4.9 GHz Band, 59934-59947 [2021-23335]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 207 (Friday, October 29, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59934-59947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23335]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 90

[WP Docket No. 07-100; FCC 21-106; FR ID 54623]


4.9 GHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Eighth 
Further Notice), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or 
FCC) seeks comment on the structure of the 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) band 
in an effort to maximize public safety use while exploring options that 
could spur innovation, improve coordination, and drive down costs in 
the band.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before November 29, 
2021; and reply comments on or before December 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WP Docket No. 07-100, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://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 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

[[Page 59935]]

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).

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of Commission's Eighth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in WP Docket No. 07-100; FCC 21-
106, adopted on September 30, 2021 and released on October 1, 2021. The 
full text of the Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including all appendices, is available for inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 
45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from 
the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-106A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by 
sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).

Synopsis

I. Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Overview

    1. In this Eighth Further Notice, we propose to revisit the 
structure of the 4.9 GHz band to maximize public safety use while 
exploring options that could spur innovation, improve coordination, and 
drive down costs in the band. Specifically, we seek to establish a 
nationwide framework for coordinating access to the band. We believe 
that a comprehensive and integrated approach that emphasizes public 
safety needs represents a superior path to unlocking the potential of 
the 4.9 GHz band rather than pursuing a state-centered approach that 
could lead to a patchwork of incompatible uses. Similarly, we believe a 
nationwide approach will promote a robust equipment market, drive down 
prices and costs, spur innovation, and increase the likelihood of 
interoperable communications and consistent interference protection. We 
also explore potentially allowing non-public safety use of the band to 
encourage a more robust and innovative equipment market, provided that 
non-public safety use can occur without causing harmful interference to 
public safety operations in the band. As part of this vision, we seek 
comment on how best to meet the needs of public safety in this band and 
on establishing a database that would contain consistent and reliable 
information about what spectrum is available and where and how it is 
being used. Our goal is to provide greater certainty and predictability 
to stakeholders seeking to plan and invest in 4.9 GHz deployments and 
enable spectrum users to coordinate shared use of the band to avoid 
conflicts. In addition, we seek comment on a range of technical issues, 
eligibility issues, and other measures intended to increase use of the 
band.
    2. We note that this proceeding has an extensive record, which we 
intend to draw upon as needed to develop a cohesive set of nationwide 
rules to maximize use of the band, including protection for public 
safety operations. We encourage commenting parties to assist us by 
providing input on the new ideas proposed herein and by submitting 
additional new proposals or by modifying previous proposals. To the 
extent that commenters wish to reiterate any proposals that have been 
previously introduced into the record, commenters should demonstrate 
that the proposals align with our approach and priorities for the band 
as described in this Eighth Further Notice. We preserve our flexibility 
to consider and adopt proposals from prior stages of this proceeding 
that the Commission has not specifically rejected.

B. Ensuring Public Safety Use of the Band

    3. As noted above, the band is currently home to 3,541 licensees. 
We recognize that these licenses represent a significant investment of 
scarce public safety resources, so as we explore ways to enhance the 
usage of the band, we are cognizant that we must protect these 
investments.
1. Protection for Public Safety Licensees
    4. We seek comment in this Eighth Further Notice on how to ensure 
public safety licensees have efficient and interference-free access to 
the band. Numerous commenters have addressed this issue, and several 
have expressed support for various approaches to protecting public 
safety licensees from interference. For instance, the National Public 
Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) argues that interference 
protection, whether ``done manually or through some potential future 
automated frequency coordination approach,'' must be incorporated into 
the management of the band to protect incumbents ``against interference 
and signal degradation.'' We agree, and we tentatively conclude that 
incumbent public safety licensees as well as future public safety users 
should be protected from harmful interference, both in the near term 
and on a forward-looking basis, subject to other requirements and 
conditions that we may adopt in this proceeding.
    5. NPSTC recommends ``use of the threshold degradation approach in 
the ANSI/TIA-10 [American National Standards Institute/
Telecommunications Industry Association] standard to minimize 
interference to incumbent fixed operations,'' which NPSTC notes 
``encompass many of the public safety operations'' in the band. We seek 
comment on the feasibility of NPSTC's proposal to use the TIA-10 
standard to minimize interference to incumbents that deploy fixed 
facilities. Are there alternatives to the TIA-10 standard which could 
be used to guard against interference between licensees deploying fixed 
point-to-point (P-P) links and point-to-multipoint (P-MP) hubs? Under 
Part 90, contour overlap analysis is often the basis for determining if 
an applicant's proposed facilities would likely cause interference to 
an incumbent operator. Would contour overlap analysis requirements be 
useful for certain 4.9 GHz band deployments, and if so, what service 
and interference contour values would be appropriate? We also seek 
comment on what standards would be appropriate for incumbents deploying 
non-fixed, geographic-area operations or ad-hoc temporary operations. 
Commenters are encouraged to address how their proposals would support 
our tentative conclusion to protect both existing and future public 
safety licensees in the band as well as interact with potential new 
non-public safety operations in the band, with specific attention to 
the licensing and sharing models addressed below.
2. Licensing Database
    6. In the Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Sixth 
Further Notice) (83 FR 20011), the Commission stated that it believed 
many concerns public safety users have about the 4.9 GHz band could be 
addressed if more complete technical information were available to all 
affected parties. We therefore seek comment on collecting more granular 
data on 4.9 GHz operations in our licensing database and combining that 
with a formal

[[Page 59936]]

coordination structure to improve interference mitigation efforts and 
bolster public safety confidence in the band. Today, licensees in the 
4.9 GHz band only provide our Universal Licensing Service (ULS) 
database with control points and geographic area of operations. More 
robust information on public safety operations in the band could help 
improve predictability for public safety operations and facilitate 
robust, non-interfering access to the band for non-public safety 
entities. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that additional 
information is required, and we seek comment on whether to continue 
using ULS or to transition to a third-party licensing database to 
accommodate the additional information. For instance, in the Sixth 
Further Notice, the Commission proposed to maintain ULS as the 
comprehensive licensing database for the 4.9 GHz band and proposed to 
modify ULS as necessary to accept the necessary licensing data. Since 
ULS can readily accommodate additional information, we seek comment on 
these proposals. We seek comment on requiring incumbents and future 
applicants to supply complete microwave path data for links, and to 
license base stations (currently authorized under the geographic 
license scheme) on a site-by-site basis.
    7. In the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission proposed ``to 
require incumbent licensees and new applicants to provide technical 
information that will enhance frequency coordination and help mitigate 
the possibility of interference, while permitting more new users.'' We 
seek comment on this proposal to require incumbents and future 
applicants in the 4.9 GHz band to submit more information in ULS. Would 
collecting this data improve the level of interference protection 
licensees receive in the band? We seek comment on whether collecting 
this data would create a more predictable and transparent spectrum 
environment for any current and future users of the band, including 
potential non-public safety users. To what extent does not having this 
data currently listed in ULS lead to additional interference or 
uncertainty in the band? In particular, should licensees specify 
channels they are using for their operations? In the Sixth Further 
Notice, the Commission also proposed to add the 4.9 GHz band to the ULS 
microwave schedule for P-P, P-MP, and proposed to ``uncouple base and 
mobile stations from geographic licenses and instead require that base 
and mobile technical parameters be entered on the existing location and 
technical data schedules.'' We seek comment on these ULS schedule 
proposals and ask commenters to address whether ULS's existing 
schedules are sufficient for collecting the additional data.
    8. What is the burden on incumbents and applicants who would need 
to submit detailed site-based information, and does the benefit of 
having additional technical data listed in ULS outweigh that burden? 
For instance, the Commission estimates the average burden for each 
applicant completing FCC Form 601 and associated schedules to be 1.25 
hours, which includes ``the time to read the instructions, look through 
existing records, gather and maintain required data, and actually 
complete and review the form or response.'' Is this estimate accurate 
for incumbents or new applicants who would need to submit the 
additional technical information described above with their Form 601 
application? What is the interplay of these potential new data 
collection requirements with potential sharing mechanisms, discussed 
below, that would facilitate shared public safety and non-public safety 
use of the band?
    9. Are there alternatives to collecting additional technical data 
in ULS for the 4.9 GHz band? For instance, would a database managed by 
a third party offer advantages over requiring incumbents and new 
applicants to submit additional information via ULS? If so, what are 
those advantages and what would be the cost of having a third party 
administrator manage a database to collect the information needed to 
increase interference protection in the 4.9 GHz band? How would the 
transition from ULS to a third-party database be implemented? Who would 
pay that cost and how would those costs impact public safety given that 
public safety entities are subject to no filing fees in ULS? In other 
words, would a third-party managed database increase costs on public 
safety licensees in the band and would those costs outweigh any derived 
benefits? Commenters that support the use of a third party band manager 
are encouraged to consider how such a system could work with the 
various methods of introducing non-public safety operations to the band 
described below. If we were to pursue this option, who would be 
suitable to manage the database? How should we select the 
administrator?
    10. Regardless of whether ULS or a third-party database is used to 
collect technical detail on 4.9 GHz deployments, incumbent licensees 
with geographic licenses would need time to submit the requisite 
information. In the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission proposed 
giving incumbent geographic licensees one year to identify in ULS P-P 
links, P-MP hubs, fixed receivers, base stations, and mobiles that are 
not currently licensed site-by-site. The Commission sought comment on 
whether the status of a license should become secondary if the 
incumbent licensee does not meet the one-year deadline. Most parties 
commenting on this issue concurred with this time period. We seek 
comment on whether a one-year timetable is still appropriate for 
incumbent geographic licensees to submit technical data on their 
deployments into a database, and whether any deterrent, such as the 
risk of forfeiting primary status, is needed to ensure compliance. On 
the other hand, given that the purpose of collecting additional 
technical data is to provide increased interference protection to 
incumbent licensees, does this benefit provide sufficient incentive for 
licensees to comply with a timetable requirement?
3. Interoperability
    11. The record generated in response to the Sixth Further Notice 
demonstrates that the public safety community employs this band for a 
wide variety of uses. As we strive to develop a national framework for 
this band, we seek to encourage uses that enable collaboration and 
mutual aid between multiple licensees, for instance, in response to 
larger incidents and emergencies. To that end, we seek comment on 
whether to adopt any technical standards for the 4.9 GHz band that 
would promote interoperability in the band. In other private land 
mobile radio (PLMR) frequency bands used by public safety, the 
Commission designates certain channels for interoperability 
communications, and in some instances, it also specifies technical 
requirements for equipment designed to transmit on those channels. The 
goal is to ensure that public safety officials from different agencies 
can communicate on designated interoperability channels regardless of 
the make or model of their radio equipment.
    12. We seek comment on whether any interoperability requirements 
are needed for the 4.9 GHz band. For example, should we designate a 
band segment or certain channels in the band for interoperable 
communications? If so, how much spectrum would sufficiently address 
public safety needs and how should interoperable spectrum be 
administered to optimize those resources for their primary purpose? For 
example, should state interoperability coordinators, regional planning

[[Page 59937]]

committees, or individual agencies administer the use of interoperable 
4.9 GHz spectrum? In addition, if we were to set aside spectrum for 
public safety interoperability purposes, should we also specify 
technical standards for equipment intended to operate on those 
channels? Would such a requirement invigorate or stifle innovation and 
equipment options? Parties discussing interoperability for the 4.9 GHz 
band should explain if and how the benefits of any such requirements 
outweigh associated costs. How should interoperability requirements 
apply to non-public safety entities if we expand eligibility for the 
band beyond public safety (as discussed below)? What technical and 
licensing conditions should apply to non-public safety licensees to 
ensure interoperable and interference-free operations? How could the 
introduction of non-public safety operations into the band help foster 
a broader interoperable device marketplace? Should we allow the 
marketplace to adopt voluntary interoperability standards in lieu of 
requirements specified in the Commission's rules? If so, how could a 
voluntary industry standard promote interoperability between all 
eligible users of the band?
4. Public Safety Priority and Preemption
    13. An important element of public safety spectrum use, 
particularly where spectrum is shared with non-public safety users, is 
ensuring that public safety will have immediate and reliable access to 
spectrum whenever and wherever it is required for mission-critical 
operations. We therefore seek comment on affording public safety 
licensees priority access to the 4.9 GHz band, including the ability to 
preempt any non-public safety operations that may be authorized in the 
band.
    14. The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-
International, Inc. (APCO) states in its 2015 report that, while it 
supports an approach to the band which fosters development in the 
commercial sector of ``more cost effective equipment,'' any such 
solution must afford ``priority and preemption for public safety users 
in a shared environment.'' We note that there are other instances where 
public safety users are afforded priority network access and the 
ability to preempt the operations of other users in emergency 
circumstances. If we open the 4.9 GHz band to non-public safety users, 
as discussed below, we seek comment on whether public safety priority 
and preemption should be elements of any sharing model we ultimately 
adopt. We seek comment on this approach and how best to accomplish that 
goal in the 4.9 GHz band.
    15. For instance, we seek comment below on whether excess capacity 
leasing or a dynamic spectrum sharing system could effectively enable 
sharing between public safety and non-public safety. If so, to what 
extent and by what method could these sharing models ensure priority 
and preemption for public safety operations? Are priority and 
preemption sufficient tools to ensure public safety mission-critical 
operations access to the band under an excess capacity or dynamic 
spectrum sharing scheme? How would priority and preemption work under 
other spectrum sharing models?
    16. If we adopt rules for public safety priority and preemption, we 
seek comment on the types of mission-critical public safety operations 
that should have priority over other public safety as well as non-
public safety operations. Given the wide range of possible deployments 
in the 4.9 GHz band, both geographically and in terms of type of use, 
how should public safety licensees with overlapping operating areas 
determine priority and preemption rights and whether certain 
deployments or types of communications should have priority? For 
instance, should emergency mobile deployments at an incident scene be 
able to preempt fixed P-P links that may be operating on a primary 
basis? Does the primary status of a license or deployment have any 
bearing on priority and preemption? How do two overlapping licensees 
that both have primary status determine priority if they seek to use 
the same channel at the same time? We seek comment on how to ensure 
that mission-critical communications maintain consistent priority, no 
matter what deployment form they may take.
    17. Finally, we seek comment on the technical feasibility of 
building priority and preemption algorithms into 4.9 GHz networks and 
equipment to enable authorized public safety users to obtain priority 
and preempt use of the spectrum if necessary. In contrast to instances 
where public safety and non-public safety operate on a single shared 
network, 4.9 GHz licensees operate on disparate networks. How does this 
affect the availability of priority and preemption solutions? Is there 
a demand in the equipment marketplace for priority and preemption 
tools, and if not, should we require 4.9 GHz band equipment to include 
such tools? What equipment security requirements could we impose to 
avoid unauthorized signaling of priority? What would be the cost of 
incorporating priority and preemption algorithms into equipment?

C. Fostering Greater Public Safety Use of the Band

    18. Regardless of what eligibility rules or sharing model we may 
ultimately adopt, we anticipate that the future of this band includes a 
robust public safety presence. We tentatively conclude that a 
nationwide, coordinated approach to the management of the spectrum will 
not only increase the utility of this band for public safety, but will 
also promote greater public safety use of the band by providing greater 
certainty with regards to the availability of the spectrum and 
interference protection. In this section, we explore ways to make the 
spectrum environment more attractive to existing and future public 
safety users.
1. Frequency Coordination
    19. We seek comment on requiring formal frequency coordination in 
the 4.9 GHz band to support interference protection and increase public 
safety confidence in using the band. As noted above, our rules 
currently allow licensees in the 4.9 GHz band to deploy base stations, 
mobile units, and temporary fixed stations anywhere within the 
licensee's jurisdiction without formal frequency coordination. Rather, 
our rules direct licensees to informally coordinate with other users in 
the band by cooperating in ``the selection and use of channels in order 
to reduce interference and make the most effective use of the 
authorized facilities.''
    20. The Commission previously contemplated frequency coordination 
as a means to encourage increased public safety use of the band. In 
2009, the Commission noted that, ``[w]ithout a specific coordination 
procedure in place, interference issues may arise between co-primary 
permanent fixed stations or other co-primary users of the band.'' In 
the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission stated that ``neither self-
coordination nor a notice-and-response coordination procedure is likely 
to be sufficient to ensure interference protection to primary users in 
a mixed use environment.'' APCO argues in its 2015 report that ``new 
frequency coordination procedures designed to improve usage, 
performance, and interference protection'' would increase interest in 
the band by the public safety community and ``provide incentives for 
equipment vendors to direct investment into this market.''
    21. Therefore, in this Eighth Further Notice, we tentatively 
conclude that some form of formal frequency coordination, whether 
through a coordination method discussed in this subsection and/or a 
dynamic spectrum

[[Page 59938]]

sharing model as discussed further below, is necessary to support 
interference protection and increase public safety confidence in using 
the band. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Would mandatory 
frequency coordination provide certainty and incentives for public 
safety to increase its use of the band? Would it encourage equipment 
manufacturers to invest in developing new and low cost equipment for 
the band? If we adopt frequency coordination requirements, should they 
also apply to applications for non-public safety uses, insofar as such 
uses are permitted? If so, what criteria should coordinators apply to 
ensure that proposed non-public safety uses will not interfere with 
public safety operations?
    22. If we adopt formal frequency coordination for the 4.9 GHz band, 
what type of frequency coordination would most effectively promote 
innovative use of the band while protecting against interference? In 
certain spectrum bands under Part 90, applicants seeking to license a 
new frequency or modify existing facilities must demonstrate that their 
application was coordinated by a Commission-certified frequency 
coordinator. The certified frequency coordinator recommends the most 
appropriate frequency for the proposed operation. Another type of 
frequency coordination that does not rely on certified frequency 
coordinators is used for applicants in the fixed microwave service. 
Part 101 requires that an applicant coordinate proposed facilities with 
existing licensees and other applicants whose facilities could be 
affected by the new proposal, i.e., ``notice-and-comment'' type 
frequency coordination. We seek comment on whether Part 90 type 
frequency coordination, Part 101 type frequency coordination, or a 
combination of the two would be best suited for the 4.9 GHz band. 
Should Part 101 type coordination apply only to P-P or P-MP deployments 
in the 4.9 GHz band since those deployments are similar to deployments 
licensed under Part 101 of the Commission's rules, or could it apply to 
additional deployments? What are the costs associated with Part 101 
type coordination, including the time and effort to identify all 
incumbent licensees who must be notified, and how do those costs 
compare to Part 90-type frequency coordination? Do the benefits of 
frequency coordination outweigh any associated costs? Furthermore, 
below we seek comment on a Spectrum Access System (SAS) managed shared 
access model to facilitate non-public safety use of the band. 
Therefore, we seek comment on whether a SAS model could be used either 
in lieu of, or in parallel with, frequency coordination methods 
discussed above.
    23. Next, we seek comment on how formal frequency coordination 
would apply to temporary or ad hoc deployments in the 4.9 GHz band. In 
particular, we seek comment on how to balance the need for public 
safety agencies to deploy temporary or ad hoc operations while 
protecting licensees with permanent deployments from interference. We 
also seek comment on what interference standard(s) should be the basis 
for any frequency coordination method adopted for the 4.9 GHz band. We 
seek comment on whether to incorporate the technical standard for 
frequency coordination into our rules, or rely on either an industry-
agreed standard or frequency coordinator consensus. What should be the 
process for permitting Commission review of any disputes arising from 
the frequency coordinator's actions, and how should Commission staff 
resolve such disputes?
    24. If we adopt a coordination approach for the 4.9 GHz band that 
requires use of certified frequency coordinators, what criteria should 
the Commission use to certify coordinators? Should eligibility be 
limited to coordinators already approved to coordinate Public Safety 
Pool frequencies, or should it be open to other parties? Should 
prospective coordinators be required to demonstrate a specific level of 
technical expertise with respect to 4.9 GHz operations in order to be 
certified?
2. Nationwide Band Manager
    25. We seek comment on the concept of designating a single entity 
to serve as a nationwide band manager or licensee for the 4.9 GHz band. 
Assigning spectrum management responsibility to a single nationwide 
entity might simplify the task of developing a national framework for 
the band, and has been supported by some commenters. However, this 
approach would also represent a marked departure from the approach that 
we have applied to the band up to this point, and it raises a variety 
of significant policy, legal, and operational questions.
    26. We seek comment on the concept of designating a single 
nationwide band manager that would be responsible for developing a 
nationwide framework for the band. For example, the Commission has 
adopted band manager rules for the 700 MHz Guard Bands, and the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has permitted certain entities to 
engage in band manager activities via waiver request for the 220 MHz 
band. What entities would be appropriate for such a role in the 4.9 GHz 
band? How would the Commission differentiate between competing 
proposals to become the single nationwide band manager? If we were to 
pursue a nationwide band manager approach, we seek comment on 
appropriate rules or guidelines to define how the band manager would be 
authorized to select and manage users of the band. Would a band 
manager's duties be limited to merely developing a nationwide 
framework, or would a band manager take a more active role in 
evaluating applications? Would a band manager decide who can use the 
spectrum? Should we impose reporting requirements on a 4.9 GHz band 
manager, and, if so, what should those reports address and how often 
should they be filed with the Commission? What would be an appropriate 
level of compensation for the band manager? If the Commission moves 
forward with dynamic spectrum sharing, could one or more dynamic 
spectrum sharing system administrators assume the role of band manager, 
and would such designation be appropriate?
    27. We also seek comment on establishing a national license for the 
4.9 GHz band. If we were to adopt this approach, what rights and 
responsibilities over the band should be associated with the national 
license, and what rights should be reserved for state, local, tribal, 
or regional public safety licensees? As proposed above, we envision 
that incumbent licensees in the band would retain spectrum rights and 
would be entitled to protection of their facilities. Would all other 
spectrum rights be invested in the national licensee? If yes, what 
obligation should the national licensee have to ensure access to the 
band by sub-national public safety entities? If we were to allow public 
safety and non-public safety sharing of the band as discussed further 
below, would the national licensee be responsible for management or 
oversight of the sharing process? Finally, if we were to establish a 
national license, what process should we establish for accepting 
applications and selecting a licensee? What qualifications or 
attributes should be required to be eligible to apply for the license? 
If more than one entity applied to be the national licensee, how would 
the Commission adjudicate between competing applications?
3. Regional Planning Committees
    28. Our current 4.9 GHz licensing regime is loosely based on a 
voluntary

[[Page 59939]]

regional planning framework. Section 90.1211(a) of the Commission's 
rules provides that each Regional Planning Committee (RPC) may submit a 
plan with guidelines to be used for sharing 4.9 GHz spectrum within the 
RPC region. The rules list elements to be included in regional plans 
and provide instructions for plan modifications. Although the 
Commission originally set a deadline for all RPCs to submit 4.9 GHz 
regional plans, it subsequently stayed the deadline and made plan 
submission voluntary. To date, only 10 out of 55 RPC regions have 
submitted 4.9 GHz regional plans.
    29. In the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission stated its belief 
that RPCs should play an integral role in shaping use of the 4.9 GHz 
band through regional planning. The Commission proposed to allow RPCs 
to submit 4.9 GHz band regional plans, which could include region-
specific technical guidelines. APCO noted that the Sixth Report and 
Order (85 FR 76469) abandoned these proposals, and in the latest round 
of comments, NPSTC and the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) suggest that active RPCs could serve 
a valuable role in helping to manage the 4.9 GHz band in their regions.
    30. As we endeavor to establish a nationwide spectrum management 
framework for the 4.9 GHz band, we seek comment on whether RPCs should 
play a continued or expanded role. Should we continue to make the 
filing of regional plans optional, or should we require RPCs to file 
regional plans? In light of the fact that only 10 of 55 RPCs have filed 
voluntary plans, what resources would RPCs need to ensure that plans 
were filed for all regions? If we were to adopt frequency coordination 
requirements for the band as discussed above, would RPCs have the 
technical expertise and resources to serve as coordinators? To what 
degree is regional planning consistent with our goal of establishing a 
national framework for management of the band that would encourage 
development of standardized equipment and promote interoperability? 
Should we develop a standardized template to ensure that all regional 
plans are consistent and support a nationwide approach? Should we allow 
RPCs to file alternative regional plans that vary from a standardized 
approach? In the proposal that it filed in 2013, NPSTC stated that ``a 
single national plan for 4.9 GHz will meet most regions' needs,'' but 
``some regions will need some different parameters to better meet needs 
of users in their regions.'' Is this a viable approach in today's 
environment?
4. Incentivizing Use of Latest Commercially Available Technologies
    31. We seek comment on ways to incentivize public safety use of the 
latest commercially available technologies, particularly 5G. As a 
general matter not limited to any particular spectrum band, what is the 
path for public safety to use 5G? Would public safety agencies be able 
to deploy custom 5G networks themselves, with the aid of consultants 
and contractors as necessary? What commercial 5G offerings are 
available to public safety, and what are the priority and preemption 
capabilities of such solutions? We also seek comment on the value, 
utility, and potential of the commercially available technologies, such 
as 5G, to public safety. For instance, the Public Safety Spectrum 
Alliance (PSSA) asserts that 5G functionality is expected to be the 
future of public safety cellular communications because it will support 
new high-speed applications that leverage rich media, such as augmented 
and virtual reality, and video streaming, while also offering extremely 
low latency, allowing true real-time data streaming and transfer 
necessary for use of autonomous vehicles, bomb and hazardous material 
detection and remediation, and mobile video surveillance capabilities. 
Nokia states that ``[n]ew technologies enabled by 5G can also allow for 
network slicing that can provide greater certainty for enhanced 
security and other quality of service metrics that may be required for 
public safety incumbent use cases as well as certain potential . . . 
[commercial] use cases.'' We seek comment on PSSA's and Nokia's views. 
What capabilities and applications could 5G and other advanced 
technologies enable for public safety? We seek comment on any public 
safety use cases supported by 5G and other advanced technologies.
    32. In the Sixth Report and Order, the Commission noted that some 
countries have considered, or are considering, allocating the 4.9 GHz 
band for 5G, and noted that successful international harmonization 
efforts could provide further advantages in the availability and price 
of equipment, thus potentially increasing its utility for flexible use. 
The Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Seventh Further 
Notice) (85 FR 76505) specifically sought comment on whether 5G 
wireless operators, among others, could put the 4.9 GHz spectrum to 
use. Some commenters support further exploration of potential 5G 
deployments in the 4.9 GHz band. PSSA states that ``as spectrum falling 
within the mid-band, 4.9 GHz is significantly better suited [than the 
700 MHz band public safety broadband spectrum] to offer 5G 
capabilities.'' We seek comment on the potential for the 4.9 GHz band 
to support applications enabled by 5G technology, including but not 
limited to the examples suggested by PSSA and Nokia. Is development of 
5G in the band technically feasible, and what are the potential 
benefits and costs of such development? Could the technical 
capabilities of 5G technology promote more intense use of the 4.9 GHz 
band by public safety entities? In the context of our objectives to 
establish a national framework that ensures public safety priority, how 
can we create conditions in the 4.9 GHz band that will encourage 
deployment of 5G and subsequent innovative technologies? As in other 
spectrum bands, our strong preference is to adhere to a technology-
neutral policy for the band and strive for operational flexibility. Do 
any of the existing 4.9 GHz rules in part 90 (i.e., subpart Y) impede 
or discourage 5G deployments?
    33. We also seek comment on commercial interest in the 4.9 GHz band 
for 5G, whether for public safety offerings, for non-public safety, or 
a sharing combination. Could commercial 5G providers and operators put 
4.9 GHz spectrum to use? Could 5G technology also enhance opportunities 
for shared public safety and non-public safety use of the band? If so, 
how?
5. Other Technical Options
    34. Although we seek comment above on certain prominent proposals 
from the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission proposed several other 
technical rule changes to increase utilization of the 4.9 GHz band. We 
incorporate these proposals by reference. In particular, the Commission 
proposed to (1) expand the channel aggregation bandwidth limit from 20 
to 40 megahertz; (2) accord primary status for all P-P and P-MP links 
on Channels 14-18 of the band plan; (3) limit temporary P-P operation 
to thirty days maximum over a given path over a one-year period; (4) 
raise the minimum antenna gain for P-P antennas to 26 dBi; (5) require 
all 4.9 GHz geographic licensees to place at least one base or 
temporary fixed station in operation within 12 months of license grant; 
(6) reduce the construction period for fixed P-P stations from 18 
months to 12 months; and (7) allow manned aeronautical mobile, not 
including unmanned aeronautical systems (UAS), and robotic use in the 
lowest five megahertz of the

[[Page 59940]]

band with altitude and other technical limitations. The Commission also 
sought comment on how to encourage voluntary implementation of 
technical standards for the band and on power limits and emission 
masks. We seek comment on these proposals and open issues, and seek 
comment on whether we should include any of them going forward as part 
of our proposed national framework.

D. Facilitating Non-Public Safety Access to the Band

    35. While we emphasize the importance of public safety operations 
in the 4.9 GHz band, we also recognize that introducing non-public 
safety operations in the band may help to foster innovation and drive 
down equipment costs, thereby making more intensive public safety use 
of the spectrum a possibility. To that end, we seek comment on 
expanding use of the band to non-public safety entities, subject to 
appropriate safeguards to protect public safety operations. We also 
seek comment on ensuring a cohesive and predictable shared spectrum 
landscape that would also allow for planning and investing in the band 
by public safety and non-public safety users alike.
    36. In this Eighth Further Notice, we seek comment on whether and 
how to allow non-public safety entities access to the 4.9 GHz band for 
non-public safety operations, with particular emphasis on expanding use 
of the band under a nationwide framework. We seek comment on whether it 
is in the public interest to open the band to non-public safety uses, 
and under what terms. We seek comment on whether such a policy has the 
potential to not only promote efficient use of valuable mid-band 
spectrum, something which we have recognized repeatedly is in the 
public interest, but also to reduce equipment costs and spur 
innovation, which will benefit public safety users as well. We also 
seek comment on any costs public safety may incur if the band is shared 
with other users, such as in the need to replace equipment or modify 
usage. Would use of the band by non-public safety entities make it less 
reliable for public safety agencies that use the band for critical 
safety of life communications? If so, how can we address these 
concerns?
    37. If we decide to allow non-public safety use of the 4.9 GHz 
band, we seek comment on how best to do so. Given that all public 
safety licenses issued for the 4.9 GHz band to date allow full access 
to its entire 50 megahertz and the public safety operations that it 
hosts are of critical importance, we recognize that any sharing regime 
will be complex. During earlier stages of this proceeding, several 
stakeholders put forth proposals to permit non-public safety use of the 
band, some of which have received qualified support from public safety 
stakeholders.
    38. As part of these different potential non-public safety use 
frameworks, we seek comment on the types of non-public safety 
operations which should be permitted, and the types of entities that 
should be eligible for access. Should we allow all types of commercial 
use, but limit the types of users? For example, the Commission has 
previously recognized that railroad, power, and petroleum entities use 
radio communications ``as a critical tool for responding to emergencies 
that could impact hundreds or even thousands of people.'' Therefore, we 
seek comment on whether critical infrastructure (CII) eligible entities 
should be permitted access to the band in a way distinct from other 
classes of non-public safety users. We also seek comment on whether 
shared CII access to the band will sufficiently increase use of the 
band nationwide to encourage innovation and impact equipment costs.
    39. We seek comment on these possible alternatives, in particular 
on the interplay of different elements of the possible approaches to 
improve access to the band and facilitate non-public safety use. In 
other words, these components should not be viewed as mutually 
exclusive and, indeed, any comprehensive framework that we may adopt 
will likely include elements of multiple access models and licensing 
approaches discussed below. Commenters that support opening the band 
for non-public safety applications are encouraged to submit detailed 
proposals--including cost-benefit analyses--on these issues, 
incorporating elements of different options discussed below and 
explaining why they are preferable to alternatives.
1. Shared Access Models
    40. We seek comment below on possible sharing mechanisms, non-
public safety licensing approaches, and leasing regimes that could be 
used to provide shared access to the band for non-public safety users 
while protecting--and, potentially, improving--critical public safety 
operations. These options are not exclusive of one another (e.g., 
excess capacity leasing could be combined with a dynamic sharing 
mechanism) and commenters are encouraged to submit detailed proposals 
addressing how a comprehensive sharing regime could be implemented.
a. Excess Capacity Leasing
    41. One potential means of sharing the band between public safety 
and non-public safety users involves leasing of excess capacity on 
public safety networks to non-public safety users. For example, a 
public safety licensee which has constructed a network of fixed sites 
for its operations, but only uses that network in emergencies, could 
lease the use of that network when no such emergency is occurring. 
Alternatively, a public safety licensee could work with a commercial 
wireless operator to construct a dual-use system pursuant to its 
license. Are such excess capacity leasing arrangements feasible for 
this band and, if so, could they provide potential benefits to public 
safety licensees? Could such leasing arrangements facilitate more 
robust deployment of 4.9 GHz public safety networks? What types of non-
public safety entities would be interested in leasing excess capacity 
from public safety licensees? Commenters that support excess capacity 
leasing should address the specific costs and benefits of such a 
regime, giving particular consideration to the non-exclusive nature of 
the public safety licenses in this band, the current and potential 
future coordination mechanisms discussed herein, and the wide range of 
different uses this band hosts.
    42. If we choose to implement an excess capacity leasing regime, we 
seek comment on how that regime should be implemented and how the 
rights of public safety and non-public safety entities should be 
managed. Given the importance of public safety operations in the band, 
should we ensure priority and preemption for such operations vis-
[agrave]-vis non-public safety lessees? If so, how can we best do so? 
What specific rule-based mechanisms should we implement to ensure a 
consistent and publicly accountable leasing system? How should we 
address the overlapping rights of different public safety licensees in 
the band to ensure a stable and predictable spectrum environment for 
public safety operations? If we designate a single nationwide band 
manager, as discussed above, could that entity have a role in 
facilitating leased access to excess capacity on public safety 
networks? Alternatively, could these issues be addressed by utilizing a 
SAS, as discussed below? Specifically, could a SAS be used to manage 
leases and coordinate access for lessors and lessees? How would such a 
system work within the Commission's existing leasing rules?

[[Page 59941]]

b. Spectrum Access System (SAS) Managed Shared Access
    43. In the Seventh Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on 
whether a dynamic spectrum access system could be used to facilitate 
non-public safety use of the band alongside public safety access. The 
Commission noted that such opportunistic use of spectrum is permitted 
in several other spectrum bands using a variety of different automatic 
sharing systems that rely on databases to ensure protection of other 
users. We expand on the Commission's earlier inquiry and seek comment 
on whether a dynamic frequency coordinator--such as the SAS used to 
coordinate access to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.55-
3.7 GHz band (3.5 GHz band)--could be used to facilitate sharing 
between public safety and non-public safety users.
    44. In the 3.5 GHz band, SASs currently are used to protect several 
types of incumbent operations--including critical Department of Defense 
radar systems, fixed satellite service earth stations, and incumbent 
terrestrial wireless licensees--as well as two tiers of users in the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. A similar system could be used to 
protect public safety operations in the 4.9 GHz band. Would a SAS be 
the most appropriate system to coordinate dynamic spectrum sharing in 
this band? Or would another model, like the Automatic Frequency 
Coordination system in the 6 GHz band, be more appropriate? For either 
system, what, if any, modifications would be necessary to address the 
unique needs of public safety users in the 4.9 GHz band? What would be 
the costs associated with such a system, both its setup and its 
implementation going forward, and how would those costs compare to the 
cost of traditional Part 90 frequency coordination? Who would be 
responsible for those costs? Should the Commission maintain the system, 
or should it contract the responsibility to a third-party?
    45. If we implement a SAS-based authorization model in the band, we 
seek comment on how best to use the unique capabilities of the SASs to 
protect public safety users, authorize non-public safety operations, 
and mitigate potential interference between and among various tiers of 
users in the band. Most importantly, could a SAS protect public safety 
operations--including possible operations over potential nationwide 
interoperability spectrum--while providing meaningful access to the 
band for non-public safety users? We also seek comment on how 
implementing dynamic spectrum sharing in this band would impact public 
safety confidence in the band, particularly given the efforts discussed 
above to increase the visibility of public safety deployments in the 
band in order to enable protection and clear access rights.
    46. We also seek comment on how public safety licensees could best 
be incorporated into a SAS-driven dynamic spectrum sharing regime while 
protecting the rights of public safety users and ensuring an 
interference-free operating environment. Specifically, should public 
safety licensees be required to inform the SAS of their operations, 
with the system protecting these operations by only permitting non-
public safety use of other frequencies in the band? Or should the SAS 
also be responsible for assigning frequencies to public safety 
operations based on their needs? If the latter, to what extent and by 
what method should the SAS ensure priority and preemption for public 
safety operations? Should the SAS treat future public safety 
deployments differently than pre-existing deployments? Is a SAS managed 
model consistent with our earlier tentative conclusion that frequency 
coordination is in the public interest for this band? What, if any, 
requirements should we put in place to protect non-public safety 
operations from one another?
    47. We note that the feasibility of dynamic sharing could depend on 
factors such as how intensely incumbents are currently using the 
spectrum, the types of existing services these incumbents are using 
(e.g., mobile vs. fixed), and the ability of dynamic sharing systems to 
register, detect, and coordinate existing systems. We seek comment on 
these and other characteristics in the 4.9 GHz band that would affect 
dynamic sharing, whether a dynamic spectrum sharing model is 
appropriate for this band, and, if so, what type of dynamic sharing is 
most appropriate. Commenters should also discuss the impacts of the 
different possible changes to the band that the Commission is 
considering as part of its efforts to standardize public safety 
operations and ensure greater visibility into deployments in order to 
provide greater protections for those operations, such as coordination 
requirements and a licensing database. How could a dynamic spectrum 
access system take advantage of those efforts?
    48. Finally, we seek comment on whether to segment the 4.9 GHz band 
to enable non-public safety uses while also protecting public safety 
operations. Would combining such a segmentation of the band with a 
dynamic spectrum sharing system enable reliable spectrum access both 
for public safety operators and for non-public safety users, while also 
ensuring efficient use of spectrum that public safety is not actively 
using? For example, could we reserve some portion of the band for 
public safety use on a primary basis, and only permit non-public safety 
use of this portion via a dynamic spectrum sharing system, while making 
the remainder of the band available for non-public safety access? Could 
we grant public safety licensees some form of preemption rights, which 
would allow public safety access to the entire 4.9 GHz band in the case 
of an emergency, but limit public safety access to only a portion of 
the band at other times? If we do segment the band, should we require 
devices to be operable across the entire 4.9 GHz band, as we did in the 
3.5 GHz band? Would segmenting the band--coupled with a band wide 
operability requirement--help to spur innovations in the equipment 
marketplace in the band to the benefit of public safety users?
c. Manual and Technical Sharing
    49. Given the non-exclusive nature of 4.9 GHz band licenses, we 
seek comment on whether alternative methods of sharing are preferable 
to dynamic sharing. Would implementing licensing and technical rules be 
sufficient to enable non-public safety use without causing harmful 
interference to those public safety operations that would remain in the 
band? For example, we could require sensing capabilities for non-public 
safety equipment, or limit emissions to levels below that which could 
cause harmful interference to public safety operations. What would be 
the necessary requirements to allow for purely technical protection 
measures? Would such limitations prevent the other benefits of opening 
this band to non-public safety use, such as fostering innovation and 
lowering equipment costs, from being realized? Such rules could be 
different for urban or rural areas, in recognition of the different 
uses of the band in those locations, as discussed above.
    50. We seek comment on whether a frequency coordination requirement 
imposed on public safety operations, as discussed above, would enable 
similar requirements to be placed on non-public safety operations and 
thereby enable shared access. What requirements would we need to impose 
on non-public safety operations to enable full protection for public 
safety users, and what information would coordinators need from non-
public safety operations to ensure such protection? Would we

[[Page 59942]]

require non-public safety operators to modify their systems based on 
new public safety deployments, or only to protect incumbents at the 
time they deploy? What, if any, requirements should we put in place to 
protect non-public safety operations from one another?
2. Licensing Non-Public Safety Operations
    51. In the event we determine that allowing non-public safety 
operations in the 4.9 GHz band is in the public interest, we will have 
to decide on the appropriate framework under which to authorize such 
operations. Below, we seek comment on a number of different licensing 
regimes which could be combined with one another and with the sharing 
regimes discussed above to create a comprehensive, nationwide framework 
for non-public safety operations in the band.
a. Non-Exclusive Licensed Access
    52. We seek comment on allowing non-public safety users to access 
the band on a licensed, non-exclusive basis. Methods that have been 
used in other bands include: (1) Traditional site-based Part 90 
secondary licensing, such as in the PLMR bands; (2) the ``license 
light'' licensing model used in the 3650-3700 MHz Service prior to its 
incorporation into the Citizens Broadband Radio Service; and (3) the 
licensed-by-rule General Authorized Access (GAA) tier of the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service. Such approaches have been successfully used to 
make spectrum available to a wide variety of operators with relatively 
low barriers to entry vis-[agrave]-vis exclusive licensing models. 
Would a non-exclusive licensing approach be well-suited to the 4.9 GHz 
band? Could such an approach facilitate significant non-public safety 
use in the band while protecting important public safety operations? 
How should the system treat future public safety deployments, as 
opposed to incumbents? Could a non-exclusive licensing approach help to 
promote technological innovation in the band, including the equipment 
marketplace, to the benefit of public safety and non-public safety 
users? Commenters that support implementing a non-exclusive licensing 
model for non-public safety users in the band are encouraged to provide 
detailed proposals, including details on any sharing or authorization 
mechanism needed to facilitate such an approach.
b. Granting Exclusive Use Licenses
    53. While exclusive use licenses are often the preferred method of 
allocating spectrum to commercial use, given the non-exclusive nature 
of existing public safety licenses, the ongoing importance of public 
safety operations in the band, and the fact that nearly all of the U.S. 
is covered by at least one public safety license, assigning such 
licenses in the 4.9 GHz band may prove to be a challenge. But exclusive 
use licenses offer several important benefits, and, as such we seek 
comment on a variety of ways that exclusive use licenses could be 
utilized to facilitate non-public safety use in this band.
    54. Would exclusive use licenses potentially increase current and 
future licensees' willingness to invest heavily in the band? Exclusive 
use licenses may be subject to mutually exclusive applications, which 
would be resolved by competitive bidding. Would this increase the 
likelihood that new licensees will be those entities that are most 
highly motivated to invest in the band? The Commission's competitive 
bidding systems generally facilitate the aggregation of licenses when 
it is economically efficient to do so. Would this make it more likely 
that licensees aggregating licenses in competitive bidding will invest 
in developing and deploying networks in this band? Given these 
potential benefits, we seek comment on whether this band is well-suited 
to exclusive use licensing and, if so, how to achieve it.
    55. Overlay Licensing. Overlay licenses would grant new non-public 
safety entrants the right to use the band in ways that would not cause 
harmful interference to public safety users at any given time, but 
would be exclusive as to other non-public safety users. Such a 
licensing framework could be combined with different access models--
including spectrum manager models, competitive bidding, and dynamic 
database-driven sharing models--and could be coupled with relocation or 
re-banding of some existing operations to increase the amount of 
spectrum available to the overlay licensee. This approach could provide 
the flexibility to allow new non-public safety operations in the band 
while safeguarding public safety users.
    56. We seek comment on whether we should utilize overlay licenses 
to facilitate non-public safety use of the 4.9 GHz band. We also seek 
comment on how to assign such licenses and how to structure the rules 
governing them. How would an overlay license work in concert with 
potential new technical, interoperability, and coordination rules for 
public safety licensees that we seek comment on here? What technical or 
coordination rules would be required for non-public safety operations, 
as distinct from those required of public safety licensees? How would 
overlay licenses work with potential future public safety operations, 
as opposed to incumbents?
    57. We also seek comment on the impact of this approach on use of 
the band. Would other users of the band spur innovation and expand the 
type, and lower the price, of 4.9 GHz equipment available to public 
safety entities? What types of entities should be eligible for overlay 
licenses? Would overlay licenses provide new licensees with sufficient 
spectrum access to justify investment in equipment and broadband and 
mobile applications? If more spectrum access than is currently 
available is needed to motivate investment, can overlay licensees 
reasonably expect to obtain sufficient spectrum access by negotiation 
with incumbents? What conditions would be necessary for such 
negotiations to be successful? Is it possible that such access 
negotiations would both provide new overlay licensees with sufficient 
and reliable bandwidth while maintaining current incumbent operations? 
We seek comment on any other considerations regarding the use of 
overlay licensing for the 4.9 GHz band.
    58. Exclusive Use Licenses for Specified Frequencies. We seek 
comment on whether licenses providing exclusive use of specified 
frequencies, e.g., designated channels, would be more beneficial for 
the 4.9 GHz band than overlay licenses. Depending on the use of the 
band by underlying incumbent licensees, overlay licenses may not enable 
the use of uniform frequencies across geographic areas by new 
licensees. However, enabling the exclusive use of uniform frequencies 
likely would require any incumbent public safety operations using the 
frequencies to cease. We seek comment on possible mechanisms for 
relocation or repacking of such operations. We seek comment below on 
the use of an incentive auction model to enable this effort. But we 
similarly seek comment on any alternatives to relocate or repack public 
safety incumbents as needed.
    59. What are the benefits and costs to this approach and how could 
it be implemented? How would licensing specified frequencies for 
exclusive use work in concert with other proposals to increase use of 
the band, such as the new technical and coordination rules for public 
safety operations or dynamic spectrum sharing, and which would it rule 
out?
c. Unlicensed Access
    60. Unlicensed access allows a wide range of different users the 
ability to access spectrum, especially in rural or

[[Page 59943]]

underserved areas and often at lower price points than through licensed 
services. This framework permits users to support innovative use cases 
and applications that can be tailored for each area, especially through 
Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other widely used technologies. Because the 
Commission permits unlicensed operations on a variety of spectrum 
bands, users are able to both match available capacity to their 
spectrum needs and choose the band(s) that are best suited to their 
particular coverage requirements. The Commission previously sought 
comment on unlicensed operations in this band. We recognize that both 
the demand for unlicensed spectrum and the unlicensed spectrum 
landscape have continued to evolve. We seek updated information on the 
potential use of the 4.9 GHz band for unlicensed access. To what extent 
is the band desirable for such use, given the presence of public safety 
incumbents and amount of spectrum available? What use cases could the 
4.9 GHz band host? Is this band suitable to provide the types of 
applications users are demanding in terms of capacity and coverage 
requirements? Are there particular unlicensed applications and 
protocols that are well-suited for the 4.9 GHz band? We seek comment 
below on possible sharing mechanisms, which could operate in concert 
with unlicensed use, but what technical or licensing rules would be 
required in order to enable such use, regardless of sharing mechanism?
3. Other Considerations
    61. Technical Flexibility. In the context of establishing a 
nationwide approach, we also seek comment on the feasibility of 
implementing different technical rules (e.g., maximum power levels) for 
the band to account for different public safety and non-public safety 
needs in different scenarios. We note that the record in this 
proceeding indicates that there may be varying use cases and 
opportunities for use in a nationwide framework. For example, public 
safety usage of the band is greater in urban areas than rural ones. At 
the same time, there may be differences in non-public safety use of 
this band in rural areas, particularly to accommodate wireless 
broadband. Would it be in the public interest to adopt flexibility in 
the technical rules for the 4.9 GHz band to accommodate these different 
needs, consistent with our decision to pursue an integrated, nationwide 
approach to the band? For example, in other proceedings we have adopted 
different power levels for urban and rural deployments. Should we take 
a similar approach here as part of a nationwide framework? Would this 
approach help foster efficient use, encourage innovation, and improve 
the equipment marketplace for the band? How would we define the 
different areas within our nationwide framework, and how would we 
ensure these definitions remain up-to-date as use of the band evolves?
    62. Incentive Auction. In addition to its standard authority to 
conduct competitive bidding to assign licenses, the Commission has 
statutory authority to conduct incentive auctions, in which it offers 
incumbent licensees a share of the proceeds from the auction of new 
licenses made available by the incumbents relinquishing their spectrum 
usage rights. Should the Commission consider an incentive auction to 
encourage public safety licensees to relocate their operations (or 
modify them in some way to reduce the amount of spectrum they require) 
in order to enable greater non-public safety use of the band? How would 
we structure an incentive auction within the Commission's existing 
statutory authority that would result in enough clear spectrum to 
attract new licensees and serve the public interest? What alternate 
options are available to public safety licensees which accept incentive 
auction payments? Would the current 4.9 GHz licensees, many of which 
are governmental entities, be legally or practically equipped to 
participate in the reverse phase of an incentive auction? Would their 
incentives align with the public interest? How would we have to modify 
our incentive auction structure here, given the non-exclusive rights of 
the current licensees? Should any incumbent public safety licensees 
choosing not to participate in the incentive auction be required to be 
repacked into a portion of the band or otherwise modify their 
operations to enable coexistence with new non-public safety licensees? 
What is the likelihood that enough existing licensees would be willing 
to relinquish their spectrum usage rights so that the Commission then 
could offer enough new licenses to stimulate investment in the band?
    63. Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, the Commission, as part 
of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including 
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural 
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically 
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty 
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and 
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues 
discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals 
may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal 
authority.

II. Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act

    64. This Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may contain 
new or modified information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995. If the Commission adopts any new or modified 
information collection requirements, they will be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies will be 
invited to comment on the new or modified information collection 
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment 
on how we might ``further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    65. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 
requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for 
notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the 
rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has 
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning 
potential rule and policy changes contained in the Eighth Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is contained in Appendix C in 
the Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Ex Parte Rules

    66. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made; and (2) summarize all data presented and

[[Page 59944]]

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

III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    68. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in the Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Eighth 
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 as specified in the Eighth Further 
Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Eighth Further Notice, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Eighth Further Notice 
and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.

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

    69. In the Eighth Further Notice, we seek comment on a nationwide 
framework to encourage greater use and improved spectrum efficiency of 
the 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) band. We seek comment to implement changes 
to our policies and regulations that promote optimal use, innovation, 
and investment. The Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (77 FR 
45558) and Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this 
proceeding enabled the Commission to develop a record on several 
issues, including 4.9 GHz coordination, eligibility, licensing, band 
plan, power and antenna gain, aeronautical mobile use, and standards. 
The Sixth Report and Order and Seventh Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, however, sought to establish a new framework to expand 
access to the band by providing states the opportunity to lease 4.9 GHz 
band spectrum to commercial entities, critical infrastructure industry, 
including electric utilities, and other stakeholders. In addition, the 
Seventh Further Notice sought comment on new state-based licensing 
regime for public safety operations in the 4.9 GHz band, including a 
centralized structure of state oversight and coordination of public 
safety operations in the band.
    70. In the Eighth Further Notice, we revisit the structure of the 
4.9 GHz band to promote public safety use and encourage a robust market 
for equipment. Specifically, we focus on establishing a nationwide 
framework that will avoid breaking up the 4.9 GHz band into a patchwork 
of state leases. We believe that a nationwide approach will promote 
robust equipment market, lower costs, and increase the likelihood of 
interoperable communications and consistent interference protection. To 
achieve this vision, we seek comment on establishing a database with 
consistent and reliable information about what spectrum is available 
where or how it is being used--providing certainty and predictability 
to plan and invest in 4.9 GHz deployments. Further, we seek comment on 
certain prominent proposals from the Sixth Further Notice, such 
Universal Licensing System (ULS) information submissions, non-public 
safety access, dynamic spectrum sharing, and frequency coordination in 
the 4.9 GHz band, as well as on several other Commission proposals 
involving technical rule changes to increase utilization of the 4.9 GHz 
band and we incorporate these proposals by reference into the Eighth 
Further Notice. We believe that by implementing a nationwide framework 
that reflects public safety input, we can ensure that public safety 
continues to be prioritized in the band while opening up the band to 
additional uses that will facilitate increased usage and encourage a 
more robust market for equipment and greater innovation, and at the 
same time protect against harmful interference.

B. Legal Basis

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

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

    72. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    73. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of 
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having 
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 30.7 
million businesses.
    74. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2018, there were 
approximately 571,709 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

[[Page 59945]]

    75. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school 
districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, 
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at 
least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    76. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio 
(PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial, 
business, land transportation, and public safety activities. Companies 
of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories use these 
radios. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not 
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to 
PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses 
business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. The 
appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that 
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this 
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967 
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had 
employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR licensees 
are small entities.
    77. According to the Commission's records, a total of approximately 
393,490 licenses comprise PLMR users. Of this number there are a total 
of 3,541 PLMR licenses in the 4.9 GHz band. The Commission does not 
require PLMR licensees to disclose information about number of 
employees, and does not have information that could be used to 
determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities under this 
definition. The Commission however believes that a substantial number 
of PLMR licensees may be small entities despite the lack of specific 
information.
    78. Frequency Coordinators. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to 
spectrum frequency coordinators. The closest applicable SBA category is 
Business Associations which comprises establishments primarily engaged 
in promoting the business interests of their members. The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for ``Business Associations,'' 
which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $7.5 
million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 
shows that there were 14,996 firms that operated for the entire year. 
Of these firms, a total of 14,229 had gross annual receipts of less 
than $5 million and 396 firms had gross annual receipts of $5 million 
to $9,999,999.
    79. There are 13 entities certified to perform frequency 
coordination functions under Part 90 of the Commission's rules. 
According to U. S. Census Bureau data approximately 95% of business 
associations have gross annual receipts of $7.5 million or less and 
would be classified as small entities. The Business Associations 
category is very broad however, and does not include specific figures 
for firms that are engaged in frequency coordination. Thus, the 
Commission is unable to ascertain exactly how many of the frequency 
coordinators are classified as small entities under the SBA size 
standard. Therefore, for purposes of this IRFA under the associated SBA 
size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of the 13 FCC-
certified frequency coordinators are small.
    80. Regional Planning Committees. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically 
applicable to Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) and the National 
Regional Planning Council (NRPC). As described by the NRPC, ``[NRPC] is 
an advocacy body formed in 2007 that supports public safety 
communications spectrum management by [the RPCs] in the 700 MHz and 800 
MHz NPSPAC public safety spectrum as required by the Federal 
Communications Commission.'' The NRPC states that RPCs ``consist of 
public safety volunteer spectrum planners and members that dedicate 
their time, in addition to the time spent in their regular positions, 
to coordinate spectrum efficiently and effectively for the purpose of 
making it available to public safety agency applicants in their 
respective region.'' According to Commission data, there are 55 RPCs. 
The Commission has not developed a small business size standard 
specifically applicable to RPCs and the NRPC. The closest applicable 
industry with a SBA small business size standard is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses 
business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. Under the 
SBA small business size standard, a business employing no more than 
1,500 persons is considered small. For this industry, U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or 
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus 
using the SBA size standard, we estimate that all of the RPCs and the 
NRPC can be considered small.
    81. 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 small business 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.
    82. 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

[[Page 59946]]

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.

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

    83. The nationwide framework described in the Eighth Further Notice 
may impose new or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other 
compliance obligations on small entities, if adopted. The reporting or 
recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations generally fall into 
two categories: Technical requirements and eligibility/governance 
criteria. Potential information collections and compliance requirements 
that are technical in nature may include costs associated with 
compensating engineering or technical staff or consultants or attorneys 
which the Commission is unable to quantify at this time. The purpose of 
the information collections is to ensure that future operations protect 
incumbent operations from interference, and to make it feasible to 
identify the source of any actual interference that may occur, as well 
as maximize use of the 4.9 GHz band. We discuss these potential 
requirements below.
    84. Licensing Database and Frequency Coordination. The Eighth 
Further Notice seeks comment on requiring base and mobile stations, 
permanent fixed P-P transmitters and receivers, and permanent fixed P-
MP transmitters and receivers in the 4940-4990 MHz band to be licensed 
individually on a site-by-site basis for interference protection and 
frequency coordination purposes which would impose a one-time 
information collection requirement on existing 4.9 GHz band licensees. 
The information collected would include technical parameters such as 
transmitter and receiver antenna coordinates, azimuth (direction), 
polarization, beamwidth, physical dimensions, gain, and height above 
ground, as well as transmit details such as power, channel, emission, 
and would be collected on Form 601 in the Commission's Universal 
Licensing System database. We expect that there will not be any 
application fees associated with this information collection for public 
safety entities because they are exempt from application fees pursuant 
to 47 CFR 1.1116(b). To the extent non-public safety access is 
permitted in the band however, non-public safety entities would incur 
application fee costs.
    85. The Eighth Further Notice also seeks comment on requiring 
formal frequency coordination in the 4.9 GHz band to support 
interference protection and increase public safety confidence to use 
the band. If formal frequency coordination is adopted, we have 
requested comment on the criteria and type of certification the 
Commission should use to certify coordinators which may impose 
reporting and recordkeeping obligations. The selected frequency 
coordinators could be subject reporting recordkeeping obligations 
associated with coordination for the 4.9 GHz band. Additionally, 
licensees could be subject to requirements to submit information to 
frequency coordinators and subject to compliance costs associated 
frequency coordination.
    86. Facilitating Non-Public Safety Access to the Band. The Eighth 
Further Notice seeks comment various methods of enabling non-public 
safety access to the 4.9 GHz band alongside public safety access, 
including tiered licensing, a dynamic spectrum access system, and 
overlay licenses. For any of these methods, either the Commission or a 
third party would collect information from non-public safety users that 
wish to access the 4.9 GHz band. Such users may be classified as small 
businesses, small organizations, small governmental jurisdictions; PLMR 
licensees; and wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite). 
The information collected would likely be equivalent to information 
collected on Form 601 of the Commission's Universal Licensing System 
database. For the dynamic spectrum access system method, a third party 
database would collect certain licensing and operational information 
from incumbent public safety 4.9 GHz band PLMR licensees. The amount of 
information collected, the means, and the frequency of such collection 
depends on whether the dynamic spectrum access system database would 
draw existing sources of such information, such as information 
contained in the Commission's Universal Licensing System. The Eighth 
Further Notice also seeks comment on the potential use of an incentive 
auction as part of the discussion on granting exclusive access rights 
which would have recordkeeping and data submission obligations.
    87. Nationwide Licensee or Band Manager. The Eighth Further Notice 
seeks comment on designating a nationwide band manager that would be 
responsible for developing a nationwide framework for the 4.9 GHz band. 
If adopted, a one-time information collection may take the form of a 
band manager application and a proposed nationwide framework describing 
how different types of entities may operate within the 4.9 GHz band.
    88. Regional Planning Committees. The Eighth Further Notice seeks 
comment on a requiring regional planning committees (RPCs) to file 
regional plans, which could impact reporting and recordkeeping 
obligations for RPCs. Under the Commission's existing rules in the 4.9 
GHz licensing regime, the filing of regional plans by RPCs is 
voluntary. Sections 90.1211(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules detail 
certain information that must be submitted in regional plans and 
provide instructions for plan modifications. In the Eighth Further 
Notice, we inquire whether to develop a standardized template to ensure 
that the information submitted in all regional plans is consistent and 
supports a nationwide approach, and whether to allow RPCs to file 
alternative regional plans that vary from a standardized approach.

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

    89. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    90. The Commission's reliance on technical and eligibility 
requirements utilized in other public safety and PLMR spectrum bands as 
the basis of inquiries in Eighth Further Notice potentially provides 
regulatory policies and frameworks that small entities are 
operationally familiar with and may therefore minimize any substantial 
economic impact if similar requirements are adopted in this proceeding. 
To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact on 
small entities as a result of the actions that have been proposed in 
this proceeding, and the options and alternatives for such entities, 
the Commission has raised questions and sought comment on these matters 
in the Eighth Further Notice. As part of the inquiry, the Commission 
has specifically requested that commenters include costs and benefit 
analysis data

[[Page 59947]]

in their comments. Additionally, we are seeking comment on proposals in 
the Sixth Further Notice, which include inquiries and requests for 
information on the impacts for small entities and courses of action 
that might be considered to accommodate the resources small entities. 
For example, as part of the proposed information collection requirement 
to make information available to frequency coordinators to ensure that 
these operations are protected from interference, the Sixth Further 
Notice proposed a one-year deadline for licensees to complete this 
information collection after final rules in this proceeding become 
effective. Before the deadline, the Commission would waive frequency 
coordination requirements. After one year, the information collection 
would be subject to frequency coordination requirements, including 
frequency coordination fees. The Commission also sought comment on 
whether the status of a license should become secondary if the 
incumbent licensee does not meet the one-year deadline. The Sixth 
Further Notice sought comment on whether small entities should have a 
lengthier deadline, and what showing the Commission should require from 
licensees to attest that they qualify as small entities. The Sixth 
Further Notice also asked whether the Commission should require small 
entities to file attestations by the one-year deadline or accept 
attestations after the deadline at the time they eventually complete 
the information collection.
    91. The Commission is hopeful that the comments it receives will 
specifically address matters impacting small entities and include data 
and analyses relating to these matters. Further, while the Commission 
believes the rules that are eventually adopted in this proceeding 
should benefit small entities, whether public safety or non-public 
safety, by giving them more options for gaining access to valuable 
spectrum, the Commission expects to more fully consider the economic 
impact and alternatives for small entities following the review of 
comments filed in response to the Eighth Further Notice. The 
Commission's evaluation of this information will shape the final 
alternatives it considers, the final conclusions it reaches, and any 
final actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any 
significant economic impact that may occur on small entities.

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

    None.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    92. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in 
sections 4(i), 4(j), 302, 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 309(j) and 
405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 
154(j), 302a, 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 309(j), and 405, that 
this Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    93. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Eighth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 
days after publication in the Federal Register.
    94. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-23335 Filed 10-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P