Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band, 72780-72793 [2024-19846]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72780-72793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19846]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 90 and 96

[GN Docket No. 17-258; FCC 24-86; FR ID 240738]


Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or 
Commission) continues to shape development of the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service operations in the 3.55-3.7 GHz band (3.5 GHz band). This 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) provides an overview of the 
federal protection regime implemented by the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of 
Defense (DoD), and Commission staff and solicits input on proposals to 
update the technical and service rules. It also seeks commenters' ideas 
for further innovations and improvements to the 3.5 GHz band.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before October 7, 
2024; and reply comments on or before November 5, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 17-258, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Paul Powell of the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-1613 [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 17-258, FCC 24-86, adopted on 
August 5, 2024, and released on August 16, 2024. The full text of this 
document is available for public inspection online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-looks-modernize-35-ghz-citizens-broadband-radio-service-rules.
    Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires 
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a 
brief plain language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary 
of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be 
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
     Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the 
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701.
     Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, 
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street 
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
    Ex Parte Status: The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be 
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the 
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must 
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any 
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation 
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period 
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that 
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons 
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex 
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter

[[Page 72781]]

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). 
In proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) or for which the Commission 
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules. We find that all ex parte presentations 
made by NTIA or Department of Defense representatives relating to the 
development and implementation of spectrum access in the 3.5 GHz band 
are exempt under our exemption for presentations by federal agencies 
sharing jurisdiction with the Commission.
    WTB and OET staff--in close collaboration with NTIA and DoD--
communicate with SAS administrators and ESC operators in providing 
Commission staff oversight of the administration of sharing the 3.5 GHz 
band. We determine the ongoing communications are not subject to the 
permit-but-disclose requirements of the pending proceeding because the 
communications are not directed to the merits or outcome of the 
proceeding (i.e., not presentations) and instead relate to the 
procedural matters of WTB and OET oversight of the SASs and ESCs as 
delegated by the Commission. The Commission will not seek to rely on 
the SAS/ESC oversight conversations in the pending proceeding. If a SAS 
administrator or ESC operator wishes to provide feedback that is 
directed to the merits of this proceeding, it may do so using the 
comment filing procedures detailed in this section.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Old section                          New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
90.1303...................................  Removed.
90.1305...................................  Removed.
90.1307...................................  Removed.
90.1309...................................  Removed.
90.1311...................................  Removed.
90.1312...................................  Removed.
90.1319...................................  Removed.
90.1321...................................  Removed.
90.1323...................................  Removed.
90.1331...................................  Removed.
90.1333...................................  Removed.
90.1335...................................  Removed.
90.1337...................................  Removed.
90.1338...................................  Removed.
96.11(a)(3)...............................  Removed.
96.15(b)(3)...............................  Removed.
96.15(b)(4)...............................  96.15(b)(3).
96.21.....................................  Removed.
96.53(m)..................................  Reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. With this NPRM, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or 
Commission) continues to develop the Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
operations in the 3.55-3.7 GHz band (3.5 GHz band). This NPRM provides 
an overview of the federal protection regime implemented by the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 
Department of Defense (DoD), and Commission staff and solicits input on 
proposals to update the technical and service rules. Specifically, with 
regard to federal protection in the band, this NPRM proposes to modify 
the part 96 rules to reflect the mechanisms currently used to protect 
federal users in the 3.5 GHz band and seeks comment on whether we 
should consider rule changes to align 3.5 GHz protection methodologies 
with those in adjacent bands, revisit the FCC's Environmental Sensing 
Capability (ESC) approval procedures, and facilitate the continued 
introduction of Citizens Broadband Radio Service in areas outside of 
the contiguous United States (CONUS). The NPRM specifically seeks 
comment on whether changes to the part 96 technical and service rules 
are necessary to clarify information disclosure requirements, align 
out-of-band emissions limits with those in adjacent bands, permit 
higher power levels, relax Spectrum Access System (SAS) connectivity 
requirements, impose Time Division Duplex (TDD) coordination 
procedures, or update protection measures for certain Fixed Satellite 
Service (FSS) earth stations. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether to 
address issues surrounding professional installation, accommodate 
additional deployment of private networks and low power indoor 
facilities, or adopt rules to facilitate General Authorized Access 
(GAA) user coexistence. The Declaratory Ruling would clarify that NTIA 
and DoD are not considered ``the general public'' for purposes of the 
Commission's rule governing disclosure of Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service Device registration information.

A. Federal Protection and Coordination

    2. In this NPRM, the Commission continues efforts to provide 
regulatory certainty and promote innovation, investment, and continued 
growth of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Consistent with these 
objectives, the Commission proposes to modify the part 96 service rules 
to codify refinements that WTB and OET, in close coordination with NTIA 
and DoD staff, have implemented pursuant to delegated authority. We 
also explore the need for changes to the dynamic protection area (DPA)-
based framework that could improve the ways in which DPA-based 
protections operate. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should 
expand the use of a coordination portal to protect federal operations, 
update our rules to align protection measures with those in adjacent 
bands, consider modifying our ESC procedures to address potential 
effects on competition and the marketplace, or consider permitting 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations in offshore areas. We also 
note that any proposed rule changes that may impact incumbent federal 
operations--including the protection methodologies used to prevent 
harmful interference to incumbent federal users--will need to be 
coordinated with NTIA and DoD.

1. Dynamic Protection Areas

    3. In 2018, the FCC's WTB and OET granted a conditional waiver of 
certain rules governing the protection of federal operations in the 3.5 
GHz band to facilitate more rapid access to the band by a wider variety 
of devices without compromising federal incumbent operations. The 2018 
DPA Waiver Order requires DPA-enabled SASs to protect an activated DPA 
from aggregate interference. DPAs are activated when DoD radar systems 
are using the band (as detected by ESC sensors or as scheduled through 
and approved by a scheduling portal), signaling that federal incumbents 
must be protected from other users in the band. While a DPA is 
``active,'' the DPA-enabled SAS must manage Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service Device (CBSD) frequency and power assignments to ensure that 
the entire DPA is protected from aggregate interference within the 
active frequency range. This dynamic approach eliminates the need for 
DPA-enabled SASs to enforce Exclusion Zones in coastal regions and 
other geographic areas protected by DPAs. Following the 2018 DPA Waiver 
Order, NTIA and DoD have worked closely with WTB and OET to further 
refine the federal

[[Page 72782]]

coordination process in the 3.5 GHz band.
    4. Coastal DPAs. In a 2018 letter, NTIA recommended replacing 
static coastal Exclusion Zones with ``coastal DPAs'' to help make the 
3.5 GHz band more accessible to commercial users in coastal regions. 
NTIA indicated that ``coastal DPAs'' would be located in specific 
geographic areas along the East, Gulf, West, Alaskan, Hawaiian, and 
Puerto Rican coasts to protect shipborne radar systems and may be used 
to protect terrestrial facilities, as well. DPA-enabled SASs have used 
Coastal DPAs to protect federal operations since the initiation of 
commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz band. We now propose to define 
coastal DPAs in the Commission's rules and to require all current and 
future SASs to utilize them to protect federal operations. We seek 
comment on this proposal.
    5. Portal-Activated DPAs. To facilitate increased participation and 
maximize non-federal access to 3.5 GHz spectrum near federal facilities 
designated for testing and training by DoD and the military services, 
NTIA, DoD, and WTB/OET agreed to utilize a dedicated scheduling portal 
to protect federal operations. The scheduling portal allows federal 
operators to reserve their use of specific frequency ranges in the band 
for developmental and operational testing and various training 
activities. The scheduling portal is also used to protect federal 
operations in some coastal areas. Employing ``portal-activated'' DPAs 
(P-DPAs) to protect test and training ranges, SAS administrators are 
required to communicate with the portal on a regular basis to manage 
federal and non-federal shared use of the band. We propose to require 
SASs to use an approved scheduling portal to protect P-DPAs and add a 
definition of P-DPAs to the part 96 rules. We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    6. Always Activated DPAs. Another example of a more flexible 
approach is the use of ``always activated'' DPAs instead of static 
Exclusion Zones to protect eleven ground-based radar system sites 
operating below 3.5 GHz from experiencing harmful interference from 
non-federal operations in the 3.55-3.65 GHz band. To avoid delaying 
commercial buildout, NTIA and WTB/OET determined that ``always 
activated'' DPA protection, based on limiting the maximum aggregate 
received power level from the CBSDs at the location of the radar 
antenna, offered the best means to provide buildout flexibility while 
fully protecting critical federal radar systems. We propose to require 
SASs to protect Always Activated DPAs and to add a definition of Always 
Activated DPAs to the part 96 rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
    7. Given the successful implementation of DPA-based protections and 
the resulting growth in commercial use of the 3.5 GHz band, we propose 
to add detailed definitions for the different types of DPAs, as well as 
DPA Neighborhoods, and to make enforcement of DPA-based protections 
mandatory for all current and future SASs. We also propose to update 
the part 96 rules to incorporate the DPA framework adopted in the 2018 
DPA Waiver Order. In addition, we seek comment on changes to the 
definition of ``Exclusion Zone'' to account for the possibility of 
coordination with federal users in the remaining areas protected by 
such zones. We also seek comment on whether there are changes or 
improvements we should make to the DPA-based framework to improve the 
ways in which DPA-based protections operate. We welcome suggestions 
regarding how we can modify the DPA regime to encourage Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service network buildout while maintaining protections 
for federal incumbents.

2. DPA Coordination Portal

    8. As described above, designated federal test and training 
facilities, as well as some coastal areas, including the territory of 
American Samoa, are protected by P-DPAs. If a SAS administrator intends 
to operate as a DPA-enabled SAS--as all currently certified SASs have 
done--it must use an approved scheduling portal to protect designated 
P-DPAs.
    9. DoD recently developed an automated system called the 
Telecommunications Advanced Research and Dynamic Spectrum Sharing 
System (TARDyS3) to replace the manual scheduling portal used to 
activate the P-DPAs. The TARDyS3 is a DoD calendar-based system that 
supports expeditious communications regarding spectrum use at test and 
training ranges in the 3.5 GHz band. Scheduling via TARDyS3 is designed 
to enable DoD users to reserve their spectrum use and communicate the 
use of a given Citizens Broadband Radio Service channel at a given time 
near the designated P-DPA.
    10. Under current rules in Sec.  96.63(n)(1), each SAS must 
``[o]perate[ ] without any connectivity to any military or other 
sensitive federal database or system, except as otherwise required by 
this part.'' Accordingly, because the TARDyS3 portal is managed by DoD 
and includes information on DoD operations, WTB and OET waived Sec.  
96.63(n)(1) of the Commission's rules to permit SAS administrators to 
utilize the TARDyS3 portal. WTB and OET found that the waiver furthers 
the public interest by improving the security, reliability, and 
resiliency of the scheduling portal utilized by SAS administrators to 
protect certain designated federal facilities in the 3.5 GHz band and 
by permitting the use of the TARDyS3 portal to improve federal 
coordination in the band. Correspondingly, WTB and OET instructed the 
SAS administrators to begin using the TARDyS3 portal by issuing a 
public notice.
    11. We propose to modify the part 96 rules to require that SAS 
administrators use a Commission-authorized scheduling portal--
currently, the TARDyS3 system--to protect P-DPAs. We believe that 
codifying this requirement will further the public interest by 
formalizing the use of a secure, reliable, and resilient scheduling 
portal that will be utilized by SAS administrators to improve federal 
coordination and ensure the protection of critical federal operations 
against harmful interference. We seek comment on this proposal. We also 
seek comment on possibly expanding future use of the portal system to 
protect federal operations in other areas, particularly in areas 
outside of the CONUS with difficult terrain or unique protection needs 
(e.g., Alaska and Hawaii). Do commenters see any need to distinguish 
any such areas from those already included in the TARDyS3 system? To 
that end, we seek comment on whether we should consider other 
applications for portal-based solutions to protect federal users and 
securely manage harmful interference between non-federal and federal 
entities.

3. Alignment With 3.45 GHz Protections

    12. Following the adoption of 3.5 GHz band rules, Commission 
adopted rules for a new 3.45 GHz Service operating between 3.45-3.55 
GHz that employed a federal/non-federal sharing regime that differs in 
some ways from the Citizens Broadband Radio Service spectrum sharing 
model. While operators in both the 3.45 GHz and 3.5 GHz bands are 
charged with protecting many but not all of the same federal radar 
systems (some of which operate across both bands), in some cases they 
are required to apply different protection methodologies in each band. 
In the 3.45 GHz Service, the Commission adopted a geographic protection 
model that utilizes geographic areas classified as Cooperative Planning 
Areas (CPAs) and Periodic Use Areas (PUAs) to protect certain federal 
operations against

[[Page 72783]]

harmful interference. To afford licensees maximum flexibility in 
deploying networks and offering services while still protecting 
remaining federal operations, the Commission adopted a coordination 
regime. New flexible-use 3.45 GHz Service licensees are required to 
coordinate with DoD incumbents operating within CPAs and PUAs to 
facilitate shared use of the band using a coordination portal, and 3.45 
GHz Service licensees were encouraged to enter into mutually acceptable 
operator-to-operator agreements to permit more extensive flexible use 
within CPAs and PUAs by agreeing to a technical approach that mitigates 
the interference risk to federal operations.
    13. We seek comment on whether there are opportunities to revise 
the rules governing the 3.5 GHz band to align the protection of 
specific inland and port-based federal systems and facilities given the 
spectrum sharing framework adopted in the adjacent 3.45 GHz band. 
Specifically, we seek comment on whether 3.5 GHz band protection 
methodologies could be aligned to correspond to 3.45 GHz band 
protections--for the same systems and facilities--to increase 
commercial access to the band while maintaining necessary protection 
for federal incumbent users. For example, some 3.45 GHz facilities 
protected by CPAs or PUAs are also protected from out of band emissions 
from the Citizens Broadband Radio Service by Always On DPAs. In some 
instances, the 3.5 GHz band protections may restrict non-federal 
operations more than the corresponding CPA or PUA. In addition, both 
services use a portal-based approach to protect certain federal 
incumbents, some of which span the two bands. Are there opportunities 
to create efficiencies by modifying the protection mechanisms in the 
3.5 GHz band to better align with those in the 3.45 GHz band in these, 
or other instances? We note that any potential changes to the 
protection of federal operations will need to be coordinated with NTIA 
and DoD. We encourage commenters to consider approaches wherein we may 
be able to increase commercial spectrum opportunities and facilitate 
more efficient use of valuable spectrum resources.

4. ESC Coordination and Availability

    14. In 2018, WTB and OET established procedures for ESC operators 
to register their ESC sensors prior to beginning operations in a 
particular DPA. These ESC sensor application requirements include, at a 
minimum, that the ESC operator demonstrate that the coverage provided 
by the network of ESC sensors will comply with NTIA's published 
guidance and that the ESC operator must submit a detailed coverage map 
of the sensor network. Accordingly, WTB and OET evaluate the deployment 
of ESC sensors for DPA coverage. ESC sensors are not, however, 
evaluated for any competitive or marketplace impacts, including any 
potential negative effects on Citizens Broadband Radio Service users 
that are operating, or seeking to initiate operations, near an ESC 
sensor site. In addition, ESC operators are not currently required to 
make their services available to unaffiliated SAS administrators.
    15. The Commission welcomes feedback on whether we should modify 
aspects of the ESC sensor approval requirements. Specifically, without 
altering existing DPA coverage requirements for ESC certification, 
should we consider modifying any of the ESC sensor approval procedures 
given the state of competition in the SAS/ESC marketplace? Should we 
direct WTB and OET to consider the competitive and deployment impacts 
of new ESC sensors during the ESC sensor approval process (e.g., 
assessment of the population within the geographic area that would be 
potentially affected by a sensor deployment)? If so, how should those 
impacts be quantified and considered? In addition, to facilitate and 
maintain a competitive marketplace, should ESC operators be required to 
make their services available to any certified SAS administrator? We 
encourage commenters to provide detailed feedback, including technical 
and cost-benefit analyses and use cases, if applicable, to support 
their positions.

5. OCONUS and Offshore Citizens Broadband Radio Service Deployments

    16. While the Commission has issued PALs, certified SAS 
administrators, and authorized GAA use in Alaska, Hawaii, and several 
U.S territories outside of CONUS (OCONUS), in some OCONUS areas, 
operators have experienced unique delays and challenges specific to 
their geography or region. To date, Commission staff has worked in 
close coordination with NTIA and DoD to enable service by employing a 
portal based protection methodology for American Samoa, temporary 
portal-based solution for Hawaii, and ESC sensor deployment and 
coverage plans in Guam, Puerto Rico, and part of Alaska. Consistent 
with these efforts, we seek comment on whether there are other OCONUS 
areas that may benefit from an alternate approach to federal 
protection, on a temporary or permanent basis. We also seek comment 
generally on the feasibility of implementing the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service licensing framework in the 3.55-3.65 GHz band segment in 
OCONUS areas given the difficulty of installing ESC sensors in remote 
or hard-to-reach areas. How can we overcome the logistical and economic 
barriers to ESC development and deployment in OCONUS territories? 
Should we consider other means of ensuring federal protection in OCONUS 
areas? If so, what are the hurdles to achieving the desired outcome? 
Are there ways in which we can incentivize or expedite ESC deployment 
in OCONUS areas? Are there different approaches that might work better 
in different OCONUS areas? Should we modify our part 96 rules to 
effectuate these potential solutions and, if so, what specific changes 
should we make? Commenters should support their alternative proposals 
with corresponding cost/benefit analyses, including any underlying data 
and assumptions associated with such proposals.
    17. We also seek comment on whether Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service operations should be permitted in offshore areas (e.g., the 
Gulf of Mexico) in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band segment. We note that the 
Commission did not directly address potential offshore operations, 
including those in the Gulf of Mexico, in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band in its 
earlier orders. However, the 3.65-3.7 GHz band was used extensively by 
part 90 licensees, including some offshore deployments on oil rigs and 
other facilities, before the Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
transition was complete. What are the costs and benefits associated 
with permitting offshore Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations in 
the 3.65-3.7 GHz band? Could offshore operations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz 
band have adverse impacts on ESC sensors along the coastline and, if 
so, how could such interference be mitigated? How would CBSDs located 
offshore maintain connectivity with a SAS as required by the 
Commission's rules? Commenters should provide details regarding the 
potential operational impacts, costs, benefits, and resource 
considerations for new offshore service entrants and discuss any 
potential impact such operations may have on incumbent users in the 
area.

B. CBSD Information

    18. Consistent with the Commission's rules, Priority Access 
Licensees and GAA users are required to register all CBSDs with, and be 
authorized by, a SAS prior to initial service transmission. In addition 
to the CBSD registration and authorization

[[Page 72784]]

requirements, Commission rules require CBSDs to provide received signal 
strength and other measured parameters to the SAS administrators upon 
request. Commission rules also restrict the CBSD information that SASs 
can disclose to the public. We welcome feedback on whether to make 
changes to the Commission's rules governing the breadth and scope of 
CBSD information provided to SASs and CBSD information availability.
    19. CBSD Measured Interference Metric Information. The Commission 
requires CBSDs to provide measured interference metric information when 
a SAS administrator requests the data. We seek comment on how this 
works in practice. In the 2015 3.5 GHz First Report and Order, the 
Commission indicated that any such requirements may be set by a 
multistakeholder group. Are these issues effectively addressed in the 
standards set within WInnForum? Would different information or a 
broader set of information about the Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
radiofrequency environment support improvements in the 3.5 GHz band? In 
particular, we would be interested to understand if additional real 
world data about Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations would 
enable the SAS administrators to more effectively manage spectrum 
access within the band or if additional data could be beneficial to 
Priority Access Licensees, GAA users, the FCC, or NTIA and DoD. Do 
currently certified CBSDs have the capability to measure additional 
data about the PAL and GAA radiofrequency environment? In particular, 
the Commission is interested in whether CBSDs' measurement of 
additional data would require a hardware change or software upgrade and 
the costs of adding any such a capability to already certified CBSDs.
    20. CBSD Information Availability. Initially, the SAS 
administrators were required to make CBSD registration information 
available to the general public and to ``obfuscate the identities of 
the licensees providing the information for any public disclosures'' to 
protect against public disclosure of confidential business information 
that could compromise personal privacy or affect competitive interests. 
The Commission subsequently modified the CBSD information disclosure 
requirement to provide that SAS administrators may not disclose 
``specific CBSD registration information to the general public except 
where such disclosure is authorized by the registrant'' and SAS 
administrators are only required to ``make available to the general 
public aggregated spectrum usage data for any geographic area.'' When 
the Commission revised the public disclosure requirement, it noted that 
the success of the 3.5 GHz band's shared spectrum model requires 
providing prospective users with enough information to accurately 
assess the overall spectrum environment in an area to make investment 
and deployment decisions. Given the rapid and ongoing growth of 
commercial deployments in the band--along with stakeholder interest in 
increased transparency--current and future Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users might benefit from more granular information on CBSD 
deployments to effectively plan their networks. Accordingly, we seek 
comment on whether the existing information disclosure rules provide 
sufficient data for current and future Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users to plan their network deployments and make informed decisions 
regarding investments in the band.
    21. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should consider 
modifying our disclosure rules to reinstate the original information 
disclosure requirements or whether we should implement an alternative 
approach. Commenters are encouraged to indicate whether current 
permissible disclosure of aggregated spectrum usage data for a 
geographic area, including total available spectrum and the maximum 
available contiguous spectrum, provides sufficient information to 
determine whether a market they have singled out for consideration 
warrants CBSD deployment and capital investment. Commenters seeking 
changes to the disclosure rules should explain why the use of aggregate 
heat maps, showing the total amount of occupied and available spectrum 
in a given area of interest, has been insufficient to meet their needs.
    22. Commenters seeking alternative disclosure rules, including a 
reversion to the original information disclosure requirements, should 
explain how their approach would balance existing operator interest in 
protecting sensitive network information with the legitimate 
information needs of prospective service providers and the general 
public. Specifically, proponents of alternative disclosure approaches 
should outline how their proposals would safeguard sensitive business 
or network operations data while yielding enough spectrum use data to 
assist parties interested in obtaining access to the band on a GAA 
basis or engaging with Priority Access Licensees for secondary market 
transactions.
    23. In addition, as described in the Declaratory Ruling that 
accompanies this NPRM, we clarify that NTIA and DoD are not considered 
``the general public'' with regard to the CBSD information disclosure 
rule. To supplement the Declaratory Ruling and further clarify this 
point in part 96, we propose to modify Sec.  96.55 of the Commission's 
rules to require SAS administrators to provide CBSD registration data 
to NTIA and DoD upon request. We seek comment on this proposal.

C. Out of Band Emissions Limits

    24. We seek comment on whether we should align the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service base station OOBE limits with OOBE limits 
adopted in the 3.7 GHz Service, which is adjacent to the upper edge of 
the 3.5 GHz band. In the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the 
following OOBE limits apply: (1) -13 dBm/MHz from 0 to 10 megahertz 
from the SAS assigned channel edge; (2) -25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz 
from the SAS assigned channel edge down to 3.53 GHz and up to 3.72 GHz; 
and (3) -40 dBm/MHz below 3.53 GHz and above 3.72 GHz. In the adjacent 
3.7 GHz Band Service, the Commission subsequently adopted a less 
restrictive OOBE limit for base station and mobile operations of -13 
dBm/MHz that is consistent with limits for many other mobile wireless 
services. Declining to adopt more stringent emission limits both within 
and outside the 3.7 GHz band, the Commission stated that doing so would 
hinder the full potential of 5G deployment in the band. As for the 
mobile OOBE limit, the Commission indicated that the effect on Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service operations below the 3.7 GHz band edge would be 
minimal and that the limit would permit mobile devices to operate 
across the variety of spectrum bands currently available for mobile 
broadband services.
    25. The Commission seeks comment as to whether we should relax the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service OOBE limits at the upper edge of the 
3.5 GHz band and, if so, what new OOBE limit would be appropriate. 
Notably, recent requests for waivers of the OOBE limits in the 3 GHz 
services underscore the challenge that the divergent OOBE cutoffs in 
the 3 GHz bands potentially pose to equipment manufacturers seeking to 
introduce multi-band radio equipment that can operate across these 
adjacent bands. We seek comment on whether we should consider relaxing 
the OOBE limits for operations within the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service band. Would relaxing the 3.5 GHz band OOBE limits both within 
and outside the band to comport with the adjacent 3.7 GHz Service OOBE 
limits (i.e.,

[[Page 72785]]

replacing the current OOBE limits with a -13 dBm/MHz OOBE limit from 
3.55-3.7 GHz) help to facilitate broader deployment of multi-band 5G 
radio equipment? Alternatively, would some other changes to the OOBE 
limits (e.g., removing the -40 dBm/MHz limit above 3720 MHz while 
leaving the other limits unchanged) be more effective? Would such 
changes increase the possibility of harmful interference to adjacent 
band operations--or operations in nearby channels in the 3.5 GHz band--
and, if so, how could such interference be mitigated? Would such 
changes privilege one type of user or network deployment over another? 
Commenters are encouraged to provide detailed cost-benefit and 
technical analyses to support their arguments.

D. Base Station (CBSD) and End User Device (UE) Power Levels

    26. In adopting the rules governing CBSD and End User Device (UE) 
power levels in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the Commission 
strove to balance the public interest objectives of providing greater 
flexibility to operators against the need to ensure efficient use of 
the spectrum to create a flexible regime suitable for a wide variety of 
use cases.
    27. We seek comment on whether to add one or more classes of higher 
power CBSDs to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. If so, how should 
these classes be defined and what should the maximum permissible power 
levels be for each new class of CBSDs? We also seek comment on the 
potential effects that introducing higher power devices might have on 
the sharing environment both in and adjacent to the 3.5 GHz band. 
Specifically, would higher power levels affect spectrum availability 
near incumbent operations--including federal operations and FSS earth 
stations--and, if so, would some types of operations be more affected 
than others? Would higher power levels lead to increased geographic 
distance between base stations operated by different licensees? If so, 
could the increased distance potentially limit the number of 
simultaneous users in the band, making it less efficient in terms of 
number of users per megahertz? Would an increase in power lead to in-
band or adjacent band coexistence issues between commercial wireless 
operators and, if so, would some types of deployments be affected more 
than others? If higher power devices are permitted, should we require 
the SASs to make any changes to their operations to ensure the 
equitable division of power levels and channel assignments between 
different users and types of operations?
    28. Commenters that support the addition of new higher power CBSD 
classes are encouraged to provide detailed technical analyses of any 
changes to incumbent protection criteria--including possible increases 
in the size of DPA neighborhoods and any corresponding increase in 
burdens on SAS administrators--that such changes might entail. 
Commenters should also provide technical and cost-benefit analyses on 
any potential impacts to commercial wireless operators in and adjacent 
to the 3.5 GHz band. Such analyses should explicitly address the impact 
of higher power CBSDs on the wide variety of Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service operations that have already been deployed in the 3.5 GHz band 
in reliance on the current rules. We also note that any changes to 
federal incumbent protection criteria--including any proposed changes 
to DPAs or DPA neighborhood distances--will need to be coordinated with 
NTIA and DoD.
    29. Stakeholders in the 3.5 GHz band have also expressed an 
interest in aligning UE power levels with 3GPP standards. For example, 
both DISH and CCA propose increasing Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
UE power limits to allow operations at 26 dBm (instead of 23 dBm) which 
is in line with the 3GPP High Power UEs (HPUEs) definition. We seek 
comment on aligning UE power levels in the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service with 3GPP standards. We also seek comment on the costs and 
benefits of allowing higher power End User devices to operate in the 
3.5 GHz band. Given that UEs are not directly controlled by SASs, we 
seek comment on what the potential impact of introducing higher power 
UEs will be on incumbent operators and other Citizens Broadband Radio 
service users. Commenters supporting increased UE power levels should 
describe, in detail, how harmful interference from higher power UEs 
should be prevented. Specifically, commenters should indicate what 
protection measures should be put in place to prevent higher power UEs 
from causing harmful interference to incumbents and Priority Access 
Licensees in the band. We note that any proposed changes that may 
impact federal operations will have to be coordinated with NTIA and 
DoD.

E. SAS Connectivity and/or Outages

    30. Fundamental to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service is the 
requirement that certified SASs must register and authorize all CBSDs. 
Notably, to facilitate timely and accurate coordination, the part 96 
rules require CBSDs to maintain SAS connectivity so they can update the 
SAS of a change in status and comply with SAS instructions within 
seconds of a triggering event. Each CBSD must register with, and 
receive authorization from, a SAS prior to its initial service 
transmission and must update the SAS within 60 seconds of any changes 
in its registration information, including the device's specific 
location. A CBSD must also receive and comply with any incoming 
commands from its associated SAS regarding any changes to power limits 
and frequency assignments within 60 seconds of receiving them, i.e., a 
CBSD must cease transmission, move to another frequency, or change its 
power level within 60 seconds as instructed by a SAS. These SAS 
connectivity and communications requirements help to ensure that higher 
tier operations--including federal operations--are continuously 
protected from harmful interference and that operations within the same 
tier can be effectively coordinated.
    31. Since commercial services were first introduced in the band, 
the Commission has granted relief via conditional waiver to the 
National Football League (NFL) from specific SAS connectivity and 
communications rules and has worked with NTIA to implement broader 
relief from SAS signaling requirements in geographic areas and portions 
of the spectrum band that are outside of the scope of current federal 
operations. The NFL's waiver allows it to continue operating its GAA-
based, coach-to-coach communications systems without connectivity to a 
SAS in the event of a localized internet outage in an NFL stadium 
during football game, provided a SAS had authorized the operations. 
This waiver and subsequent extensions imposed additional technical 
requirements (including ISP redundancy), and assigned detailed 
reporting requirements to the NFL.
    32. In addition, WTB and OET, working in close collaboration with 
NTIA, permitted the SAS administrators to extend the CBSD 
reauthorization period from 300 seconds to 24 hours in geographic areas 
and portions of the spectrum band that are outside of the scope of 
current federal operations to provide a more stable and predictable 
spectrum environment for Citizens Broadband Radio Service users while 
ensuring an interference-free environment for critical federal 
operations. This approach will also ensure that SAS administrators will 
be able to timely respond to instructions from the President of the 
United States,

[[Page 72786]]

or another designated Federal Government entity, issued pursuant to 47 
U.S.C. 606.
    33. In light of these developments, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether there are other specific circumstances that may warrant less 
restrictive application of SAS connectivity requirements. Specifically, 
we seek comment on what, if any, circumstances or deployment types may 
warrant an alternate approach to SAS connectivity. If we were to 
provide some degree of situational flexibility, what changes to our SAS 
connectivity requirements should we consider? Should Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users be required to renew access to any alternative 
approach periodically and, if so, what period would be appropriate? 
Should we provide more general, time limited relief to Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service operators in the event of a SAS outage or other 
connectivity issue?
    34. The Commission also welcomes feedback on what factors to take 
into account in determining whether to relax SAS connectivity in 
specific circumstances. For example, should we consider different SAS 
connectivity requirements for spectrum usage that is both 
geographically and temporally confined (e.g., where the potential for 
interference is tempered by terrain attenuation or involves spectrum 
uses that are short in duration)? Along those lines, should we provide 
greater flexibility for low powered Category A CBSDs or should we 
provide flexibility to all CBSDs in circumstances where transmissions 
are less likely to cause harmful interference? If the latter, what 
would those circumstances be?
    35. The Commission seeks comment on how federal operators and other 
incumbent users would be protected if we adopt more flexible SAS 
connectivity rules for some situations. If we modify our SAS 
connectivity requirements to reflect specific uses or circumstances, 
how should we implement such changes to ensure that incumbent federal 
operations, and other higher tier operators in the band, are protected? 
Would such changes increase the likelihood that higher tier users, 
including federal incumbents, would be subject to harmful interference? 
How, specifically, could interference issues be avoided or mitigated? 
Commenters that support changes to the current SAS connectivity rules 
should describe the underlying costs and benefits of their proposals 
and are encouraged to provide detailed information, including technical 
analyses, that show how any interference issues between and among 3.5 
GHz band users would be avoided or mitigated. We note that any proposed 
changes that may impact federal operations will have to be coordinated 
with NTIA and DoD.

F. Time Division Duplex (TDD) Synchronization (In-Band and Adjacent 
Band)

    36. In the 3.45 GHz Second Report and Order, the Commission 
allocated the 3.45 GHz band on an unpaired basis to promote a 
consistent spectral environment with adjacent 3.5 GHz and 3.7 GHz 
bands, both of which are also unpaired in the United States. 
Recognizing the benefits to all operators that come from TDD 
synchronization both within and across bands, the Commission found that 
the record indicated that TDD synchronization, where feasible, may 
assist in avoiding harmful interference between the 3.45 GHz Service 
and Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations. To minimize the 
potential for causing or receiving harmful interference while 
maintaining deployment flexibility and efficiency, the Commission 
encouraged intra-band synchronization where possible and required 3.45 
GHz Service licensees to negotiate in good faith with requesting 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators to enable TDD 
synchronization across the two adjacent services.
    37. While the 3.45 GHz Second Report and Order required 
negotiations concerning the information to be provided to be conducted 
in good faith, with the goal of enabling TDD synchronization between 
the relevant systems, it did not impose an obligation on the 3.45 GHz 
Service licensee to make any corresponding changes to its operations or 
proposed operations, stating that parties are free to negotiate changes 
to either or both networks as part of their efforts. The Commission 
declined at the time to require TDD synchronization between networks 
operating in the adjacent 3.45 GHz and 3.5 GHz bands. The Commission 
was concerned that mandating TDD synchronization could undermine 
operator flexibility in determining the best use of this spectrum, 
especially as use cases and technologies change over time. The 
Commission now seeks comment on whether to impose out-of-band TDD 
coordination procedures on Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensees 
to make sure data sharing occurs on a bilateral basis between 3.45 GHz 
Service and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users seeking to provide 
service in the same or adjacent geographic areas. We also seek comment 
on whether Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators should have an 
obligation to make any corresponding changes to their operations to 
facilitate TDD synchronization or if we should simply permit parties to 
negotiate changes to their respective networks.
    38. The Commission declined to impose similar TDD synchronization 
measures on 3.7 GHz Service licensees; consequently there is no 
negotiation or coordination required between 3.7 GHz Service operators 
and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. Similarly, the part 96 
rules do not impose any obligation on Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
licensees to share TDD synchronization information upon request with 
adjacent band operators in either the 3.45 GHz or the 3.7 GHz Services. 
Given the changed circumstances in the adjacent band since the last 
time that the part 96 rules were examined, we seek comment on whether 
to impose out-of-band coordination requirements on Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service operators to encourage TDD synchronization with the 
adjacent 3.7 GHz band.
    39. We also welcome feedback generally on the potential benefits 
and drawbacks of imposing in-band TDD coordination procedures on 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensees given the tiered licensing 
structure in the 3.5 GHz band. Could an in-band TDD synchronization 
requirement decrease the potential for harmful interference between 
operators in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service? Could TDD 
synchronization be equitably applied across the myriad use cases 
supported by the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, including GAA 
deployments? Could such requirements be managed at the SAS level and, 
if so, how would they be enforced? Would TDD synchronization improve 
the SASs' ability to coordinate between and among Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users in the band? Would such requirements improve 
spectrum availability for synchronized operators? Would imposing TDD 
requirements impose new burdens on operators in the band? We encourage 
commenters to support their proposals with detailed cost benefit 
analyses and technical submissions.

G. FSS Protection

    40. In developing the part 96 rules, the Commission adopted various 
measures to protect incumbent FSS earth stations, including the 
establishment of an annual registration requirement to protect 
qualified in-band FSS earth stations as well as adjacent 3.7-4.2 GHz 
band FSS earth stations used for satellite telemetry, tracking, and 
control (TT&C). For SASs to

[[Page 72787]]

adequately protect FSS incumbents, the Commission stated that SASs must 
be able to access detailed information regarding the technical and 
operational characteristics of each FSS earth station seeking 
protection and, if any of these characteristics change, the FSS earth 
station licensee requesting protection must update the relevant 
registration in the 3.5 GHz FSS database. To initiate this protection 
framework, the Commission required that FSS earth stations be 
registered and renewed annually.
    41. Under the current rules, in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band only FSS earth 
stations used for TT&C are eligible for protection and some of those 
sites have been consolidated or taken off-line as part of the 3.7 GHz 
transition process. Moreover, while grandfathered FSS operators in the 
3.5 GHz band retain incumbent status for active FSS earth stations, 
some of these earth stations may have been taken offline as a result of 
the 3.7 GHz transition process. Given these developments in the 3.7-4.2 
GHz band, we seek comment on whether we should consider changes to 
Sec.  96.17 and Sec.  96.21 of the Commission's rules, which were 
adopted to protect incumbent FSS operations in and adjacent to the 3.5 
GHz band. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should limit 
protection of TT&C sites in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to those facilities 
that were specifically identified in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order and 
subsequent satellite operator submissions. We also seek comment more 
generally on whether we should modify section 96.17 of the Commission's 
rules to require FSS operators to provide additional technical or 
operational parameters as part of their annual registration submission 
to ensure that SASs have the most up-to-date and accurate information 
necessary to protect registered in-band and adjacent band FSS earth 
stations against harmful interference from Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users operating in the 3.5 GHz band. What additional 
information would be useful?
    42. We propose to clarify the Commission's rules to state that SASs 
no longer have to apply the protection criteria in 47 CFR part 90, 
subpart Z, to protect FSS earth stations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band now 
that the transition window for Grandfathered Wireless Broadband 
Licensees has closed. Specifically, we propose to delete Sec.  96.21 
now that incumbent Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees in the 
3.65-3.7 GHz band have completed their transition from part 90 to part 
96 of the Commission's rules. Rather, the protection criteria set forth 
in Sec.  96.17 for FSS earth stations in the 3.6-3.65 GHz band will 
apply to all grandfathered FSS earth stations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band 
going forward. We seek comment on this proposal.

H. Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees

    43. In establishing service rules for the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service, the Commission adopted a transition period for certain part 90 
incumbent Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees in the 3.65-3.7 
GHz band to upgrade their equipment to comply with the part 96 rules. 
Recognizing the challenges associated with the regulatory transition 
and the significant investment, the Commission provided additional 
protections and a ``reasonable transition period'' for these 
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees. Under the transition 
framework, Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees were given at 
least five years to transition their operations to the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service, or to discontinue operations in the 3.65-3.7 
GHz band. January 8, 2023 was the latest possible transition deadline 
for Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees to either complete their 
transition to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service or discontinue 
operations in the band. If a Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees 
failed to transition its sites to part 96 operations by that date then 
the licensee's sites are no longer authorized (unless a waiver or 
extension of the deadline had been granted).
    44. We therefore propose to sunset the rules set forth in part 90, 
subpart Z that apply to wireless broadband services in the 3.65-3.7 GHz 
band and the corresponding rules protecting part 90 licenses from 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations. We tentatively conclude 
these rules are no longer needed as the transition period for the last 
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensee's license ended on January 8, 
2023. We seek comment on this proposal.

I. Other Issues

1. Certified Professional Installation

    45. We seek comment on the efficacy of the current professional 
installation regime and whether any rule changes are needed to ensure 
that CBSDs are installed and maintained correctly. Do the current rules 
sufficiently ensure that CBSD locations and configurations are reported 
accurately? If not, what improvements could be made to better address 
the need for accurate CBSD information in this band? We also seek 
comment on whether some devices that are classified as Category B 
devices under the rules (e.g., outdoor Category A devices installed 
over 6 meters high, devices used solely as customer premise equipment, 
etc.) could be safely installed and operated without a CPI. If so, what 
safeguards should be required to ensure that such devices do not cause 
harmful interference to incumbent operators and other Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users? Commenters are encouraged to provide 
specific feedback and to consider the costs and benefits for various 
use cases and network deployments.

2. Private Networks and Low Power Indoor Facilities

    46. In the 3.5 GHz FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether 
it would be in the public interest to allow critical users--such as 
hospitals, public safety organizations, and local governments--to 
receive interference protection, akin to Priority Access licensees, 
within a limited portion of the GAA pool for indoor use within their 
own buildings. The 3.5 GHz FNPRM proposed that such Contained Access 
Users would be required to accept interference from GAA transmissions 
originating outside of their buildings and to undertake reasonable 
efforts to safeguard against harmful interference from those 
transmissions. After reviewing the record, the Commission declined to 
adopt the Contained Access Facility (CAF) proposal in the 3.5 GHz First 
Report and Order. At the time, the Commission indicated that the 
potential need for such protection was outweighed by the additional 
costs and burdens of implementing this special priority within GAA use, 
but left the door open for further consideration.
    47. Since 2015, the market for low power indoor operations has 
continued to develop, and the Commission has taken steps to authorize 
such operations with fewer restrictions than the Commission applied to 
outdoor deployments in the same spectrum bands. Notably, in the 6 GHz 
Report and Order, the Commission authorized unlicensed low-power indoor 
access points across the entire 6 GHz band, stating that they would be 
ideal for connecting devices in homes and businesses such as 
smartphones, tablet devices, laptops, and internet-of-things (IoT) 
devices to the internet. Similarly, in the 5.9 GHz First Report and 
Order, the Commission adopted rules allowing unlicensed indoor 
operations across the entire 5.850-5.895 GHz portion of the 5.9 GHz 
band by setting specific power

[[Page 72788]]

and technical limits to protect ITS service and federal radar 
operations from harmful interference. Adopting the same equipment-
related hardware requirements as the 6 GHz band, the Commission 
permitted an exception to accommodate devices such as Wi-Fi extenders 
and mesh networking equipment that work in conjunction with an indoor 
access point and share the same propagation path, and thus the same 
power requirements, but stated that these devices could only be used 
within a single structure and not connect separate buildings or 
structures.
    48. In addition, 3GPP implemented new 5G New Radio (5G NR) 
standards, some of which included new and enhanced features related to 
non-public networks. Industry stakeholders and analysts have also 
touted the expected rise of new opportunities in private networks in 
the 3.5 GHz band and elsewhere. The combination of the Commission's 
recent work on indoor deployments, developments in the standards 
process, and growing industry interest in private wireless networks, 
may support a reassessment of how the part 96 rules treat low power 
indoor operations, and private networks more generally, in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service. To that end, we seek comment on whether there 
are steps we can take to facilitate additional use of the 3.5 GHz band 
for low power indoor operations, including private networks. 
Specifically, should we allow operators to reserve some amount of GAA 
spectrum for private, low-power indoor operations--akin to the CAF 
approach--and, if so, what parameters should be established to ensure 
equitable access to spectrum resources and safeguard other operators 
from harmful interference? What specific use cases would benefit from 
this type of reservation model? Should eligibility be reserved for 
certain categories of users (e.g., public safety organizations, medical 
care facilities, etc.) or should it be more generally available? We 
also seek comment on whether we should adopt equipment-related hardware 
requirements and operational parameters similar to those adopted for 
indoor services in the 5.9 GHz and 6 GHz bands given that users in 
those bands are, in some cases, deploying low-power devices similar to 
Category A CBSDs and, if we did so, whether we would need to make any 
adjustments for 3.5 GHz band operations?
    49. In addition, some network operators may be interested in using 
3.5 GHz spectrum to operate drones within the confines of their indoor 
facilities. Such airborne operations are prohibited by the current 
service rules. Given that building attenuation is a key factor in 
minimizing potentially harmful interference from indoor access points 
to incumbent receivers, should the Commission expressly allow the 
operation of drones connected to various low-power access points within 
a single structure or building? Would such operations be possible 
without causing harmful interference to higher tier operations? How 
would SAS administrators coordinate indoor drone operations? Would such 
operations benefit from some amount of reserved GAA spectrum (akin to 
the CAF model)?
    50. Finally, we seek comment on whether a GAA spectrum reservation 
system--or other methods--could be used to facilitate and support the 
growing interest in private networks more generally. For instance, 
could a CAF-like GAA spectrum reservation system be used to support 
some outdoor private networks in geographically contained areas (e.g., 
corporate campuses or manufacturing facilities)? What effects would 
such a system have on spectrum access for other Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users and the overall spectrum environment in the band? 
Are there other technical or policy approaches that we should consider 
to support deployment of private networks in the 3.5 GHz band? We ask 
that commenters submit detailed technical and/or economic analysis to 
support their positions, including assessments of the overall impact on 
spectrum availability and the potential effects on both incumbent 
operators and other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users.

3. GAA User Coexistence

    51. To ensure flexibility for the development of the 3.5 GHz band, 
the Commission encouraged private industry to develop and implement the 
parameters of GAA coexistence. Section 96.35 of the Commission's rules 
sets forth the terms by which GAA users can access and use spectrum in 
the band. The rules require GAA users operating Category B CBSDs to 
make every effort to cooperate in the selection and use of available 
frequencies provided by a SAS to minimize the potential for 
interference and make the most effective use of the authorized 
facilities. GAA users must also make every effort to ensure that their 
CBSDs operate at a location, and with technical parameters, that will 
minimize the potential to cause and receive interference among CBSDs. 
Operators of CBSDs suffering from or causing harmful interference are 
expected to cooperate and resolve interference problems through 
technological solutions or by other mutually satisfactory arrangements. 
As GAA use has rapidly increased in the past four years, the potential 
for conflict among and between GAA users has increased as well.
    52. We note that it is Commission policy to ``be proactive in 
supporting `good neighbor' policies that promote more efficient and 
effective co-existence among spectrum users.'' Accordingly, we seek 
comment on whether we should adopt rules to ensure equitable treatment 
of different GAA operators. Specifically, we seek comment on whether 
there are new rules, or clarifications of current rules, that could 
foster coexistence and preempt disputes among GAA users in a manner 
that will also advance GAA spectrum use and continued deployment of the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Alternately, would the development of 
specific coexistence criteria be better left to multistakeholder 
groups? What would be the costs and benefits of any such rule changes 
and what impact would they have on existing and future GAA deployments? 
What role should the SASs play in monitoring GAA users' compliance with 
any such new rules? How could such rules be equitably enforced by the 
Commission? Commenters are encouraged to provide specific proposals, 
along with supporting technical and cost-benefit analyses, to support 
their proposals.
    53. Conforming Changes. We take this opportunity to propose non-
substantive edits to three rule sections we are otherwise revising, 
Sec. Sec.  96.15, 96.17, and 96.30, to conform to the current stylistic 
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register.
    54. 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.

IV. DECLARATORY RULING

    55. In addition to seeking comment on proposed changes to our rules 
in the NPRM, we also adopt a Declaratory Ruling to clarify Sec.  
96.55(a) of our rules. Section 96.55(a)(3) provides that ``SAS

[[Page 72789]]

Administrators shall not disclose specific CBSD registration 
information to the general public except where such disclosure is 
authorized by the registrant.'' Through this Declaratory Ruling, we 
confirm that NTIA and DoD are not considered ``the general public'' for 
purposes of this information disclosure provision.
    56. We recognize that NTIA and DoD possess equitable interests as 
government agencies that manage and hold co-primary spectrum rights in 
the 3.5 GHz band. We also note that NTIA and DoD have been critical 
partners in every phase of this proceeding and they are actively 
engaged in ongoing efforts to refine federal protection criteria and 
apply technical solutions to maximize commercial access to the 3.5 GHz 
spectrum and facilitate CBSD deployments in the band. To date, the part 
96 information disclosure rule does not specify explicitly that NTIA 
and DoD are not considered ``the general public.'' By adopting this 
clarification, we ensure that NTIA and DoD can access CBSD registration 
information if either government agency requests such information from 
any SAS. On our own motion, we confirm that NTIA and DoD are not 
considered ``the general public'' under Sec.  96.55(a).
    57. 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 NPRM. The IRFA is 
contained in Appendix B of the NPRM.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

    58. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to make specific 
adjustments to the regulatory framework of the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service spectrum sharing model in order to better protect federal 
operations and to maximize the amount of spectrum available for 
commercial broadband. Additionally, the NPRM seeks to improve the 
technical and service rules for the 3.5 GHz band to reflect changes in 
the operational environment for both Priority Access License (PAL) 
licensees and Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensees by soliciting 
and obtaining feedback from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users, 
equipment manufacturers, prospective operators, and other stakeholders. 
Through comments, the Commission seeks to identify how we can best 
support the Commission's goals of achieving continued growth in the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service, fostering innovation, and building on 
the novel three-tiered sharing regime that was created to facilitate 
real-time spectrum sharing in the band.
    59. As discussed above, the NPRM is a continuation of the 
Commission's efforts since the 3.5 GHz First Report and Order was 
adopted to work with our federal partners and industry stakeholders 
towards developing and implementing refinements to improve and expand 
spectrum access in the 3.5 GHz band. The NPRM proposes specific 
adjustments to the regulatory framework of the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service to better protect federal operations and to maximize the amount 
of spectrum available for commercial broadband. To facilitate these 
goals, the NPRM seeks comment on a variety of matters such as making 
improvements to the part 96 rules that protect federal incumbent users 
in the 3.5 GHz band, modifying technical rules to optimize the 
potential uses of the band for the next generation of wireless 
services, while minimizing the impact on adjacent band incumbents 
consistent with the public interest; improving operating rules and 
regulatory issues, and measures to ensure professional installation and 
facilitate General Authorized Access (GAA) user coexistence in the 
band. Beyond federal protection measures, the NPRM also seeks comment 
on whether changes to the part 96 technical and service rules are 
necessary to clarify our information disclosure requirements, align out 
of band emissions (OOBE) limits with those in adjacent bands, permit 
higher power levels; relax Spectrum Access Systems (SAS) connectivity 
requirements, impose Time Division Duplex (TDD) coordination 
procedures, update protection measures for certain grandfathered 
incumbent licensees, address issues surrounding professional 
installation, accommodate private networks and low power indoor 
facilities, or adopt guidelines to encourage GAA user coexistence.

B. Legal Basis

    60. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 4(j), 301, 302a(a), 303, and 307(e) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a(a), 
303, and 307(e).

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

    61. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one that: (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.
    62. 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, at the 
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business 
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types 
of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United 
States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.
    63. 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 2022, there were 
approximately 530,109 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.
    64. 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 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose

[[Page 72790]]

governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) 
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on 
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 
48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    65. 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 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    66. Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF Manufacturers). 
There are several analogous industries with an SBA small business size 
standard that are applicable to RF Manufacturers. These industries are 
Fixed Microwave Services, Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing, 
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing. A description of 7
    67. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include 
common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary 
radio services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service (UMFUS), Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz), Local 
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message 
Service (DEMS), 24 GHz Service, Multiple Address Systems (MAS), and 
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS), where in some 
bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common 
carrier status. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) 
is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard 
applicable to these services. The SBA small size standard for this 
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed 
microwave service licensees can be considered small.
    68. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 
fixed microwave services involve eligibility for bidding credits and 
installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various 
frequency bands included in fixed microwave services. When bidding 
credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in fixed microwave 
services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several 
types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very 
small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules 
adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as 
identified in Part 101 of the Commission's rules for the specific fixed 
microwave services frequency bands.
    69. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    70. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and 
television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment). Examples 
of such manufacturing include fire detection and alarm systems 
manufacturing, Intercom systems and equipment manufacturing, and 
signals (e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, traffic) manufacturing. 
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms 
having 750 or fewer employees as small. For this industry, U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 shows that 321 firms operated for the entire year. 
Of that number, 310 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based 
on this data, we conclude that the majority of Other Communications 
Equipment Manufacturers are small.
    71. 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 small business size standard for this 
industry classifies firms having 1,250 employees or less as small. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 had 
fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a 
majority of manufacturers in this industry are small.

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

    72. The Commission expects the rules proposed in the NPRM will 
impose new and/or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other 
compliance obligations on small entities as well as other applicants 
and licensees, if adopted. We also note that in addition to the 
proposed rule changes discussed above, there will likely be other new 
compliance obligations that emerge based on feedback received through 
comments. The reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance obligations 
proposed for small entities and other licensees are described below.
    73. In order to comply with the proposed rules, should they be 
adopted, small entities and other licensees would be subject to certain 
technical rules established to maximize the flexible use of the 3.5 GHz 
band spectrum while minimizing the impact on adjacent band incumbents, 
an approach that is consistent with the public interest. In addition to 
aligning the technical rules

[[Page 72791]]

for this band with those adopted in the 3.7 GHz band, we propose and 
seek comment on technical rules regarding power limits, out-of-band 
emissions limits, antenna height limits, service area boundary limits, 
international coordination requirements, and any other technical rules 
that will most effectively meet our objectives of optimizing use of the 
band without causing harmful interference to new, non-federal licensees 
and federal incumbents operating in adjacent bands.
    74. Small entities may be required to hire attorneys, engineers, 
consultants, or other professionals to comply with the proposed rules 
in the NPRM, if adopted. In particular, for small entities that are not 
existing operators and do not have existing staffing dedicated to 
regulatory compliance, engineering and legal expertise may be necessary 
to make the requisite filings and to demonstrate compliance with the 
proposed performance obligations. At this time, while the Commission 
cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the proposed rule changes, 
we note that several of the proposed changes are consistent with and 
mirror existing policies and requirements used for other part 27 
flexible use licenses. Therefore, small entities with existing licenses 
in other bands may already be familiar with such policies and 
requirements and have the processes and procedures in place to 
facilitate compliance resulting in minimal incremental costs for 
compliance should similar requirements be adopted for 3.5 GHz band 
spectrum. We also note that for most of the proposals and requests for 
comments in the NPRM, the Commission also requests a cost and benefit 
analysis. The Commission expects that the information it receives in 
comments will help it to identify and evaluate all relevant matters 
associated with the proposed reallocation and the relocation of public 
safety operations out of the band, including compliance costs and other 
burdens on small entities.

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

    75. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities 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 and 
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.'' In the NPRM, the Commission has taken steps to minimize the 
economic burden on small entities that may occur if some of the 
proposed rule changes are adopted, and has also considered significant 
alternatives throughout the development of our proposals in the NPRM.
    76. CBSD Information Availability. Given the rapid and ongoing 
growth of commercial deployments in the band--along with stakeholder 
interest in increased transparency, in the NPRM we considered whether 
the existing information disclosure rules provide sufficient data for 
current and future Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to plan their 
network deployments and to make informed decisions regarding 
investments in the band. Specifically, we considered whether the best 
approach would be to modify our disclosure rules to reinstate the 
original information for disclosure requirements, or whether 
implementing an alternative approach would be the more prudent course 
of action. In the NPRM, we seek comment on this matter, and request 
that commenters seeking alternative disclosure rules, including a 
reversion to the original information disclosure requirements, should 
explain how their approach would balance existing operator interest in 
protecting sensitive network information with the legitimate 
information needs of prospective service providers.
    77. Technical Rules. In the NPRM, the Commission also considers 
whether there are opportunities to revise the rules governing the 3.5 
GHz band to align the protection of specific federal systems and 
facilities given the spectrum sharing framework adopted in the adjacent 
3.45 GHz band. Specifically, we considers whether 3.5 GHz protection 
methodologies could be aligned with 3.45 GHz protections--for the same 
systems and facilities--to increase commercial access to the band while 
maintaining necessary protection for federal incumbent users. The NPRM 
focuses its inquiry on whether there are opportunities to create 
efficiencies by modifying the protection mechanisms in the 3.5 GHz band 
to better align with those in the 3.45 GHz band.
    78. Certified Professional Installation. Noting the importance of 
accurate location reporting by professional installers to SASs, 
particularly in terms of its impact on the ability of SASs to properly 
manage spectrum use in the band, the Commission strongly encouraged the 
SAS and Citizens Broadband Radio Service user community, through 
multistakeholder fora or industry associations, to develop programs for 
accrediting professional installers who will receive training in the 
relevant part 96 rules and associated technical best practices. The WTB 
and the OET issued a public notice detailing what SASs must demonstrate 
in their Initial Commercial Deployment (ICD) proposals, including a 
description of ``Professional Installation'' as ``[t]he process that a 
certified professional installer (CPI) would follow to register CBSDs/
DPs during ICD and an explanation regarding how that professional 
installation will ensure the SAS can accurately locate devices in 
compliance with part 96.'' The NPRM seeks comment on the efficacy of 
the current professional installation regime and whether any rule 
changes are needed to ensure that CBSDs are properly installed and 
maintained correctly. Commenters are encouraged to provide specific 
feedback and to consider the costs and benefits for various use cases 
and network deployments.
    79. Guidelines for GAA user coexistence. In the NPRM, the 
Commission also considered whether to adopt rules to ensure equitable 
treatment of different GAA operators. Specifically, we considered 
whether there are new rules, or clarifications of current rules, that 
could foster coexistence and preempt disputes among GAA users in a 
manner that will also advance GAA spectrum use and continued deployment 
of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The NPRM asks what the costs 
and benefits are of any such rule changes as well as what impact they 
would have on existing and future GAA deployments. The NPRM also asks 
how such rules could be equitably enforced by the Commission. 
Commenters are encouraged to provide specific proposals, along with 
supporting technical and cost-benefit analyses, to support their 
proposals.
    80. Further, the Commission considered different proposals and 
potential questions that might emerge from those proposals in order to 
help identify whether small entities face any special or unique issues 
with respect to buildout requirements and other requirements that would 
require certain alternatives, such as through different accommodations 
or by incorporating additional time for small entities to comply. The 
Commission also seeks comment on modifications that could be

[[Page 72792]]

made to the Commission's rules regarding administrative processes in 
order to reduce the economic impacts of the proposed rule changes on 
small entities. By specifically targeting comments from small entities 
the Commission hopes to obtain the requisite data to allow it to 
evaluate the most cost-effective approach to minimize the economic 
impact for such entities, while achieving its statutory objectives.
    81. Additionally, to assist with the Commission's evaluation of the 
economic impact on small entities that may result from the actions and 
alternatives that have been proposed in this proceeding, the NPRM seeks 
alternative proposals and requests additional information on the 
potential costs of such alternatives to licensees. The Commission 
expects to consider more fully the economic impact on small entities 
following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM, 
including costs and benefits information. Alternative proposals and 
approaches from commenters could help the Commission further minimize 
the economic impact on small entities. The Commission's evaluation of 
the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions 
it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it 
ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant 
economic impact that may occur on small entities from the final rules 
that are ultimately adopted.

Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM 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 are 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, 
the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce 
the information collection burden for small business concerns with 
fewer than 25 employees.

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

    None.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 90

    Private land mobile radio service, Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 96

    Citizens broadband radio service, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 90 and 96 as 
follows:

PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

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

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  90.1301 to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1301  Scope.

    Wireless operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band are part of the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service, as set forth in part 96 of this 
chapter.


Sec.  Sec.  90.1303 through 90.1338  [Removed]

0
3. Remove Sec. Sec.  90.1303 through 90.1338.

PART 96--CITIZENS BROADBAND RADIO SERVICE

0
4. The authority citation for part 96 continues to read as follows:

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

0
5. Amend Sec.  96.3 as follows:
0
a. Add, in alphabetical order, the definitions of ``Dynamic Protection 
Area'', ``Dynamic Protection Area Neighborhoods'', and ``Scheduling 
Portal'';
0
b. Revise the definition of ``Exclusion Zone'' and ``Incumbent user''; 
and
0
c. Remove the definitions of ``Grandfathered wireless broadband 
licensee'', ``Grandfathered wireless protection zone'', and 
``Protection zone''.


Sec.  96.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Dynamic Protection Area (DPA). DPAs are geographic protection 
areas, extending from the coastline into the ocean or enclosing a 
protected federal facility, which may be activated or deactivated as 
necessary to protect Department of Defense (DOD) radar systems. DPAs 
are activated when DoD radar systems are using the band--as 
communicated to a Spectrum Access System (SAS) by either an 
Environmental Sensing Capability (ESC) or Scheduling Portal--signaling 
that federal incumbents in the DPA must be protected from Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service operations within the active frequency range.
    (1) Coastal DPAs are geographic protection areas located along the 
Coastline to protect shipborne radar systems and designated port 
facilities. Coastal DPAs are activated consistent with information 
received by an SAS from an ESC.
    (2) Portal-Activated DPAs (P-DPAs) are geographic protection areas 
located around designated federal facilities or coastal areas that 
utilize a dedicated Scheduling Portal to schedule federal operations in 
the 3.5 GHz band. P-DPAs are activated consistent with information 
received by an SAS from a Scheduling Portal.
    (3) Always Activated DPAs are geographic protection areas that are 
always considered to be in active use by federal operators. These DPAs 
protect a limited number of federal radar systems by limiting the 
maximum aggregate received power level from the CBSDs at the location 
of the protected radar antenna aperture.
    Dynamic Protection Area (DPA) Neighborhoods. A DPA neighborhood is 
the area in which registered CBSDs may cause interference to incumbent 
operations in activated DPAs. The SAS may direct CBSDs within DPA 
Neighborhoods to cease operations, reduce transmit power, or relocate 
to a non-interfering frequency when the associated DPA is activated.
* * * * *
    Exclusion Zone. A geographic area wherein no CBSD shall operate 
without the express consent of NTIA. Exclusion Zones shall be enforced 
and maintained by the SASs.
* * * * *
    Incumbent user. A federal entity authorized to operate on a primary 
basis in accordance with the table of frequency allocations, or a fixed 
satellite service operator.
* * * * *
    Scheduling portal. A calendar-based system, authorized by the 
Commission, that supports the scheduling and communication of federal 
spectrum use within designated P-DPAs to SASs.
* * * * *


Sec.  96.7  [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  96.7 by removing paragraph (c).

[[Page 72793]]

Sec.  96.11  [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  96.11 by removing paragraph (a)(3).


Sec.  96.13  [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  96.13 by removing ``Grandfathered Wireless Broadband 
Licensees and'' from paragraph (b).
0
9. Amend Sec.  96.15 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5), and (a)(6);
0
b. Revise paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. Remove paragraph (b)(3);
0
d. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(3); and
0
e. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (b)(3).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  96.15   Protection of federal incumbent users.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The SAS shall only authorize the use of CBSDs consistent with 
information on federal frequency use as provided in this section.
    (3) The SAS shall protect federal incumbent sites using DPAs--
including Coastal DPAs, P-DPAs, and Always Activated DPAs--and 
Exclusion Zones. A DPA may be activated when DoD radar systems are 
active within the DPA. The SAS shall protect each activated DPA from 
aggregate CBSD interference within the active frequency range.
    (i) The specific coordinates and protection requirements for all 
DPAs, DPA Neighborhoods, and Exclusion Zones are maintained by NTIA and 
are publicly available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/fcc-filing/2015/ntia-letter-fcc-commercial-operations-3550-3650-mhz-band.
    (ii) NTIA shall notify the Commission in writing if and when the 
list of DPA-protected federal radiolocation sites and Exclusion Zones 
is to be updated or the methodology used to protect specific sites is 
to be changed.
    (iii) The SAS must treat Coastal DPAs as activated prior to 
approved ESC sensor deployment and if ESC sensors lose contact with the 
SAS.
* * * * *
    (5) The Commission will, as necessary, add or modify DPAs and 
Exclusion Zones to protect current and future federal Incumbent Users 
and will notify the public prior to implementation.
    (6) The Commission may temporarily extend or modify DPAs and 
Exclusion Zones to protect temporary operations by federal Incumbent 
Users and will notify the public prior to implementation. Federal 
Incumbent Users will coordinate with the Commission prior to the 
beginning of any non-emergency operation requiring additional 
protection. Such modifications will be communicated to the SAS along 
with the expiration date and time of any modification.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Exclusion Zones shall be maintained for an 80 km radius around 
the federal radiolocation sites listed in Sec.  2.106(c)(109) of this 
chapter.
    (3) If the President of the United States (or another designated 
Federal Government entity) issues instructions to discontinue use of 
CBSDs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 606, SAS Administrators must instruct CBSDs 
to cease operations as soon as technically possible.
0
10. Amend Sec.  96.17 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  96.17  Protection of existing fixed satellite service (FSS) earth 
stations in the 3600-3700 MHz Band and 3700-4200 MHz Band.

    (a) * * *
    (1) FSS earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band will be afforded 
protection consistent with this section.
* * * * *


Sec.  96.21  [Removed]

0
11. Remove Sec.  96.21.
0
12. Amend Sec.  96.30 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  96.30  Designated entities in the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its 
affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its 
controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $20 
million for the preceding three years.
* * * * *


Sec.  96.39  [Amended]

0
13. Amend Sec.  96.39 by removing the sentence ``Equipment deployed by 
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees during their license term 
will be exempt from this requirement'' from paragraph (b).
0
14. Amend Sec.  96.53 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (e) and (f);
0
b. Remove the phrase ``and 96.21'' from paragraphs (g) and (h);
0
c. Remove and reserve paragraph (m); and
0
d. Add paragraph (p).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  96.53   Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.

* * * * *
    (e) To retain information on, and enforce, DPAs and Exclusion Zones 
in accordance with Sec. Sec.  96.15 and 96.17.
    (f) To communicate with the ESC to obtain information about federal 
Incumbent User transmissions within Coastal DPAs and instruct CBSDs 
operating within the associated DPA Neighborhoods to move to another 
frequency range or cease transmissions to prevent interference to 
federal Incumbent Users within activated Coastal DPAs.
* * * * *
    (m) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (p) To use a Scheduling Portal to obtain information about federal 
Incumbent User transmissions within P-DPAs and instruct CBSDs operating 
within the associated DPA Neighborhoods to move to another frequency 
range or cease transmissions to prevent interference to federal 
Incumbent Users within activated P-DPAs.
0
15. Amend Sec.  96.55 by removing the phrase ``and Protection Zones'' 
from paragraph (a) introductory text and adding paragraph (a)(5).


Sec.  96.55  Information gathering and retention.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Upon request, SAS Administrators must make CBSD registration 
information available to NTIA and DoD for any designated geographic 
area, frequency range, or time period.
* * * * *
0
16. Amend Sec.  96.57 by revising paragraph (d) as follows:


Sec.  96.57  Registration, authentication, and authorization of 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices.

* * * * *
    (d) A SAS must not authorize operation of CBSDs within Exclusion 
Zones, DPAs, or DPA Neighborhoods except as set forth in Sec.  96.15.
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec.  96.67 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  96.67  Environmental sensing capability.

* * * * *
    (d) ESC equipment shall be deployed in the vicinity of Coastal DPAs 
to accurately detect federal Incumbent User transmissions.

[FR Doc. 2024-19846 Filed 9-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P