wi-Fi Alliance recommends a more nuanced approach based on 
a the -27 dBm/MHz limit at or above 5.925 GHz that the Commission has 
effectively applied to U-NII-3 transmissions to protect ITS operations. 
Specifically, for outdoor U-NII-4 band devices, Wi-Fi Alliance proposes 
OOBE limits that mirror the existing limits for U-NII-3 devices at and 
above 5.895 GHz (i.e., -5 dBm/MHz at 5.895 GHz, decreasing linearly to 
-27 dBm/MHz at 5.925 GHz). The Wi-Fi Alliance asserts that these U-NII-
3 OOBE limits have proven to be effective in protecting ITS; there is 
no basis for imposing more stringent OOBE limits on operations in the 
U-NII-4 band since the Commission has already affirmed that the U-NII-3 
OOBE limits afford sufficient protection to DSRC systems and C-V2X 
operations do not require greater protection than DSRC operations. The 
Wi-Fi Alliance argues that the Commission should reject arguments for 
more restrictive OOBE limits because imposing prohibitively burdensome 
and unnecessary band coexistence measures on U-NII-4 devices would 
preclude commercial viability of this band and defeat the objective of 
making additional spectrum available for unlicensed operations. The Wi-
Fi Alliance also supports applying the existing U-NII-3 OOBE limits at 
the lower edge of the U-NII-3 band for outdoor U-NII-4 devices, or 
devices that operate across a single channel that spans the U-NII-3 and 
U-NII-4 bands, i.e., at 5.725 GHz, while not imposing any OOBE limit 
for U-NII-4 devices at the U-NII-3/U-NII-4 band edge (i.e., at 5.850 
GHz).
    44. For outdoor U-NII-4 access point devices or outdoor access 
point devices that operate across a single channel that spans the U-
NII-3 and U-NII-4 bands, we propose the outdoor U-NII-4 OOBE limits 
recommended by the Wi-Fi Alliance of -5 dBm/MHz at 5.895 GHz, 
decreasing linearly to -27 dBm/MHz at 5.925 GHz, measured using an RMS 
measurement. We are not convinced that the more relaxed OOBE limits 
suggested by unlicensed proponents would adequately protect ITS 
operations from harmful interference since they are less restrictive 
than existing U-NII-3 OOBE limits. We are also not convinced that the 
more stringent OOBE limits suggested by ITS proponents are necessary to 
protect adjacent-band ITS operations since they are more restrictive 
than the existing U-NII-3 OOBE limits, which the Commission previously 
affirmed would protect DSRC operations and have already proven to be 
effective in protecting ITS operations from harmful interference. We 
also propose to apply the existing U-NII-3 OOBE limits at the lower 
edge of the U-NII-3 band for outdoor U-NII-4 devices, or devices that 
operate across a single channel that spans the U-NII-3 and U-NII-4 
bands, i.e., at 5.725 GHz, while not imposing any OOBE limits for U-
NII-4 devices at the U-NII-3/U-NII-4 band edge, i.e., at 5.850 GHz. We 
believe that these limits will protect adjacent-band ITS operations 
from harmful interference due to unlicensed operations in the U-NII-4 
band, support separate U-NII-3 and U-NII-4 bands to provide flexibility 
for designing U-NII-3 equipment under the less stringent OOBE rules at 
the upper edge of the band, and provide flexibility for devices to 
operate across the U-NII-3 and U-NII-4 bands using the widest channel 
bandwidths permitted under the IEEE 802.11 standard. We seek comment on 
these proposals.
    45. Protection of Fixed-Satellite Service Operations. In the First 
Report and Order in this proceeding, we declined to adopt SES 
Americom's and Intelsat's suggestion to establish a maximum permissible 
aggregate power limit for U-NII-4 band unlicensed devices' operations 
that would be monitored and controlled by an Automatic Frequency 
Coordination (AFC) system to help protect FSS operations. However, as a 
precautionary measure to further protect FSS operations from harmful 
interference, we propose to require U-NII-4 band outdoor access points 
to limit the maximum EIRP above a 30 degree elevation angle to 21 dBm, 
which is similar to what the Commission already requires in the U-NII-
1, U-NII-5, and U-NII-7 bands to protect FSS operations. This skyward 
restriction should address SES Americom's and Intelsat's concerns about 
potential aggregate interference from U-NII-4 band unlicensed 
operations. Since we do not expect outdoor access points to radiate 
significant power skyward, we do not believe this requirement will 
impose a burden on or affect the utility of outdoor access point users.
    46. We do not find it necessary to propose to restrict the power 
radiated upward from U-NII-4 client devices as we propose to require 
for outdoor access points. We believe it is unlikely that relatively 
low-power unlicensed devices

[[Page 23332]]

will cause harmful interference to receivers on geostationary 
satellites approximately 35,800 km above the equator and seek comment. 
We propose to limit upward power from outdoor U-NII-4 access points 
merely as a precautionary measure, as they are more likely to operate 
with higher power. While client devices can operate with an EIRP as 
high as 30 dBm (6 dB lower than access points' maximum allowed power), 
we find that they are less likely to cause interference to satellite 
receivers than similarly powered outdoor access points due to the 
nature of their operation. We expect them to generally operate at much 
lower power levels to maximize battery life and comply with 
radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits. In addition, client devices 
communicate with access points in an asymmetric nature, in that 
relatively little data is transmitted in the uplink direction (i.e. 
from the client device) as compared to the downlink direction where any 
single access point may be serving many client devices. Moreover, 
client devices typically operate with omnidirectional antennas at low 
antenna heights and in a mobile or portable mode (i.e., not installed 
in permanent outdoor locations). Thus, we expect that upwardly directed 
client device emissions will often be at low power levels and shielded 
to some extent by buildings, foliage, or other obstructions. We seek 
comment on these proposals and conclusions.
    47. Increased Transmit Power for Indoor U-NII-4 Access Points. In 
the First Report and Order, we adopt a 20 dBm/MHz limit for indoor U-
NII-4 access points, largely to protect co-channel ITS incumbent 
operations. We propose that indoor U-NII-4 devices be permitted to 
increase power to 23 dBm/MHz or 36 dBm radiated power for all 
bandwidths upon the later of one year following the effective date of 
the First Report and Order (i.e., the date by when ITS operations must 
transition out of the 5.850-5.895 GHz band) or the effective date of a 
Second Report and Order adopting these proposed power increases. We 
seek comment on this proposal. We note that these proposed limits are 
consistent with NTIA's radiolocation protection analysis. In making 
this proposal, we do not propose to change any other aspect of indoor 
U-NII-4 devices; they would still be required to incorporate all the 
mitigation features we adopted in the First Report and Order, including 
the requirement to obtain power from a wired connection, a prohibition 
on weatherized enclosures and a requirement for an integrated antenna. 
Client devices would be limited to power levels 6 dB below the power 
limits for access points.
    48. U-NII-4 Client to Client Communications. The rules adopted in 
the First Report and Order prohibit U-NII-4 client-to-client 
communications to protect co-channel incumbent ITS operations and 
federal radiolocation stations. But only the federal radiolocation 
stations will require protection after ITS operations transition out of 
the 5.850-5.895 GHz band. We seek comment on whether we can remove the 
client-to-client communications prohibition upon the later of one year 
following the effective date of the First Report and Order (i.e., the 
date by when ITS operations must transition out of the 5.850-5.895 GHz 
band) or the effective date of a Second Report and Order eliminating 
the prohibition. As an initial matter, we note that NTIA's analysis for 
protecting these 30 radiolocation sites concludes that C-V2X OBUs can 
operate throughout the U.S. with no limitation. That analysis assumed 
that such OBUs operate with power levels up to 17 dBm/20 MHz or 50 mW. 
The equivalent power for wider channels is 20 dBm/40 MHz (100 mW), 23 
dBm/80 MHz (200 mW) and 26 dBm/160 MHz (400 mW). Our proposal for C-V2X 
OBUs would limit power to no more than 23 dBm EIRP. We therefore seek 
comment on whether we can allow U-NII-4 client-to-client device 
communications at that same 23 dBm EIRP power level. Such 
communications could enable innovative new virtual reality or augmented 
reality applications in much the way similar applications have been 
envisioned under the Commission's proposals for ubiquitous operation of 
very low power devices in the 6 GHz U-NII bands.
    49. Although U-NII-4 devices would not necessarily be in moving 
vehicles like C-V2X OBUs, would their operations still be functionally 
similar to such operations so as to allow the same power levels and 
still protect federal radiolocation operations? If concerns regarding 
potential harmful interference to federal operations persists, are 
there measures we could take to enable U-NII-4 client-to-client 
communications in areas outside the exclusion zones or with lower power 
within the exclusion zones? For example, because client devices are 
often smart phones with embedded geolocation technology, could an app 
or database connection or other mitigation method be used to control 
power or avoid certain areas where the potential for causing harmful 
interference is the greatest? We also note that 5GAA requests that we 
permit OBUs to transmit with as much at 33 dBm EIRP. How would OBUs at 
higher power levels affect the ability to permit client-to-client 
communications? 5GAA also states that U-NII-4 client-to-client 
operations could reduce the effectiveness of adjacent band C-V2X safety 
services. We seek comment on whether we can permit client-to-client 
communication and under what conditions. Commenters should provide 
technical and operations details as to how devices operating in a 
client to client mode would avoid causing harmful interference to co-
channel federal radiolocation operations as well as to adjacent band C-
V2X safety services.

C. Other Spectrum for ITS

    50. As discussed in the First Report and Order, the record supports 
30 megahertz of spectrum as sufficient to provide basic safety 
functions of ITS currently deployed and under consideration in the near 
future. Commenters have suggested, however, that additional spectrum 
may be needed either to support simultaneous deployment of 4G and 5G-NR 
C-V2X service or to support other advanced capabilities beyond the 
basic safety messages currently available.
    51. We seek comment on whether, notwithstanding our determination 
that current safety-of-life services can continue to operate using 30 
megahertz of spectrum, we should consider allocating additional 
spectrum for ITS applications. For what purposes would additional 
spectrum be needed? We note that the record evidence indicates that 
several categories of transportation-related communications and other 
ITS applications are currently being met through spectrum outside of 
the 5.9 GHz band. For example, capabilities like blind spot detection, 
lane-keep assist, and features that do not operate in the 5.9 GHz band, 
which provide substantial automotive and vehicular safety functions. 
Panasonic in its comments states that technologies like LiDAR, 76-81 
GHz band radar, or other line-of-sight sensors can support advance 
driver assistance systems (e.g. automatic emergency braking or lane-
keeping). To the extent some ITS applications (or their functional 
equivalent) are currently being provided using alternative spectrum 
bands, commenters should explain with specificity why existing spectrum 
resources are inadequate and what specific safety benefits would result 
from making additional spectrum available for such services.

[[Page 23333]]

    52. Panasonic suggests that harnessing the advantages of fully 
automated transportation requires cooperation between different 
vehicles with different levels of automation and the transportation 
infrastructure. Similarly, the U.S. DOT stated that in-vehicle sensors 
are susceptible to ``blind spots'' when they are operating outside of 
line-of-sight scenarios. U.S. DOT claims that the combination of 
sensors and V2X, with access to dedicated spectrum, will best provide 
enhancements to driver safety and will support automated driving 
behavior in the future.
    53. We have already recognized that C-V2X is the preferred choice 
for deployment in the upper 30 megahertz portion of the band. How, in 
particular, would additional spectrum be used to leverage this 
technology and aid in its deployment? Should we determine that 
additional spectrum is needed to provide advanced ITS applications, 
what spectrum band(s) should we consider? Open Technology Institute and 
Public Knowledge have mentioned the 3450-3550 MHz band. Other 
commenters, like Dynamic Spectrum Alliance and NCTA, proposed allowing 
C-V2X to operate in the 4.9 GHz band. Other commenters provided similar 
views. In the intervening period since adoption of the 5.9 GHz NPRM, 
however, the Commission has adopted rule changes for the 4.9 GHz band 
to allow for non-public safety operation and leasing arrangements and 
has proposed allocating the 3.45-3.55 GHz band for flexible-use 
service. We also note that that commenters have mentioned a ``clean 
sheet'' approach when considering the best spectrum band in which to 
locate the proposed C-V2X operations. Others mention allowing ITS to 
use flexible use licensed or unlicensed spectrum in the way other 
technologies do. Commenters addressing this issue should provide 
specific information regarding spectrum bands that could support ITS 
operations, the types of applications or services they envision for 
that particular band and how C-V2X could coexist with existing spectrum 
users in that band(s). We also note that the commenters should consider 
the propagation characteristics of the spectrum they identify relative 
to the technology needs of ITS services (e.g. low latency, reliability, 
non-line of sight communications, processing capabilities, 
international trends, and relevant standards-setting factors). Are 
there other rule changes we could make to enable vehicular safety-
related applications in other bands on a shared basis?

III. Incorporation by Reference

    54. Sections 90.375, 90.379, and 95.3189 of the proposed rules 
provide that C-V2X Roadside Units (RSUs) and C-V2X On-Board Unit (OBU) 
transmitter types operating in the 5895-5925 MHz band must comply with 
the technical standard 3rd Generation Partnership Project Technical 
Specification Group Services and System Aspects (3GPP) Release 14. The 
OFR has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 
51. These regulations require that, for a proposed rule, agencies must 
discuss in the preamble to the proposed rule the way in which materials 
that the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to 
interested parties, and how interested parties can obtain the 
materials. Additionally, the preamble to the proposed rule must 
summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).
    55. In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in 
section II.A. of this preamble summarizes the provisions of 3GPP 
Release 14. Interested persons may obtain a copy of 3GPP Release 14 
through 3GPP's website at the address provided in Sec. Sec.  90.395 and 
95.3189 the rule. A copy of the standard may also be inspected at the 
FCC's main office.

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    56. 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 this Further Notice. 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 
on the Further Notice provided in the item.

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

    57. In this Further Notice, we propose to resolve the timing, 
procedures, and technical parameters associated with the transition of 
the updated 5.9 GHz band plan. Specifically, the Further Notice 
proposes to allow full-power outdoor unlicensed operations across the 
5.850-5.895 GHz band once ITS operations have exited this portion of 
the band and subject to any further necessary protections for federal 
operations in this spectrum. The draft also seeks to establish power 
and emissions limits and other rules related to outdoor unlicensed 
operations in the lower 45 megahertz of the band. The draft would 
address transitioning all ITS operations in the revised ITS band at 
5.895-5.925 GHz to C-V2X-based technology, including the appropriate 
timeline for implementation, and the codification of C-V2X technical 
parameters for operation in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band. The Further 
Notice would also seek comment on whether the Commission should 
consider allocating additional spectrum for ITS applications in the 
future.

B. Legal Basis

    58. The proposed action is taken authority found in sections 1, 
4(i), 301, 302, 303, 309, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 301, 302, 303, 309, 316, and 
332, and section 1.411 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.411.

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

    59. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    60. 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 Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business 
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types 
of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United 
States, which translates to 30.7 million businesses.
    61. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise

[[Page 23334]]

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.
    62. 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. While the special purpose governments category also includes 
local special district governments, the 2017 Census of Governments data 
does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the 
special purpose governments category. Therefore, only data from 
independent school districts is included in the special purpose 
governments category. Of the 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions, 
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.''
    63. Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF Manufacturers). 
Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size 
standard applicable to Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF 
Manufacturers). There are several analogous SBA small entity categories 
applicable to RF Manufacturers--Fixed Microwave Services, Other 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, and Radio and Television 
Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. A 
description of these small entity categories and the small business 
size standards under the SBA rules are detailed below.
    64. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common 
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio 
services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, 
Millimeter Wave Service, Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), 
the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz Service, 
where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common 
carrier status. A review of the Commission's Universal Licensing System 
in 2015, found approximately 66,680 common carrier fixed licensees, 
69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,150 
broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS 
licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz licenses, and 467 
Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services. The Commission has 
not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. 
The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite) and 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 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees 
and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this SBA 
category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates 
that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered 
small.
    65. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of 
these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable 
at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed 
microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business 
concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier 
fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees 
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that 
may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies discussed 
herein. We note, however, that the microwave fixed licensee category 
includes some large entities.
    66. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and 
television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment). Examples 
of such manufacturing include fire detection and alarm systems 
manufacturing, Intercom systems and equipment manufacturing, and 
signals (e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, traffic) manufacturing. 
The SBA has established a size standard for this industry as all such 
firms having 750 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 
show that 383 establishments operated in that year. Of that number, 379 
operated with fewer than 500 employees and 4 had 500 to 999 employees. 
Based on this data, we conclude that the majority of Other 
Communications Equipment Manufacturers are small.
    67. 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.
    68. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
appropriate size standard 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 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms employed fewer 
than 1,000 employees and 12 firms employed of 1,000 employees or more. 
Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite) are small entities.

[[Page 23335]]

    69. Automobile Manufacturing. This U.S. industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in (1) manufacturing complete 
automobiles (i.e., body and chassis or unibody) or (2) manufacturing 
automobile chassis only. The SBA has established a size standard for 
this industry, which is 1,500 employees or less. 2012 U.S. Census 
Bureau data indicate that 185 establishments operated in this industry 
that year. Of this number, 162 establishments had employment of fewer 
than 1,000 employees, and 11 establishments had employment of 1,000 to 
2,499 employees. Therefore, the Commission estimates that the majority 
of manufacturers in this industry are small entities.
    70. Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband). Internet access 
service providers such as Dial-up internet service providers, VoIP 
service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections 
and internet service providers using client-supplied telecommunications 
connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs) fall in the category of All Other 
Telecommunications. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for All Other Telecommunications which consists of all such 
firms with gross annual receipts of $35 million or less. For this 
category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 
firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 
1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, 
under this size standard a majority of firms in this industry can be 
considered small.
    71. Internet Service Providers (Broadband). Broadband internet 
service providers include wired (e.g., cable, DSL) and VoIP service 
providers using their own operated wired telecommunications 
infrastructure fall in the category of Wired Telecommunication 
Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access 
to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or 
lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using 
wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based 
on a single technology or a combination of technologies. The SBA size 
standard for this category classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 
there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, under this size 
standard the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    72. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not 
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in 
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' As of 2019, there were 
approximately 48,646,056 basic cable video subscribers in the United 
States. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 486,460 subscribers 
shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined 
with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed 
$250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that 
all but five cable operators are small entities under this size 
standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects 
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with 
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we 
are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number 
of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators 
under the definition in the Communications Act.
    73. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). The Commission's own 
data--available in its Universal Licensing System--indicate that, as of 
October 26, 2020, there are 124 active ITS licenses in the Commission's 
database that will be affected by our actions. An authorization to 
operate in the ITS service may be obtained by any territory, 
possession, state, city, county, town, or similar governmental entity, 
and any public safety or industrial/business entity meeting the 
pertinent eligibility requirements. Prior to operation, applicants are 
issued a non-exclusive, geographic area license: governmental entities 
are authorized based on that entity's legal jurisdictional area of 
operations; and non-governmental entities are licensed based on each 
applicant's area of operation (i.e., by county, state, multi-state, or 
nationwide). 91 licensees are considered ``public safety eligible'' 
with the remaining 33 qualified under the Industrial/Business Pool 
requirements. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees 
are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for 
these types of entities.

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

    74. The Further Notice proposes rules that will affect reporting 
and other compliance requirements.
    75. The Further Notice proposes to resolve the timing, procedures, 
and technical parameters associated with the transition of the updated 
5.9 GHz band plan. Specifically, the Further Notice proposes to allow 
full-power outdoor unlicensed operations across the 5.850-5.895 GHz 
band once ITS operations have exited this portion of the band and 
subject to any further necessary protections for federal operations in 
this spectrum. The Further Notice also seeks to establish power and 
emissions limits and other rules related to outdoor unlicensed 
operations in the lower 45 megahertz of the band. The Further Notice 
addresses transitioning all ITS operations in the revised ITS band at 
5.895-5.925 GHz to C-V2X-based technology, including the appropriate 
timeline for implementation, and the codification of C-V2X technical 
parameters for operation in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band. The Further 
Notice also seeks comment on whether the Commission should consider 
allocating additional spectrum for ITS applications in the future.
    76. This transition will require the Commission, licensees, and 
manufacturers to take certain actions, such as designing and operating 
unlicensed devices and C-V2X equipment per the Commission's revised 
rules.

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

    77. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
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 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.
    78. The proposals that would require equipment modification or new 
equipment manufacturing would have an impact on equipment 
manufacturers, some of which may be small entities.

[[Page 23336]]

Though we believe that our proposed technical rules for U-NII devices 
and ITS equipment would provide appropriate rules for this band, we 
seek comment on alternatives that are based on the existing rules or 
some other regulatory scheme, with regard to, e.g., power limits and 
OOBE limits.
    79. The regulatory burdens we have proposed are necessary in order 
to ensure that the public receives the benefits of innovative services 
and technologies in a prompt and efficient manner and apply equally to 
large and small entities, thus without differential impact. We seek 
comment on any alternatives, and whether the pros and cons of leaving 
these choices to the industry will assist in reaching the best 
outcomes. We will continue to examine alternatives in the future with 
the objectives of eliminating unnecessary regulations and minimizing 
any significant impact on small entities.

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

    80. None.

List of Subjects

    Communications equipment, Incorporation by reference, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 15, 90, and 95 
as follows:

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 
549.

0
2. Amend Sec.  15.407 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(5) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  15.407  General technical requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) For the band 5.725-5.895 GHz:
    (i) For the band 5.725-5.850 GHz, the maximum conducted output 
power over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed 1 W. In 
addition, the maximum power spectral density shall not exceed 30 dBm in 
any 500-kHz band. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater 
than 6 dBi are used, both the maximum conducted output power and the 
maximum power spectral density shall be reduced by the amount in dB 
that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. However, fixed 
point-to-point U-NII devices operating in this band may employ 
transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi without 
any corresponding reduction in transmitter conducted power. Fixed, 
point-to-point operations exclude the use of point-to-multipoint 
systems, omnidirectional applications, and multiple collocated 
transmitters transmitting the same information. The operator of the U-
NII device, or if the equipment is professionally installed, the 
installer, is responsible for ensuring that systems employing high gain 
directional antennas are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point 
operations.
    (ii) For an indoor access point operating in the 5.850-5.895 GHz 
band, the maximum power spectral density must not exceed 23 dBm 
e.i.r.p. in any 1-megahertz band. In addition, the maximum e.i.r.p. 
over the frequency band of operation must not exceed 36 dBm. Indoor 
access points operating on a channel that spans the 5.725-5.850 GHz and 
5.850-5.895 GHz bands must not exceed an e.i.r.p. of 36 dBm.
    (iii) For client devices operating under the control of an indoor 
access point in the 5.850-5.895 GHz band, the maximum power spectral 
density must not exceed 17 dBm e.i.r.p. in any 1-megahertz band, and 
the maximum e.i.r.p. over the frequency band of operation must not 
exceed 30 dBm. Client devices operating on a channel that spans the 
5.725-5.850 GHz and 5.850-5.895 GHz bands must not exceed an e.i.r.p. 
of 30 dBm.
    (iv) For a subordinate device operating under the control of an 
indoor access point in the 5.850-5.895 GHz band, the maximum power 
spectral density must not exceed 23 dBm e.i.r.p in any 1-megahertz 
band, and the maximum e.i.r.p. over the frequency band of operation 
must not exceed 36 dBm.
    (v) For an outdoor access point operating in the 5.850-5.895 GHz 
band, the maximum power spectral density must not exceed 23 dBm 
e.i.r.p. in any 1-megahertz band. In addition, the maximum e.i.r.p. 
over the frequency band of operation must not exceed 36 dBm. Outdoor 
access points must limit their maximum e.i.r.p. at any elevation angle 
above 30 degrees as measured from the horizon to 21 dBm (125 mW) to 
protect fixed satellite services. Outdoor access points operating on a 
channel that spans the 5.725-5.850 GHz and 5.850-5.895 GHz bands must 
not exceed an e.i.r.p. of 36 dBm.
    (vi) In the 5.850-5.895 GHz band, client devices must operate under 
the control of an indoor access point. In all cases, an exception 
exists for transmitting brief messages to an access point when 
attempting to join its network after detecting a signal that confirms 
that an access point is operating on a particular channel. Access 
points may connect to other access points.
    (vii) For client devices operating under the control of an outdoor 
access point in the 5.850-5.895 GHz band, the maximum power spectral 
density e.i.r.p. must not exceed 17 dBm in any 1-megahertz band, and 
the maximum e.i.r.p. over the frequency band of operation must not 
exceed 30 dBm. Client devices operating on a channel that spans the 
5.725-5.850 GHz and 5.850-5.895 GHz bands must not exceed an e.i.r.p. 
of 30 dBm.
    (viii) Operation of outdoor U-NII devices in the 5.850-5.895 GHz 
band within the exclusion zones listed in the table below, to which 
NTIA may amend, modify, or revoke locations and associated parameters, 
is not permitted. The outdoor U-NII exclusion zones for each federal 
facility location are characterized by a center point (latitude/
longitude) and radius (to define a circular area) to facilitate the 
regulator process of coordination.

                                  Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(3)--Exclusion Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Exclusion
                          Facility name                            Latitude  DD-  Longitude  DD-    zone radius
                                                                   MM-SS  North     MM-SS  West        (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anclote, Florida................................................        28-11-18        82-47-40              54
Cape Canaveral, Florida.........................................        28-28-54        80-34-35              53
Cape San Blas, Florida..........................................        29-40-31        85-20-48              55
Carabelle Field, Florida........................................        29-50-38        84-39-46              54
Charleston, South Carolina......................................        32-51-48        79-57-48              55

[[Page 23337]]

 
Edwards, California.............................................        34-56-43       117-54-50              51
Eglin, Florida..................................................        30-37-51        86-24-16             116
Fort Walton Beach, Florida......................................        30-24-53        86-39-58              56
Kennedy Space Center, Florida...................................        28-25-29        80-39-51              98
Key West, Florida...............................................        24-33-09        81-48-28              54
Kirtland AFB, New Mexico........................................        34-59-51       106-28-54              15
Kokeepark, Hawaii...............................................        22-07-35       159-40-06              49
MacDill, Florida................................................        27-50-37        82-30-04              58
NV Test Training Range, Nevada..................................        37-18-27       116-10-24             184
Patuxent River, Maryland........................................        38-16-55        76-25-12               7
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii............................................        21-21-17       157-57-51              55
Pillar Point, California........................................        37-29-52       122-29-59              10
Poker Flat, Alaska..............................................        65-07-36       147-29-21              58
Port Canaveral, Florida.........................................        28-24-42        80-36-17              54
Port Hueneme, California........................................        34-08-60       119-12-24              54
Point Mugu, California..........................................        34-07-17        119-9-01              81
Saddlebunch Keys, Florida.......................................        24-38-51        81-36-22              54
San Diego, California...........................................        32-43-00       117-11-00              54
San Nicolas Island, California..................................        33-14-47       119-31-07             166
Tonopah Test Range, Nevada......................................        37-44-00       116-43-00              48
Vandenberg, California..........................................        34-34-58       120-33-42              74
Venice, Florida.................................................        27-04-37        82-27-03              54
Wallops Island, Virginia........................................        37-51-23        75-30-41              68
White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico...........................        32-58-26       106-23-43             160
Yuma, Arizona...................................................        32-54-03       114-23-10              49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note 1 to paragraph (a)(3):  The Commission strongly recommends 
that parties employing U-NII devices to provide critical 
communications services should determine if there are any nearby 
Government radar systems that could affect their operation.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) For transmitters operating solely in the 5.850-5.895 GHz band 
or operating on a channel that spans across 5.725-5.895 GHz:
    (i) For an indoor access point or subordinate device, all emissions 
at or above 5.895 GHz shall not exceed an e.i.r.p. of 15 dBm/MHz and 
shall decrease linearly to an e.i.r.p. of -7 dBm/MHz at or above 5.925 
GHz.
    (ii) For a client device or an outdoor access point, all emissions 
at or above 5.895 GHz shall not exceed an e.i.r.p. of -5 dBm/MHz and 
shall decrease linearly to an e.i.r.p. of -27 dBm/MHz at or above 5.925 
GHz.
    (iii) All emissions below 5.725 GHz shall not exceed an e.i.r.p. of 
-27 dBm/MHz at 5.65 GHz increasing linearly to 10 dBm/MHz at 5.7 GHz, 
and from 5.7 GHz increasing linearly to a level of 15.6 dBm/MHz at 5.72 
GHz, and from 5.72 GHz increasing linearly to a level of 27 dBm/MHz at 
5.725 GHz.
* * * * *

PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
3. 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.

Subpart A--General Information

0
4. Amend Sec.  90.7 by removing the definition of ``Dedicated Short 
Range Communication Service (DSRCS),'' adding a definition for 
``Cellular Vehicle to Everything Service (CV2X)'' in alphabetical 
order, and revising the definitions of ``On-Board unit (OBU)'', 
``Roadside unit (RSU)'', and ``Roadway bed surface''.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  90.7  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Cellular Vehicle to Everything Service (C-V2X). The use of cellular 
radio techniques defined by the 3rd Generation Partnership Program 
(3GPP) to transfer data between roadside and mobile units, between 
mobile units, and between portable and mobile units to perform 
operations related to the improvement of traffic flow, traffic safety, 
and other intelligent transportation service applications in a variety 
of environments. C-V2X systems may also transmit status and 
instructional messages related to the units involved.
* * * * *
    On-Board Unit (OBU). An On-Board Unit is a C-V2X transceiver that 
is normally mounted in or on a vehicle, or which in some instances may 
be a portable unit. An OBU can be operational while a vehicle or person 
is either mobile or stationary. The OBUs receive and transmit on one or 
more radio frequency (RF) channels. Except where specifically excluded, 
OBU operation is permitted wherever vehicle operation or human passage 
is permitted. The OBUs mounted in vehicles are licensed by rule under 
part 95 of this chapter and communicate with Roadside Units (RSUs) and 
other OBUs. Portable OBUs are also licensed by rule under part 95 of 
this chapter.
    Roadside Unit (RSU). A Roadside Unit is a C-V2X transceiver that is 
mounted along a road or pedestrian passageway. An RSU may also be 
mounted on a vehicle or is hand carried, but it may only operate when 
the vehicle or hand-carried unit is stationary. Furthermore, an RSU 
operating under this part is restricted to the location where it is 
licensed to operate. However, portable or hand-held RSUs are permitted 
to operate where they do not interfere with a site-licensed operation. 
An RSU broadcasts data to or exchanges data with OBUs.

[[Page 23338]]

    Roadway bed surface. For C-V2X, the road surface at ground level.
* * * * *

Subpart H--Policies Governing the Assignment of Frequencies

0
5. Amend Sec.  90.175 by revising paragraph (j)(16) to read as follows:


Sec.  90.175  Frequency coordinator requirements.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (16) Applications for C-V2X licenses (as well as registrations for 
Roadside Units) under subpart M of this part in the 5895-5925 GHz band.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  90.179 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  90.179  Shared use of radio stations.

* * * * *
    (f) Above 800 MHz, shared use on a for-profit private carrier basis 
is permitted only by SMR, Private Carrier Paging, LMS, and C-V2X 
licensees. See subparts M, P, and S of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart I--General Technical Standards

0
7. In Sec.  90.210, amend Table 1 by removing the entry for ``5850-
5925'' and adding an entry for ``5895-5925'' in its place and revising 
footnote 4 to read as follows:


Sec.  90.210  Emission masks.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Mask for            Mask for
   Applicable  emission masks       equipment with    equipment  without
     frequency  band  (MHz)         audio low  pass     audio low  pass
                                        filter              filter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
5895-5925 \4\
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CV2X Service Roadside Units equipment in the 5895-5925 MHz band is
  governed under subpart M of this part.

* * * * *
0
8. In Sec.  90.213(a), revise footnote 10 in Table 1 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  90.213  Frequency stability.

    (a) * * *

\10\ Frequency stability for C-V2X Service equipment in the 5895-
5925 MHz band is specified in subpart M of this part. For all other 
equipment, frequency stability is to be specified in the station 
authorization.
* * * * *

Subpart M--Intelligent Transportation Systems Radio Service

0
9. Revise Sec.  90.350 to read as follows:


Sec.  90.350  Scope.

    The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) radio service is for 
the purpose of integrating radio-based technologies into the nation's 
transportation infrastructure and to develop and implement the nation's 
intelligent transportation systems. It includes the Location and 
Monitoring Service (LMS) and the Cellular Vehicle to Everything Service 
(C-V2X). Rules as to eligibility for licensing, frequencies available, 
and any special requirements for services in the Intelligent 
Transportation Systems radio service are set forth in this subpart.
0
10. Amend subpart M by revising the undesignated center heading above 
Sec.  90.370 to read as follows:
* * * * *

Regulations Governing the Licensing and Use of Frequencies in the 5895-
5925 MHz Band for Cellular Vehicle to Everything (C-V2X) Service

* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec.  90.370 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  90.370  Permitted frequencies.

    (a) C-V2X Roadside Units (RSUs) are permitted to operate in the 
5895-5925 MHz band.
* * * * *
0
12. Revise Sec.  90.371 to read as follows:


Sec.  90.371  C-V2X.

    (a) C-V2X Roadside Units (RSUs) operating in the band 5895-5925 MHz 
shall not receive protection from Government Radiolocation services in 
operation prior to the establishment of the RSU. Operation of RSU 
stations within the zones listed in the table below, to which NTIA may 
amend, modify, or revoke locations and associated parameters, must be 
coordinated through the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration.
    (b) C-V2X Roadside Units (RSUs) operating in the band 5895-5925 MHz 
shall not receive protection from Government Radiolocation services in 
operation prior to the establishment of the C-V2X station. Operation of 
C-V2X RSU stations within the radius centered on the locations listed 
in the table below, to which NTIA may amend, modify, or revoke 
locations and associated parameters, must be coordinated through the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
0
13. Amend Sec.  90.373 by revising the section heading and the 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  90.373  Eligibility in C-V2X.

    The following entities are eligible to hold an authorization to 
operate Roadside Units in C-V2X:
* * * * *
0
14. Revise Sec.  90.375 to read as follows:


Sec.  90.375  License areas, communication zones, and registrations.

    (a) Roadside Units (RSUs) in the 5895-5925 MHz band are licensed on 
the basis of non-exclusive geographic areas. Governmental applicants 
will be issued a geographic area license based on the geo-political 
area encompassing the legal jurisdiction of the entity. All other 
applicants will be issued a geographic area license for their proposed 
area of operation based on county(s), state(s) or nationwide.
    (b) Applicants who are approved in accordance with FCC Form 601 
will be granted non-exclusive licenses for the channel(s) corresponding 
to their intended operations (see Sec.  90.370). Such licenses serve as 
a prerequisite of registering individual RSUs located within the 
licensed geographic area described in paragraph (a) of this section. 
Licensees must register each RSU in the Universal Licensing System 
(ULS) before operating such RSU. RSU registrations are subject, inter 
alia, to the requirements of Sec.  1.923 of this chapter as applicable 
(antenna structure registration, environmental concerns, international 
coordination, and quiet zones). Additionally, RSUs at locations subject 
to NTIA coordination (see Sec.  90.371(a)) may not begin operation 
until NTIA approval is received. Registrations are not effective until 
the Commission posts them on the ULS. It is the licensee's 
responsibility to delete from the registration database any RSUs that 
have been discontinued.
    (c) Licensees must operate each RSU in accordance with the 
Commission's rules and the registration data posted on the ULS for such 
RSU. Licensees must register each RSU for the smallest communication 
zone needed for the intelligent transportation systems application 
using one of the following four communication zones:

              Table 1 to Paragraph (c)--Communication Zones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Maximum
                                               output    Communications
                 RSU class                     power     zone  (meters)
                                             (dBm) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..........................................          0                15
B..........................................         10               100
C..........................................         20               400

[[Page 23339]]

 
D..........................................       28.8              1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As described in the ATIS transposed standards of the 3GPP
  (incorporated by reference, see Sec.   90.395).

0
15. Revise Sec.  90.377 to read as follows:


Sec.  90.377  Maximum EIRP and antenna height.

    (a) C-V2X Service licensees must transmit only the power (EIRP) 
needed to communicate with an On-Board Unit (OBU) within the 
communications zone and must take steps to limit the Roadside Unit 
(RSU) signal within the zone to the maximum extent practicable.
    (b) C-V2X licensees must limit RSU output power to 20 dBm and 
equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) to 33 dBm. The EIRP is 
measured as the maximum EIRP toward the horizon or horizontal, 
whichever is greater, of the gain associated with the main or center of 
the transmission beam.
    (c) The radiation center of an RSU antenna shall not exceed 8 
meters above the roadway bed surface, except that an RSU may employ an 
antenna with a height exceeding 8 meters but not exceeding 15 meters 
provided the EIRP specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 
is reduced by a factor of 20 log(Ht/8) in dB where Ht is the height of 
the radiation center of the antenna in meters above the roadway bed 
surface. The RSU antenna height must not exceed 15 meters above the 
roadway bed surface.
0
16. Revise Sec.  90.379 to read as follows:


Sec.  90.379  Technical standards for Roadside Units.

    C-V2X Service RSUs operating in the 5895-5925 MHz band shall comply 
with the V2X sidelink service for this band as described in the ATIS 
transposed standards of the 3GPP specifications except where these 
rules and regulations take precedence (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  90.395).
0
17. Add Sec.  90.381 to read as follows:


Sec.  90.381  C-V2X emissions limits.

    C-V2X Roadside Units (RSUs) must comply with the following out-of-
band emissions limits.
    (a) Conducted limits measured at the antenna input must not exceed:
    (1) -29 dBm/100 kHz at the band edge (The band is defined in Sec.  
90.370 of this part);
    (2) -35 dBm/100 kHz  1 megahertz from the band edge;
    (3) -43 dBm/100 kHz  10 megahertz from the band edge; 
and
    (4) -53 dBm/100 kHz  20 megahertz from the band edge.
    (b) Radiated limits: All C-V2X Service RSUs must limit radiated 
emissions to -25 dBm/100 kHz EIRP or less outside the band edges where 
the band is defined in Sec.  90.370 of this part.
0
18. Revise Sec.  90.395 to read as follows:


Sec.  90.395   Incorporation by reference.

    Certain material required in this section is incorporated by 
reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved 
material is available for inspection at the address of the FCC's main 
office indicated in 47 CFR 0.401(a) and is available from the sources 
indicated in this section. It is also available for inspection at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, email [email protected] 
or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
    (a) 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), 3GPP Mobile 
Competence Centre c/0 ETSI, 650, route des Lucioles, 06921 Sophia 
Antipolis Cedex, France, [email protected] https://www.3gpp.org/3gpp-calendar/44-specifications/releases.
    (1) 3GPP TR 21.914 V14.0.0 (2018-05) 3rd Generation Partnership 
Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; 
Release 14 Description; Summary of Rel-14 Work Items; into Sec. Sec.  
90.375(c), 90.379.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) [Reserved]

Subpart N--Operating Requirements

0
19. Amend Sec.  90.415 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
* * * * *
    (b) Render a communications common carrier service, except for 
stations in the Public Safety Pool providing communications standby 
facilities under Sec.  90.20(a)(2)(xi) and stations licensed under this 
part in the SMR, private carrier paging, Industrial/Business Pool, 220-
222 MHz, or C-V2X.
0
20. Amend Sec.  90.421 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  90.421  Operation of mobile station units not under the control 
of the licensee.

* * * * *
    (d) C-V2X On-Board Units licensed by rule under part 95 of this 
chapter may communicate with any roadside unit authorized under this 
part or any licensed commercial mobile radio service station as defined 
in part 20 of this chapter.
0
21. Amend Sec.  90.425 by revising paragraph (d)(10) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  90.425  Station identification.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) It is a Roadside Unit (RSU) in a C-V2X system.

PART 95--PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES

0
22. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, and 307.

Subpart L--C-V2X Service On-Board Units

0
23. The heading for subpart L is revised to read as set forth above.
0
24. Revise Sec.  95.3101 to read as follows:


Sec.  95.3101  Scope.

    This subpart contains rules that apply only to On-Board Units 
(OBUs) transmitting in the 5895-5925 MHz frequency band in the Cellular 
Vehicle to Everything Service (C-V2X) (see Sec.  90.371 of this 
chapter).
0
25. Amend Sec.  95.3103 by removing the definition of ``Dedicated 
Short-Range Communications Services (DSRCS)'', adding a definition for 
``Cellular Vehicle to Everything Service (CV2X)'' in alphabetical 
order, and revising the definition of ``On-Board Unit (OBU)''.
    The additions and revision read as follows:


Sec.  95.3103  Definitions, OBUs.

    Cellular Vehicle to Everything Service (C-V2X). A service providing 
for data transfer between various mobile and roadside transmitting 
units for the purposes of improving traffic flow, highway safety and 
performing other intelligent transportation functions. See Sec.  90.7 
of this chapter for a more detailed definition.
    On-Board Units (OBUs). OBUs are low-power devices on vehicles that 
transfer data to roadside units or other OBUs in the Cellular Vehicle 
to Everything Service (C-V2X) (see Sec. Sec.  90.370-90.383 of this 
chapter), to improve traffic flow and safety, and for other intelligent 
transportation system purposes. See Sec.  90.7 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
26. Amend Sec.  95.3161 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  95.3161  OBU transmitter certification.

    (a) Each On-Board Unit (OBU) that operates or is intended to 
operate in C-V2X must be certified in accordance

[[Page 23340]]

with this subpart and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
27. Revise Sec.  95.3163 to read as follows:


Sec.  95.3163  OBU frequencies.

    C-V2X Service OBUs are permitted to operate in the 5895-5925 MHz 
band.
0
28. Revise Sec.  95.3167 to read as follows:


Sec.  95.3167  OBU transmit power limit.

    (a) The maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) for 
vehicular and portable C-V2X OBU transmitter types is limited to 33 
dBm.
    (b) The power limit in paragraph (a) of this section may be 
referenced to the antenna input, so that cable losses are taken into 
account.
    (c) For purposes of this section, a portable unit is a transmitting 
device designed to be used so that the radiating structure(s) of the 
device is/are within 20 centimeters of the body of the user.
0
29. Add Sec.  95.3179 to read as follows:


Sec.  95.3179  Unwanted emissions limits.

    C-V2X On Board Units must comply with the following out-of-band 
emissions limits.
    Conducted limits measured at the antenna input shall not exceed:
    (a) -29 dBm/100 kHz at the band edge (The band is defined in 
section 95.3163 of this part);
    (b) -35 dBm/100 kHz  1 megahertz from the band edge;
    (c) -43 dBm/100 kHz  10 megahertz from the band edge; 
and
    (d) -53 dBm/100 kHz  20 megahertz from the band edge.
0
30. Revise Sec.  95.3189 to read as follows:


Sec.  95.3189  OBU technical standard.

    (a) C-V2X Service OBU transmitter types operating in the 5895-5925 
MHz band shall comply with the V2X sidelink service for this band as 
described in the ATIS transposed standards of the 3GPP specifications 
except where these rules and regulations take precedence.
    (b) 3GPP TR 21.914 V14.0.0 (2018-05) 3rd Generation Partnership 
Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; 
Release 14 Description; Summary of Rel-14 Work Items is incorporated by 
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved 
material is available for inspection at the address of the FCC's main 
office indicated in 47 CFR 0.401(a) and is available from 3rd 
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), 3GPP Mobile Competence Centre c/
0 ETSI, 650, route des Lucioles, 06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France, 
[email protected], at https://www.3gpp.org/3gpp-calendar/44-specifications/releases. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives 
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability 
of this material at NARA, email [email protected] or go to 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.

Appendix A to Part 95--[Amended]

0
31. Amend the table in appendix A to part 95 by removing the entry of 
``95.1509--ASTM E221-03 DSRC Standard''.

[FR Doc. 2021-08801 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P