Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) in the presence of sunlight. 1 These two pollutants, referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, including on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden equipment and paints.

Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. 2

Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), the EPA promulgates national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”) for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The NAAQS are concentration levels whose attainment and maintenance the EPA has determined to be requisite to protect public health and welfare. In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA established primary and secondary standards for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period. 3

On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period. 4 The EPA set the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standards were set. The EPA determined that the 8-hour standards would be more protective of human health, especially for children and for adults who are active outdoors, and for individuals with a preexisting respiratory disease, such as asthma.

In March 2008, the EPA completed another review of the primary and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 5 The EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS effective April 6, 2015;  6 however, to comply with anti-backsliding requirements of the Act, areas designated nonattainment at the time that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked remain subject to certain requirements based on their classification at the time of revocation, including requirements related to nonattainment contingency measures under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and, for “Severe” and “Extreme” areas, major source fee programs under CAA section 185. 7 The EPA's determination that an area failed to attain by its attainment date, which is made under CAA section 301 and consistent with section 181(b)(2), triggers these anti-backsliding requirements. See South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

On October 26, 2015, the EPA again revised the level of the primary (and secondary) ozone NAAQS once more to 0.70 ppm. 8

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the standards. Effective June 15, 2004, we designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. 9 The designations and classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards for California areas are codified at 40 CFR 81.305. In a rule governing certain facets of implementation of the 8-hour ozone standards (the Phase 1 Rule), the EPA classified the Coachella Valley as “Serious” for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, with an attainment date no later than June 15, 2013. 10

The Coachella Valley includes a part of the Colorado Desert in Riverside County, California, as well as parts of the adjacent mountain ranges. For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of the area, see 40 CFR 81.305. The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or “District”). The District and California Air Resources Board (CARB or “State”) are responsible for adopting and submitting a state implementation plan (SIP) to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standards for nonattainment areas in their jurisdiction. The District primarily regulates stationary sources while CARB regulates mobile sources.

On November 28, 2007, the CARB requested that the EPA reclassify the Coachella Valley 8-hour ozone nonattainment area from “Serious” to “Severe-15.” The EPA granted the reclassification, effective June 4, 2010, with an attainment date of not later than June 15, 2019. 11 On June 12, 2017, the EPA approved District and CARB submittals addressing many of the Severe nonattainment area planning requirements under the CAA for Coachella Valley. 12

On June 11, 2019, the State requested a reclassification of Coachella Valley from “Severe-15” to “Extreme,” which the EPA granted with an attainment date of not later than June 15, 2024. 13 As explained in the notice for that action, the EPA's reclassification to Extreme nonattainment applies only to the portions of the Coachella Valley subject to the State's jurisdiction, and the EPA did not reclassify any areas of Indian country within the boundaries of the nonattainment area. On April 16, 2024, the EPA proposed approval of District and CARB submittals addressing many of the Extreme area planning requirements under the CAA for Coachella Valley. 14 On June 12, 2024, the EPA finalized approval of certain elements of the Extreme area plan, including the attainment demonstration, but deferred action on the reasonable further progress demonstration and the vehicle miles traveled offset demonstration. 15

Under CAA section 181(a)(5), the EPA may grant a state's request to extend the attainment date established under CAA section 181(a)(5) if: “(1) the State has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan, and (2) no more than 1 exceedance of the national ambient air quality standard level for ozone has occurred in the area in the year preceding the Extension Year.” The EPA may grant a second 1-year extension if these same criteria are met in the year following the first extension year. The EPA cannot issue more than two one-year extensions under section 181(a)(5) for a single nonattainment area.

With respect to the first criterion, the EPA interprets the provision as having been satisfied if a state can demonstrate that it is in compliance with its approved implementation plan. 16 A state may meet this requirement by certifying its compliance, and in the absence of such certification, the EPA may make a determination as to whether the criterion has been met. See Delaware, 895 F.3d at 101-102.

With respect to the second criterion, and specifically the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA has interpreted the air quality criterion of CAA section 181(a)(5)(B) to mean that an area's 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour value in the attainment year is 0.084 ppm or less. 17 Furthermore, this value must be at the monitor with the highest 4th highest daily 8-hour average of all the monitors that represent the area, also called the design value monitor. 18

Congress has recognized that it may not be appropriate for the EPA to use certain monitoring data collected by the ambient air quality monitoring network and maintained in the EPA's air quality system (AQS) database in certain regulatory determinations. Thus, in 2005, Congress provided the statutory authority for the exclusion of data influenced by “exceptional events” meeting specific criteria by adding section 319(b) to the CAA and granted the EPA with the authority to propose regulations to review and manage air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events. 19

On March 22, 2007, the EPA promulgated the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule in order to implement this 2005 CAA amendment. 20 The 2007 Exceptional Events Rule created a regulatory process codified at 40 CFR parts 50 and 51 (§§ 50.1, 50.14, and 51.930). These regulatory sections supersede the EPA's previous guidance on handling data influenced by exceptional events. The sections contain definitions, procedural requirements, requirements for air agency demonstrations, criteria for the EPA's approval of the exclusion of event-affected air quality data from the data set used for regulatory decisions, and requirements for air agencies to take appropriate and reasonable actions to protect public health from exceedances and violations of the NAAQS. On October 3, 2016, the EPA promulgated a comprehensive revision to the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule. 21 The 2016 Exceptional Events Rule revision addressed State demonstrations that emissions from a wildfire smoke event cause a specific air pollution concentration in excess of the NAAQS at a particular air quality monitoring location. If such a demonstration is completed to the Administrator's satisfaction and addresses the requirements of 40 CFR 50.14, the EPA must exclude that data from use in determinations of exceedances and violations. 22

For the purposes of this proposed action, on October 11, 2024, CARB submitted an exceptional events demonstration to the EPA on behalf of the District. The demonstration showed the maximum daily 8-hour average ozone concentration recorded at the Palm Springs—Fire Station monitor (AQS Site ID #060655001) on July 14-15, 2023, were influenced by Highland, Rabbit, and Reche wildfires. 23 The EPA concurred with this demonstration on December 10, 2024. 24

One of the EPA's criteria for evaluating exceptional events is regulatory significance, “a demonstration that the event affected air quality in such a way that there exists a clear causal relationship between the specific event and the monitored exceedance or violation.”  25 In this case, the EPA found that the demonstration had regulatory significance for purposes of calculating the Coachella Valley's 4th highest ozone value in 2023, which could determine the area's eligibility for an attainment date extension for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA proposes to take final regulatory action on the concurred dates, as exceptional events to be removed from the dataset used for regulatory purposes. The rationale of the EPA's exceptional events concurrence is detailed in the docket. 26 For this proposed action, the EPA will rely on the calculated design values that exclude the event-influenced data for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Further details on District's analyses and the EPA's concurrence, including the exceptional events initial notification, exceptional events demonstration, and the EPA's response to the initial notification can also be found in the docket for this regulatory action.

While the EPA has concurred with the request to exclude event-influenced air quality monitoring data from regulatory decisions, EPA guidance anticipates the Agency will provide an opportunity for public comment on the claimed exceptional events and all supporting data prior to the EPA taking final agency action. This proposed action provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the EPA-concurred exceptional events, all supporting documents, and the EPA's concurrence with the District and CARB request.

On October 11, 2024, CARB submitted a letter (“CARB letter”) requesting that the EPA grant a one-year extension under section 181(a)(5), to the Extreme area attainment date for the Coachella Valley, from June 15, 2024, to June 15, 2025. 27 It states, “1) the state has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable State Implementation Plan; and 2) air quality data shows that for the first one-year extension, the area's 4th highest daily 8-hour average in the attainment year is at or below the 1997 ozone standard.” The CARB letter included a letter from the District to CARB. 28 It states, “1. The State has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable State Implementation Plan; and 2. In accordance with guidance published by the Administrator, no more than a minimal number of exceedances of the relevant national ambient air quality standard has occurred in the area in the year preceding the extension year.” The District letter also includes an Attachment, “South Coast AQMD's Demonstration of Compliance with Clean Air Act Section 172(a)(2)(C) Requirements” (“Demonstration of Compliance”). 29

The Demonstration of Compliance identifies the relevant elements of the SIP addressing the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP”), 30 and the 2014 Updates to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, State Implementation Plans, Coachella Valley and Western Mojave Desert (“2014 Updates”). 31 The required elements addressed by these plans included: the reasonable further progress and rate of progress demonstrations, the motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity, and the reasonably available control measures demonstration, 32 and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) offset demonstration. 33 In meeting these requirements, the 2007 AQMP did not include new proposed control measures and the 2014 Updates relied on existing or baseline measures. 34 The Demonstration of Compliance mentions another plan, the Revisions to PM 2.5 and Ozone SIP for South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley, but the updated control measures were not relied on for the attainment demonstration. 35

For the Extreme area requirements, the Demonstration of Compliance identifies the Coachella Valley Extreme Area Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone, December 8, 2020 (“Coachella Extreme Area Plan”)  36 as the approved SIP submittal  37 addressing the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This plan addresses the reasonable further progress and rate of progress demonstrations, the reasonably available control measures demonstration, and the attainment demonstration  38 relying only on continued implementation of existing rules. 39 The Demonstration of Compliance and the CARB letter also emphasize the no new measures were taken to reduce emissions of ozone precursors. 40

The Demonstration of Compliance also discusses air quality monitoring trends. The 2023 design value, which is based on data from 2021 to 2023, for Coachella Valley is 0.085 ppm, which does not meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 41 The Demonstration of Compliance, however, also notes the exceptional events demonstration submitted for EPA approval, which, if concurred upon, would result in a 4th highest daily 8-hour average value in the 2023 attainment year of 0.083 ppm, which is less than 0.084 ppm. The EPA concurred upon the exceptional events demonstration on December 10, 2024.

The District and CARB have certified that they have complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to these areas in the approved implementation plan. We acknowledge the 2007 AQMP, 2014 SIP Updates and the Coachella Extreme Area Plan were approved into the SIP  42 and relied on existing measures and did not include new rules or commitments for future rules.

An additional State submittal, not included in the CARB letter or its attachments, addressed the CAA 1997 ozone requirements for a reasonably available control technology (RACT) demonstration. On December 18, 2008, the EPA approved the “SCAQMD 8-hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Demonstration” (“2008 RACT Demonstration”)  43 for the 1997 ozone NAAQS into the SIP. 44 Like the other Coachella Valley plan submissions, the RACT SIP submittal did not include new rules but instead evaluated existing rules, which the EPA determined adequate to address the Serious area RACT SIP requirement. 45 The State has submitted subsequent documents to address the RACT SIP requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The Coachella Valley Extreme Area Plan included a RACT SIP analysis intended to supplement the RACT SIP submittal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS  46 and to fulfill the Extreme area RACT SIP requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS; however, the EPA has yet to act on this submittal. The 2008 RACT Demonstration is the only SIP-approved submittal addressing the RACT requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to determine that the State has complied with all SIP-approved RACT requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Coachella Valley, and that CARB and the District have complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan. 47

The Demonstration of Compliance also addressed monitoring data. Based on our concurrence on the District and CARB exceptional events demonstration, the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration recorded during 2023 for the Coachella Valley was 0.083 ppm, less than 0.084 ppm as required to satisfy the criteria under 40 CFR 51.907(a). Therefore, based on our proposed determination that the State has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable attainment plan, and based on the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration of 0.083 ppm in the attainment year, the EPA proposes to grant the requested 1-year extension of the June 15, 2024 Extreme area attainment date for the Coachella Valley area.

Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA requires States to establish and operate air monitoring networks to compile data on ambient air quality for all criteria pollutants. In the Coachella Valley, SCAQMD is responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring requirements. The District's annual network plans describe the air monitoring network as required under 40 CFR 58.10. The EPA reviews these annual network plans for compliance with specific requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With respect to ozone, we have found that the annual network plan submitted by SCAQMD meets the minimum monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 48

Finally, the EPA conducts regular Technical Systems Audits (TSAs) where we review and inspect State and local ambient air monitoring programs to assess compliance with applicable regulations concerning the collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality data. For the purposes of this proposal, we reviewed the findings from the EPA's 2020 TSA of the SCAQMD ambient air monitoring program. 49 The results of this TSA do not preclude the EPA from determining that the Coachella Valley qualifies for an extension of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

In accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, South Coast AQMD certifies annually that the previous year's ambient concentration and quality assurance data are completely submitted to AQS and that the ambient concentration data are accurate, taking into consideration the quality assurance findings. 50 As discussed in Section 1.B.4 of this document, and consistent with CAA section 181(a)(5), 40 CFR 51.907 requires a nonattainment area's 4th highest daily 8-hour average to be 0.084 ppm or less in the attainment year for the area to be eligible for an extension. Two ozone monitoring sites were located in the Coachella Valley in 2023. One site, Indio—Jackson Street, was closed in 2023 due to a loss of lease. The District began monitoring at a new location on January 1, 2024, which the EPA approved on October 29, 2024. 51 Because the Indio—Jackson Street monitor has not historically measured the highest ozone concentrations in the area, we find that the incompleteness of the 2023 data set from that site does not preclude an extension of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Coachella Valley. The monitoring data summarized in Table 1 are otherwise complete for the purposes of an attainment date extension.

In response to a request from the State of California on October 11, 2024, the EPA is proposing to grant a one-year extension to the applicable Extreme area attainment date for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Coachella Valley. The proposed action to extend the applicable Extreme attainment date for this nonattainment area is based on the EPA's evaluation of air quality monitoring data and the extension request submitted by the State of California and our determination that the State has satisfied the two statutory criteria for a one-year extension under CAA section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.907.

If finalized, this action would extend the applicable Extreme area attainment date for the Coachella Valley from June 15, 2024, to June 15, 2025. In addition, the EPA would be obligated to determine whether the area attained the standard within six months following the applicable attainment date, consistent with CAA Section 181(b)(2)(A).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve submissions that comply with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing this submissions, the EPA's role is to evaluate a state's demonstration and whether it meets the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it proposes to extend the attainment date for a State program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in WT Docket No. 24-629; FCC 25-7, adopted on January 13, 2025, and released on January 17, 2025. The full text of this document is available for public inspection online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-initiates-proceeding-facilitate-advanced-air-mobility.

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 §§ 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 fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).

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 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 § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 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.

1. AAM is a rapidly evolving new sector of the aviation industry that includes novel kinds of propulsion and flight controls and which is expected to rely increasingly on automated technologies. AAM is expected to support accessible and convenient transportation of people and cargo for a range of purposes including transportation of personnel and medical supplies to hard-to-reach areas in emergencies, regional air mobility to connect remote communities to the national aviation system, and shuttle services between urban areas and to and from airports. AAM systems may be either crewed or uncrewed, with personnel either piloting the aircraft on board or through remotely piloted or automated techniques. UAS support a variety of public and private functions including infrastructure inspection, search and rescue operations, and package delivery, and hold the potential for expanded functionalities, such as long-range, large cargo deliveries. In 2021, there were 2 million UAS in the United States, and, by 2030, that number is anticipated to triple to 6.5 million. Further, the UAS market is projected to grow at a rate of 14.6 percent, and by 2027 is expected to be valued between $29 billion and $54.2 billion. The continued growth and operation of these important aviation technologies will depend on the availability of reliable wireless communications technologies to support flight control and, for AAM transporting passengers, reliable in-aircraft broadband. In addition to wireless communications used by and in these aircraft, the availability of detection technologies is critical to ensure that, as UAS and AAM operations continue to expand, they do so safely. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on amendments to the rules that govern the operations of three distinct bands of spectrum, which are allocated for a range of different services. But the changes we propose for each band will advance the goal of the safe and effective facilitation of facets of AAM and UAS services.

2. We first propose and seek comment on changes to the service rules that apply to 650 kilohertz of spectrum in the 450 MHz band. In their current form, these site-based rules confine air-ground communications in the band to voice communications with aircraft traveling at high altitudes. We propose to replace the current rigid framework with rules that embrace more flexible use of the band while minimizing the possibility for harmful interference by creating a single nationwide license. Specifically, our proposals would update these rules with the aim of enabling expanded UAS operations at a range of altitudes, including lower altitudes, by allowing use of the band for control and non-payload communications of uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS CNPC).

3. Next, we propose and seek comment on rule changes to permit radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. Radiolocation operations entail the detection of, for example, UAS, without the further use of that information for navigation purposes. By permitting radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, we endeavor to facilitate UAS detection at sensitive sites that include stadiums, prisons, the U.S. border, and critical infrastructure ( e.g., utilities). We thereby intend to elevate the potential of an underused segment of spectrum while minimizing the risk of harmful interference.

4. Finally, we propose and seek comment on modernizing the rules governing Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. These legacy rules impose power limits that have fallen out of step with the realities of operations in this band. Namely, our rules currently require that operational power be determined by peak power. We propose instead to measure and regulate the effective radiated power of Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems operations according to their average power. The changes we propose would bring these rules into harmony with those that govern similar operations in other bands, and they would enable more efficient use of the spectrum, and promote technology neutrality.

5. We propose to facilitate more intensive use of 650 kilohertz of low-band spectrum for air-ground communications through flexible rights and policies, in order to position the 450 MHz band as one of several alternatives for local, regional, and nationwide UAS networks. We propose to modernize the legacy, site-based general aviation air-ground service rules that currently limit service to voice communications with aircraft at high altitudes, thereby prohibiting data communications, and effectively prohibiting wide-area, low-altitude service. We propose to assign new rights and new obligations to a single geographic license with nationwide coverage, with the goal of facilitating new services to support UAS at a range of altitudes, including lower altitudes, and to create a new 450 MHz Air-Ground Service that encompasses existing part 22 general aviation air-ground and uncrewed aircraft system operations. Specifically, we propose to adopt additional service rules that would provide UAS operators with the ability to conduct control and non-payload operations in the band, which could facilitate AAM.

6. The Commission allocated 454.6625-454.9875 MHz and 459.6625-459.9875 MHz (450 MHz band) for domestic public land and mobile stations to provide a two-way air-ground public radiotelephone service via footnote NG32 to the Table of Allocations. Currently, the band is primarily used for Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service (AGRAS) to provide communications capabilities to aviation subscribers. In 1992, the Commission, seeking to streamline the process by which part 22 licensees could request additional channels for existing systems, proposed the general aviation-ground rules governing the 450 MHz band. The Commission issued a Report and Order in the part 22 proceeding in 1994, which adopted the general aviation air-ground provisions and allocated channels for the provision of radiotelephone service to airborne mobile subscribers in general aviation aircraft. The Commission's rules assign 12 pairs of 25 kilohertz wide communication channels in the 454.700-454.975 MHz and 459.700-459.975 MHz bands for general aviation air-ground use. The Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS) database shows that, as of December 2, 2024, there are 53 active licensed locations, all of which are held by AURA Network Systems OpCo, LLC (AURA). AURA is the only incumbent licensee and operator in the 450 MHz general aviation air-ground band.

7. In 2010, the Mobility Division (Division) of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) granted a waiver of various part 22 rules, enabling licensees in the band to upgrade their AGRAS-based facilities and to build out their existing networks. In 2021, the Division granted a waiver of relevant part 22 rules to AURA, allowing it to provide additional ancillary services, including services to UAS, to meet the needs of a broader base of aviation subscribers. In compliance with a condition of the 2021 Order, AURA filed a petition for rulemaking seeking updates to the Commission's rules to allow for UAS CNPC operations in the 450 MHz band. On August 25, 2021, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice seeking comment on the AURA Petition. In response to the Public Notice, the Commission received 18 comments and one reply comment. The record in response to the public notice overwhelmingly supports the rule changes that AURA requests.

8. On January 17, 2025, WTB suspended the acceptance and processing of applications for new licenses to conduct part 22 general aviation air-ground service operations in the 450 MHz band to maintain a stable spectral landscape while the Commission determines how to proceed with respect to this spectrum.

9. We seek to update our rules governing the use of the 450 MHz band to create new service rules that allow for UAS CNPC operations in the band, which could support AAM operations at a range of altitudes. Specifically, we propose to: (1) update the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations (U.S. Table) to allow for certain UAS data communications in the 450 MHz band; (2) transition to a geographic licensing structure with a single, nationwide license made available through a voluntary transition process; and (3) adopt flexible licensing, operating, and technical rules that will facilitate robust use of the band in the public interest and will minimize interference to neighboring operations.

10. Allocation. We propose to amend our allocation in the 450 MHz band to add a non-federal primary Aeronautical Mobile (Route) Service ((AM(R)S)) allocation in order to permit UAS CNPC operations in the band in addition to the existing air-ground radiotelephone service. As a co-primary service, the AM(R)S service will have priority over secondary services in the band. Our current allocation and definitions in the rules limit communications in the band to the provision of air-ground radiotelephone service to subscribers in aircraft and prohibit the transmission of data. Making this band available for UAS CNPC would facilitate more intensive use of 650 kilohertz of low band spectrum allocated for air-ground communications. We believe this update to the allocation table is necessary because the band currently does not have a mobile or AM(R)S allocation. We seek comment on this proposal. The record in response to AURA's Petition for Rulemaking supports our proposal to add an allocation that will permit UAS CNPC. We seek comment on our proposal. In addition, we seek comment on whether we should limit non-voice transmissions to UAS CNPC services in the band. Should the allocation be expanded to allow other data uses beyond UAS CNPC or would such an allocation make the band less valuable or reliable for UAS CNPC operation? Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of the proposed allocation and any alternatives.

11. Under § 303(y) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission is permitted to allocate spectrum for flexible use if the allocation is consistent with international agreements and if the Commission finds that: (1) the allocation is in the public interest; (2) the allocation does not deter investment in communications services, systems or the development of technologies; and (3) such use would not result in harmful interference among uses. We anticipate that our proposal to add CNPC usage rights to the 450 MHz band in the U.S. Table would meet these criteria. We tentatively conclude that our proposal would serve the public interest by allowing use of the band for UAS CNPC, which supports the safety or regularity of the UA flight. We seek comment on our proposal to add this allocation and on our initial assessment that doing so is consistent with the requirements of § 303(y).

12. Control and Non-payload Communications. In addition to adding a non-federal primary AM(R)S allocation to the U.S. Table in order to permit UAS CNPC operations in the 450 MHz band, consistent with our definition in § 88.5 governing the 5030-5091 MHz band, we propose to define UAS CNPC as “Any transmission that is sent between the UA component and the UAS ground station of the UAS and that supports the safety or regularity of the UA's flight.” In turn, also consistent with our definition in § 88.5 governing the 5030-5091 MHz band, we propose to define a UA as “an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft,” and to define UAS as “a UA and its associated elements (including an uncrewed aircraft station, communication links, and the components not on board the UA that control the UA) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the UA in the airspace of the United States.” We seek comment on these proposed definitions and on any alternatives. As we noted in the UAS Report and Order, we anticipate that our proposed definitions “can encompass a variety of operations, including Urban Air Mobility and Advanced Air Mobility,” and that we do not need to distinguish among such operations in the rules at this time. Do our proposed definitions adequately encompass potential use cases in the band? We also tentatively conclude that our part 22 definitions must also include definitions of the terms UAS CNPC, UAS, and UA. There is record support for updating the definitions in our part 22 rules. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on the costs and benefits of our proposal. We also seek comment on whether our proposal fully enables UAS CNPC service in the 450 MHz band or whether other rule changes are also necessary. We note that in the UAS proceeding, the Commission proposed to create a new part 88 for UAS service rules. To the extent the Commission adopts part 88 for this purpose, should the rules governing UAS CNPC operations at 450 MHz be contained in part 88? For example, should part 22 include a reference indicating UAS operations must comply with part 88 and relevant UAS definitions? Further, should any UAS restrictions we ultimately adopt for the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service be located in part 88?

13. We seek comment on transitioning the 450 MHz band from a site-based licensing structure to a single geographic license with nationwide coverage encompassing the contiguous United States (CONUS), Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories. Transitioning to a geographic licensing structure with one nationwide license aligns with the Commission's goal of putting spectrum to its highest and most efficient use given the unique qualities of the band. We tentatively conclude that a geographic licensing structure with a nationwide license is in the public interest for several reasons. First, a single incumbent currently holds all existing site-based licenses nationwide, thus effectively creating nationwide coverage at high altitude. The 450 MHz band is comprised of only 650 kilohertz of spectrum and only one party, AURA, has incumbent operations in the band. Specifically, AURA provides general aviation air-to-ground services using its 53 sites across the United States and certain territories. Our current rules have co-channel separation requirements and limit the number of ground transmitter locations that are possible in the United States. The operation of existing co-channel and dispersion rules, along with AURA's site locations, create white spaces that are unusable, absent waiver, by AURA or others, at lower altitudes. By contrast, a nationwide license coupled with flexible technical rules would permit nationwide operations at both high and low altitudes. Referring to the record in the 2021 Waiver Order, the Division noted, “other parties have not shown interest in operating in the band and have overwhelmingly supported Petitioners' steps to grow and modernize their existing network” under the existing licensing framework. The record to the AURA Petition for Rulemaking also supports AURA's efforts to expand its network in the band. Second, the additional rights we propose to assign are most efficiently accomplished as a modification to existing license authority. Third, creating the technical protections necessary to assign additional rights to a third party would be complex, delay the expanded operations in the band, and unnecessarily restrict innovation. For these reasons, we tentatively conclude that our proposed voluntary transition ensures that spectrum is put to highest use because the incumbent is in the best position to rapidly deploy operations. While the incumbent does not maintain sites in all of the United States territories at present, we tentatively conclude that given the incumbent's extensive operations throughout the United States, it is in the best position to construct facilities and offer service in these additional areas. We believe in this particular case that it is more efficient to allow the incumbent to expand its operations to the additional territories rather than have piecemeal operations with different licensees. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions. We also tentatively conclude that a geographic licensing structure with a single nationwide license is in the public interest because of the public safety need for UAS CNPC across the country. We seek comment on our proposal to adopt a single nationwide license and this tentative conclusion.

14. In the alternative, we seek comment on licensing the 450 MHz band using a smaller geographic license size. Specifically, we seek comment on whether licensing the band on a Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG)-basis strikes a balance between promoting wide area airborne operations and offering the flexibility for multiple regional licenses. The Commission previously has used REAGs to achieve the “expansion of service to as many people as practicable,” such as in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. Notwithstanding the flexibility potentially offered by regional licenses, we note that REAG-based licenses may raise complications in this context as compared to a nationwide license, and we seek comment on these and other potential considerations. For example, given that we envision airborne service at a range of altitudes, would the REAG boundaries need to be precisely defined in the vertical dimension? If so, we seek comment on how to do so. How could interference among neighboring REAG licensees be avoided? The Commission has previously stated, such as in the 2004 Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking amending several Commission rules, “[i]mposing a signal strength maximum at a licensee's service area boundary is a tried and true mechanism for managing and limiting co-channel interference as well as defining rights, obligations and expectations of all licensees in the band.” If we were to license on a REAG-basis, should we apply a signal strength limit at each REAG boundary, and if so, how should we define the limit in a way that promotes airborne service at a range of altitudes? Are there other technical means better suited for protecting neighboring operations? Should we instead allow licensees to manage interference at the license boundary by mutual agreement? Additionally, we seek comment on the type and nature of protections that would be necessary to promote continued incumbent high altitude operations under a REAG licensing regime. Would REAGs or another geographic licensing area support nationwide UAS CNPC operations in the 450 MHz band? Commenters supporting a REAG licensing approach, or other geographic licensing approaches, should address any necessary changes in the licensing, operating, and technical rules that we propose in this NPRM. Commenters also should discuss the cost and benefits of any proposed geographic licensing area.

15. Band-Specific Eligibility Criteria. We propose certain eligibility restrictions an entity must meet in order to qualify for the geographic license with nationwide coverage. We propose to define “covered incumbent” as an applicant eligible for the nationwide 450 MHz Air-Ground Service license that can demonstrate that: (1) it provides coverage at 25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii using all available communication frequencies; and (2) the locations of the sites used to provide this coverage prevent the authorization of any other entity to provide contiguous, regional service using multiple communication frequencies. Our covered incumbent eligibility criteria intends to ensure expanded operations are expeditiously deployed in the band, putting the spectrum to its highest and most efficient use. We believe that a licensee meeting the proposed covered incumbent criteria will have extensive knowledge of the band's characteristics and usage and is best positioned to rapidly put the band to a more robust use. We seek comment on our proposed eligibility criteria. Should we impose additional criteria to enable an entity to apply for a nationwide license? We seek comment on the costs and benefits of any eligibility criteria we might adopt.

16. Request to Modify License. We propose to transition to a geographic license framework by converting a single incumbent's site-based licenses into a nationwide license. Under our proposed approach, a covered incumbent seeking the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service nationwide license would apply to modify one of its site-based licenses into the nationwide license and turn in its remaining site-based licenses. This application for modification would be completely voluntary. We seek comment on this approach. In proposing this approach, we rely on the Commission's authority under § 309 of the Communications Act, which governs the Commission's process for granting licenses under Title III. Section 309(j)(6)(E) makes clear that the Commission has an “obligation in the public interest to . . . use engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold qualifications, service regulations, and other means in order to avoid mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings.” Section 309 gives the Commission discretion to adopt spectrum management approaches tailored to specific bands. We believe a license modification process is the least burdensome manner of transitioning to a geographic licensing framework and, therefore, is in the public interest. We seek comment on this conclusion as well as on alternative methods for transitioning the band to geographic licensing. What are the costs and benefits of our proposed approach or any alternative approaches?

17. The Commission used a similarly tailored transition approach in the 900 MHz broadband proceeding, where the incumbents likewise had extensive knowledge of the band's characteristics and usage and were best positioned to negotiate appropriate terms for transitioning the band for a more robust use. Our proposed approach falls squarely within Commission precedent from that proceeding. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that our proposed transition approach is consistent with Commission precedent in the 900 MHz Report and Order. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on our proposed transition approach generally.

18. Certifications. We propose that a request to modify a site-based license into the new nationwide license must include as an attachment a certification that the applicant has satisfied the eligibility criteria (Eligibility Certification). Our proposed criteria for a covered incumbent are: (1) it provides coverage at 25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii using all available communication frequencies; and (2) the locations of the sites used to provide this coverage prevent the authorization of any other entity to provide contiguous, regional service using multiple communication frequencies. We propose that, in order to meet the first prong of covered incumbent criteria, the Eligibility Certification must list the licenses and frequencies that the applicant holds in the 450 MHz band to demonstrate that it meets the proposed threshold. We propose that the covered incumbent can meet the second prong of the covered incumbent criteria by providing a coverage map that demonstrates how the incumbent's site locations and service prevent the authorization of any other entity to provide contiguous, regional service using multiple communication frequencies. We propose to require the covered incumbent to submit the Eligibility Certification and coverage map in ULS. We seek comment on our proposal. Should other elements be included in the Eligibility Certification? What are the costs and benefits of this proposal? We seek comment on the proposed application criteria. We also propose to direct the Bureau to issue a public notice with instructions for how to submit the Eligibility Certification.

19. License Valuation. We tentatively conclude that our proposed, voluntary transition in the 450 MHz band will not create undo enrichment to the covered incumbent. In order to take advantage of increased license flexibility and to offer new UAS CNPC services, the covered licensee will have to make significant network investments and will face economic risks and uncertainty regarding the demand for such services. In addition, we recognize that we do not want to discourage licensees from identifying and seeking value-enhancing license flexibility, as this can provide significant public interest benefits. As such, we need to balance promoting innovation with the public interest benefit of maximizing effective use of this of this scarce public resource. We seek comment on both (1) our tentative conclusion that the voluntary transition will not create undo enrichment to the covered incumbent and (2) the investments and economic risks the covered incumbent would face.

20. In some instances where the Commission granted additional spectrum usage rights, the Commission has required the new licensee to make a “windfall payment” to the U.S. Treasury. There are several potential differences between these past cases when windfall payments were required and the present circumstances. First, in the previous cases, the entities required to make payments were gaining access to spectrum that was held in Commission inventory, while in this case, the white space spectrum gained by the covered incumbent is not in Commission inventory and cannot reasonably be made available to others without causing harmful interference to existing operations in the band. Second, the flexibility granted to licensees in the previous cases allowed the new licensees to deploy mobile broadband services for which the value of the spectrum in this new use was more certain. Here, the flexibility being granted would be for a service that does not currently exist and for which there is considerably more uncertainty about the likely future demand, whether other providers will offer competing services in other bands, and the value of spectrum allocated to this service. Finally, the amount of spectrum that would be granted additional flexibility in this proceeding is substantially less than prior proceedings where windfall payments were required, and this raises the question of whether a windfall payment would fall below a de minimis threshold. These factors lead us tentatively to conclude that there will not be a windfall to the new nationwide licensee and we seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

21. Notwithstanding our tentative conclusion, however, we also recognize that our proposal could result in an increase in the value of the spectrum and could potentially increase flexibility by providing a national license. In order to establish a sufficient record in the event we nonetheless determine our proposals create a windfall, we seek comment on the magnitude of any such benefit conferred to the proposed nationwide licensee as a result of our proposals. Commenters should address whether they believe there would be a windfall to the covered incumbent and whether we should require the new licensee to make a payment to the U.S. Treasury. For example, do commenters think that the following factors increase the value of the spectrum such that a windfall payment might be warranted: (1) increased deployment flexibility that allows the licensee to deploy in the current white spaces; (2) increased flexibility in permissible services allowed in the band; and (3) an exclusive-use national license? With respect to the first factor, we note that, while AURA currently has a nationwide network providing general aviation air-to-ground services, the distance separation for co-channel ground stations requirements in our rules currently limit access to large areas at lower altitudes. We propose below to remove or modify certain rules, which will allow the nationwide licensee greater operational flexibility at lower altitudes. Such geospatial opportunities could increase the value of the spectrum. As to the second factor, under our current rules, the 450 MHz band may only be used for the transmission of sound to subscribers in aircraft. We propose above to update our allocation to allow for additional permissible services in the band. This too potentially increases the spectrum's value. Further, we propose to transition the site-based licenses in the band into a geographic, nationwide exclusive-use license, which may also increase the value of the spectrum. We note that the FCC is considering use of flexible-use spectrum bands for UAS communications, including command and control, telemetry, and payload communications, in the UAS proceeding, which could also affect the value of 450 MHz spectrum.

22. We therefore seek comment on the risk that a covered incumbent seeking a nationwide license would realize an undue windfall. To the extent that commenters believe that such a risk might be present on the basis of the proposals in this NPRM, we ask them to discuss what actions may be necessary to mitigate such risk. Is a windfall likely to be realized to a covered incumbent? Are the actions we propose to take in this proceeding sufficiently analogous to past proceedings where windfalls were required to warrant such payments in this proceeding? Is there a de minimis threshold below which the compliance and collection costs would outweigh the amount of revenue collected and does the likely amount in this proceeding fall below such a threshold? If we do collect a windfall payment, how should we calculate the increase in spectrum value due to the three factors we identified above? Are there other factors that should be considered? Would the auction 65 results for two nationwide 800 MHz air-ground radiotelephone service licenses serve as a reasonable basis for estimating the value of the 450 MHz spectrum? We seek comment on these questions and any other factors that should be considered in our determination of whether a windfall payment should be required, and if so, what an appropriate windfall payment amount would be. Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of their proposed approaches.

23. We seek comment on whether it would be appropriate, either as an alternative to or in conjunction with the windfall payment, to impose a holding period on the single, nationwide license, i.e., during which it may not be assigned or transferred to another entity. To the extent commenters believe a holding period is appropriate, we seek comment on the parameters of such a period. How long should the holding period be? How many years would be most beneficial for a holding period? What purpose would a holding period serve for this band? If we implement a holding period, should we require the licensee to demonstrate completion of certain buildout requirements before allowing a transfer of control? We seek comment on the advantages and disadvantages of a holding period. Additionally, we seek comment on whether we should allow exceptions to this holding period restriction if implemented ( e.g., pro forma transactions). Are there any additional requirements or protections we should impose? Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of this approach as well as any alternatives.

24. Under the Commission's rules, there are 12 communication channel pairs in the 454.700-454.975 MHz and 459.700-459.975 MHz bands for general aviation air-ground use in the 450 MHz band. Currently, in the U.S. Table, frequencies in the bands 454.6625-454.9875 MHz and 459.6625-459.9875 MHz may be assigned to domestic public land and mobile stations to provide a two-way air-ground public radiotelephone service. We propose to reconfigure the band plan into a single 650 kilohertz nationwide license. Specifically, we propose that the band edge should be the edge of the frequencies in the allocation in NG32 of the U.S. Table, 454.6625-454.9875 MHz and 459.6625-459.9875 MHz. We seek comment on our proposal and any alternatives, including the costs and benefits of any proposal. We do not propose any further configurations within the band. We tentatively conclude that this approach is in the public interest because the nationwide licensee would be best positioned to manage its network. We do not believe it is in the public interest to be overly prescriptive and divide the band further with channels. As AURA notes, sole licensees and operators in a band have the ability and incentive to manage the internal boundaries between channels in their networks to prevent interference. We seek comment on this conclusion and any alternatives.

25. General Eligibility. We propose to apply the eligibility standard in part 22 of the Commission's rules to the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service. Currently, the standard in § 22.7 reads, “Any entity, other than those precluded by § 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible to hold a license under this part. Applications are granted only if the applicant is legally, financially, technically and otherwise qualified to render the proposed service.” While we propose specific eligibility criteria for the covered incumbent to modify one of its site-based licenses into a nationwide license, we propose to maintain the existing part 22 general eligibility standard for licenses in the 450 MHz band. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of maintaining the part 22 eligibility criteria.

26. Nationwide Licensing. We propose to license the 450 MHz band on an exclusive, nationwide license basis. AURA has constructed a nationwide network providing general aviation air-to-ground services from 53 sites across the United States and some of its territories. The current distance separation and channel assignment policies contained in the Commission's rules for this band effectively prohibit any other parties from receiving a license, which, in turn, gives AURA exclusive use of the band nationwide. We tentatively conclude that a nationwide license promotes more efficient spectrum use than the current patchwork of site-based licenses AURA holds. We seek comment on this conclusion. Should we instead consider other geographic license sizes? Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of a nationwide license and any proposed alternatives.

27. License Term. We seek comment on the appropriate license term for the nationwide license. Currently, site-based licenses in the band have a license term of 10 years. In light of the performance benchmarks we propose below, we tentatively conclude that the license term for the nationwide license should be 15 years. We seek comment on this conclusion. Is 15 years the appropriate license term for a nationwide license in the 450 MHz band? Does a 15-year license term provide enough time to engage in, and recoup costs for, long-term investments that may be necessary for nationwide deployment of advanced aviation services? Commenters in favor of a different license term should provide reasoning for their proposed term as well as an explanation for why a 15-year license term is not suitable in this band. Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of their proposed license terms.

28. License Renewal. Next, we seek comment on the appropriate license renewal term for the 450 MHz Air-Ground service. Currently, 450 MHz band licensees must comply with part 1 of the Commission's rules that generally apply to Public Mobile Services, including renewal. We propose to continue to require the nationwide licensee to comply with § 1.949 of our rules, which governs applications for renewal of authorization for covered geographic licensees. We seek comment on this approach. Does the new nationwide license require any deviation from our existing renewal rules? Commenters that do not support our proposal should explain why a change to our renewal rules is necessary for the 450 MHz band. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of this approach.

29. Performance Benchmarks. In addition to a renewal standard, the Commission also establishes performance requirements to ensure that spectrum is used intensely and efficiently. The Commission has applied different performance and construction requirements to different spectrum bands based on considerations relevant to those bands. We continue to believe that performance requirements play a critical role in ensuring that licensed spectrum does not lie fallow and thus seek detailed comment on certain performance requirements for the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service. Given the unique attributes of this service, we propose a novel performance metric based on both high altitude and low altitude parameters. We propose to define high-altitude as 25,000 feet, where the incumbent in the band is currently providing service. Currently, in § 22.99, our rules define the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service as a “radio service in which licensees are authorized to offer and provide radio telecommunications service for hire to subscribers in aircraft. ” We tentatively conclude that providing reliable signal coverage and offering service at 25,000 feet is a reasonable performance metric for such high altitude service. We propose to define low altitude service as providing reliable signal coverage and offering service at 400 feet. A low altitude metric of 400 feet is consistent with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. Our proposed performance requirement seeks to ensure there is robust use of the band, therefore, we tentatively conclude that we should use the altitude at which UAS operators are already flying under FAA regulations. We also tentatively conclude that our proposed performance metrics will ensure reliable signal coverage at a range of altitudes at which UAS and AAM currently operate and are expected to operate in the future. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions and on our proposed definitions. Would other definitions be more appropriate for defining performance for high and low altitude service in the 450 MHz band? What are the costs and benefits of such definitions?

30. Further, we propose to measure service on a REAG basis in order to ensure the licensee distributes low altitude coverage widely across the United States and its territories. We tentatively conclude that it is in the public interest to have operations evenly deployed across all of the United States and its territories, including in rural areas, given the public safety applications of UAS CNPC service. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. The Commission has previously used REAGs to achieve the “expansion of service to as many people as practicable,” such as in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. We tentatively conclude that REAGs will promote nationwide coverage. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion and any alternatives. Are REAGs sufficient to ensure service is deployed in rural areas? How else can the Commission ensure that the licensee provides coverage in rural areas? Commenters should address the costs and benefits of their proposals.

31. We propose to allow the licensee to meet our performance requirements through one of two options, either through a combination of high altitude and low altitude service (Option 1) or significant coverage and service at low altitude (Option 2). These options are summarized in Figure 2, below.

32. We propose under either option to have an interim and final performance requirement. In our proposed Option 1, to meet the interim performance benchmark, the licensee must continue to provide service at 25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii and service at 400 feet covering 17.5 percent or more of each REAG geographic area. To meet the final performance requirement under proposed Option 1, the licensee must provide service in CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii at 25,000 feet and service at 400 feet covering 35 percent or more of each individual license area REAG geographic area. Under our proposed Option 2, to meet the interim performance benchmark, the licensee must provide service at 400 feet covering 35 percent or more of each individual REAG geographic area. To meet the final performance requirement under this option, the licensee must provide service covering 70 percent or more of each individual license area REAG geographic area. We propose that the licensee may choose to fulfill its performance requirement either by a combination of high and low altitudes services under Option 1 or significant service at low altitude under Option 2. We tentatively conclude that creating an option to meet our performance requirements either through a combination of high altitude and low altitude service or significant low altitude service will give the licensee flexibility to meet market demands. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. We propose to allow the licensee to make its election at the time it files its Notice of Construction. We seek comment on this proposal.

33. In an effort to provide the nationwide licensee with operational flexibility while ensuring robust service, we tentatively conclude that, if the licensee intends to decrease its high altitude service then it should provide low altitude service to a significant portion of the United States and its territories. Under proposed Option 1, we seek to give the licensee increased operational flexibility while maintaining the existing legacy service. If the licensee chooses to cease providing service at 25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii using all available communication frequencies, then we propose that it must provide significant coverage at low altitude because the proposed voluntary transition mechanism is premised on the incumbent's existing service coverage at altitude. Compared to the 70 percent low altitude coverage proposed if the licensee elects to provide low altitude service only, we tentatively conclude that half of that coverage, or 35 percent low altitude coverage, is reasonable if the licensee retains its high-altitude coverage. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on our proposal. Would other performance requirements better achieve the Commission's goal of nationwide coverage in the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service? Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of their proposals.

34. In addition, we propose performance benchmarks of 4 years and 8 years for interim and final performance requirements, respectively. Benchmarks of 4 years and 8 years are consistent with performance benchmarks in other services with 15-year license terms. We tentatively conclude that, given the operational flexibilities afforded to the covered incumbent under the waiver, it will be well-positioned to meet benchmarks of 4 years and 8 years. We seek comment on this proposal. Are other benchmarks more appropriate for this band? Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of their proposals.

35. Failure To Meet Performance Requirements. Along with performance benchmarks, we propose to adopt meaningful and enforceable penalties for failure to meet the benchmarks. We propose that, in the event the nationwide licensee fails to meet the first performance benchmark in any REAG, the licensee's second benchmark and license term would be reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the second performance benchmark two years sooner (at 6 years into the license term) and reducing its license term to 13 years. We propose that if the nationwide licensee fails to meet the second performance benchmark in any REAG, its authorization for the license shall terminate automatically without Commission action. We seek comment on this proposal and on which penalties and enforcement mechanisms will most effectively ensure timely buildout. We recognize that our proposal could result in a licensee losing the nationwide license due to failure to meet the performance requirement in one REAG. We seek comment on whether this result is appropriate, or whether there are other ways to structure performance incentives and penalties in order to ensure intensive use of this spectrum, nationwide, at a range of altitudes. Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of the proposed approach and any alternatives.

36. Compliance Procedures. We propose a rule requiring licensees to submit electronic coverage maps in ULS that accurately depict both the boundaries of the licensed area and the coverage boundaries of the actual area to which the licensee provides service. Should we require a specific methodology for creating the coverage map? Should we require that the licensee submit its raw data? We propose that the covered incumbent must notify the Commission by filing FCC Form 601 when it meets its construction obligations within the construction period. We propose that the notification must be filed within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable construction period. Our proposal is similar to our compliance rules in the Wireless Radio Service. We seek comment on this proposal and any alternatives. We also seek comment on whether a covered incumbent has any special or unique issues such that they would require additional time to comply. What are the costs and benefits associated with this proposal and any alternatives?

37. Partitioning and Disaggregation. While we propose to license this spectrum on a nationwide basis, we recognize that it is possible that a licensee may opt to deploy in a service area smaller than a nationwide market. Further, we recognize that a licensee may find that it is unnecessary to utilize all of its licensed bandwidth in order to deploy a system, and may wish to disaggregate its excess capacity. Accordingly, we propose to permit partitioning and disaggregation by the nationwide licensee in the 450 MHz band. We note, however, that we do not propose to adopt detailed technical protections in the context of this proceeding, given that we propose to authorize a single nationwide licensee. Thus, if we ultimately allow partitioning or disaggregation in the 450 MHz Service, we propose to require that the nationwide licensee demonstrate how co-channel and adjacent channel licensees will be protected under any partition or disaggregation. We propose that any criteria in the licensee's demonstration filing would be binding on the parties to the transaction. We seek comment on this proposal and any alternatives, including the costs and benefits.

38. Leasing. We propose to allow spectrum leasing in the band pursuant to part 1 of the Commission's rules and we propose to add UAS CNPC as an included service in our spectrum leasing rules. We seek comment on this proposal. We propose to require a nationwide licensee seeking to lease its spectrum to receive prior approval from the Commission. We seek comment on whether we should require the nationwide licensee seeking to lease its spectrum to lease the entirety of the nationwide license or allow it to lease a portion of it. In requesting approval to lease all or part of the nationwide license, we propose that the lessor must demonstrate how the parties will provide the interference protections along the lease boundary and to neighboring operations. We propose that the licensee can demonstrate inference protection through power flux density limits and strategic site placements. We seek comment on this proposal. What other factors should we consider in granting a lease application? We seek comment on the costs and benefits of our proposal and any alternatives.

39. General Applicability of Other Part 22 and Part 1 Rules. We propose that the nationwide licensee in the 450 MHz band should be governed by licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all part 22 services, including foreign ownership and permanent discontinuance of operations. We also propose to retain existing station identification rules for general aviation air-ground stations (ground and mobile) and not to require station identification for ground and mobile stations providing UAS CNPC. FAA rules presently regulate remote identification of UAS, so we propose not to adopt duplicative rules. We ask commenters to identify any aspects of our general part 22 and part 1 service rules that should be modified to accommodate the particular characteristics of the 450 MHz band. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there reasons that the nationwide licensee in this band should not be subject to these general part 22 and part 1 requirements? We ask proponents of the various mechanisms described above whether there are issues specifically related to the application of these rules to operations in the 450 MHz band and their preferred approach. We also ask commenters that support modifying certain part 22 rules as applied to licensees in the 450 MHz band to articulate the reasons why different treatment here is justified.

40. We propose to update the technical rules applicable to the 450 MHz band. We seek to encourage efficient use of spectrum resources and promote investment in the band, while protecting incumbent operations in adjacent bands. We seek comment on our proposals and any alternatives.

41. Power Levels. We seek comment on the appropriate power levels in the 450 MHz band. Section 22.809 establishes a 50-watt minimum effective radiated power requirement for ground station transmitters and a 4-watt minimum transmitter power output requirement for airborne mobile transmitters. In its Petition for Rulemaking, AURA states that the radiated power level requirements are “unnecessarily high and inconsistent with current technology.” No commenters in the record oppose AURA's statement. The Division previously waived the § 22.809 minimum power requirements so that AURA could operate at power levels consistent with the demands of its ancillary services, including services to UAS, to meet the needs of a broader base of aviation subscribers. We seek comment on the appropriate power levels for the 450 MHz band under the nationwide licensing regime. Should we eliminate § 22.809 entirely? If not, what are the appropriate power levels? Should there be a peak-to-average ratio (PAR)? If so, what should it be? Commenters in support of a PAR should explain why they support a particular PAR. Commenters should explain how their proposed power levels are consistent with the needs of modern technologies and sufficient to protect adjacent band licensees. Commenters should present quantitative and reproducible RF link budget calculations and interference risk calculations that demonstrate that the likelihood of real-world interference to neighboring radio services is sufficiently low from, (a) UAS CNPC fundamental power (causing blocking/selectivity impairment to incumbent receivers), and (b) UAS CNPC out-of-band-emissions (OOBE) (causing co-channel impairment to incumbent receivers). Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of their proposed power levels.

42. Channel Plan. Section 22.805 establishes channelization in the 450 MHz band and states that channels in the band have a bandwidth of 20 kilohertz and are designated by their center frequencies in megahertz. We propose to eliminate the 20 kilohertz channel requirement in order to provide increased flexibility to the nationwide licensee. We do not propose to designate uplink and downlink frequencies in our rules to further promote licensee flexibilities. We seek comment on this approach and on the costs and benefits of our proposal.

43. Out-of-Band Emissions. Next, we seek comment on the appropriate OOBE requirements that would protect services in adjacent bands while still allowing full commercial use in the 450 MHz band. Under part 22, the power of any emission outside of the authorized operating frequency ranges must be attenuated below the transmitting power by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB. Under the current rules, the band is made up of 13 channels. The channels have a bandwidth of 20 kilohertz and are designated by their center frequencies in megahertz. The authorized operating frequency range is measured from the last channel at either edge of the band. Therefore, the existing band edges are 454.665 MHz and 454.985 MHz and 459.665 MHz and 459.985 MHz. For the purposes of this NPRM, we refer to the band edges as defined under our current rules as the “legacy band edges.” The existing OOBE limit in our rules protects neighboring operations by applying 43 + 10 log (P) dB at the edge of last channel at the legacy band edges. We propose to continue to apply this OOBE limit at the legacy band edges for the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service. Should we require a measurement bandwidth? We note that ITU-R Regulations for out-of-band measurements in the 30 MHz-1 GHz band require a 100 kilohertz measurement bandwidth. Would 100 kilohertz be an appropriate measurement bandwidth for the 450 MHz band? We seek comment on this proposal and its costs and benefits. Is an emissions limit attenuated below the transmitting power by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB the best option for protecting neighboring operations? In this NPRM, we propose to extend the band to the edge of the allocation 454.665 MHz and 454.985 MHz and 459.665 MHz and 459.985 MHz. Rather than continue to apply the OOBE limit at the legacy band edge, should we instead apply it at the edge of the allocated band? We recognize that the 450 MHz band is situated in between neighboring operations. NPSTC does not believe UAS CNPC operations will cause interference to nearby public safety operations. Do commenters agree with NPSTC's conclusion? We ask commenters that disagree with NPSTC's conclusion to discuss what measures would protect public safety from interference, how public safety should complain about UAS interference, and what measures would lead to fast resolution of interference complaints. We tentatively conclude that our proposed technical rules are sufficient to protect neighboring operations. Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of their proposals.

44. Channel Siting. We propose to eliminate the channel siting requirement in our rules. We believe that the channel siting criteria in our rules will no longer be necessary under a nationwide licensing framework because there will be no co-channel licensees that require harmful interference protection within the 450 MHz band. Section 22.813(a) prohibits the Commission from granting applications for proposed ground transmitter locations unless the ground transmitter location is “at least 800 kilometers (497 miles) from the antenna location of the nearest co-channel ground transmitter in the United States.” Section 22.813(b) states that the Commission “may grant an application requesting assignment of a communication channel pair . . . if there are no more than five different communication channel pairs already assigned to ground transmitters . . . within a 320 kilometer (199 mile) radius of the proposed antenna location.” The technical channel assignment criteria set forth in § 22.813 are intended to ensure “substantial service volumes over areas” with high demand, while also maintaining “continuous nationwide in-route coverage” to general aviation air-ground subscribers. Section 22.817(f) of our rules limits six channel assignments per carrier in a given 350 kilometer area. Section 22.817's additional channel policies are designed to foster competition among multiple carriers in the band. We propose to remove our rules assigning channel pairs and seek comment on this proposal. We believe the underlying purpose of these rules is no longer served with a nationwide licensee. Given our proposal to eliminate the technical channel assignment criteria set forth in § 22.813, we also propose to eliminate § 1.929(e) of our rules which designates a request to relocate an existing ground station as major. We seek comment on this proposal. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of our proposal.

45. Transmitter Locations. Our rules afford Public Mobile licensees authority to operate an array of transmitters, including signal boosters, on their licensed spectrum without prior Commission approval if certain conditions are met. We propose to retain the transmitter location rules for the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service. We tentatively conclude that retaining the transmitter location rules provides licensee flexibility. Further, we propose to apply this rule to licensees that acquire their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation (to the extent the service rules permit such aggregation). We seek comment on our proposals, including specific costs and benefits.

46. General Part 22 Rules. There are several additional technical rules applicable to all part 22 services, including §§ 22.365 (Antenna structures; air navigation safety), 22.377 (Certification of transmitters) 22.379 (RF Exposure), and 22.383 (In-building radiation systems). We propose to apply these general part 22 rules to the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service. Further, we propose to apply these rules to licensees that acquire their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation (to the extent the service rules permit such licenses). We seek comment on our proposals, including specific costs and benefits.

47. International Coordination. Current operations in the 450 MHz band are in accordance with an August 2013 Statement of Intent signed by the United States and Canada that established a Sharing Zone in which each country has 6 of the 12 communications channels designated for its primary use. Part 22 of our rules also contains an international coordination rule. While our proposed rules are designed to provide operational flexibility, we recognize that the Sharing Zone exist from our Statement of Intent with Canada. Any rules adopted stemming from this NPRM would be subject to current and future international agreements. Nothing in this NPRM is meant to conflict with any international agreements in place. The nationwide licensee must continue to comply with the Sharing Zone and any other relevant international coordination agreements. We seek comment on how to ensure the nationwide licensee is in compliance with international agreements.

48. RTCA Standards. We note that the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, now referred to simply as “RTCA,” is working to develop standards for UAS. RTCA is a standards development organization that works with the FAA to develop standards that can be used as means of compliance with FAA regulations. In other proceedings, the Commission has adopted RTCA standards when they align with the goals of the proceeding and the service. We note that the RTCA published DO-406 outlining minimum performance standards for UHF airborne radio systems supporting UAS C2 link systems. We seek comment on incorporating RTCA standards into our rules for the 450 MHz band. We seek comment on whether, in the event the standards are adopted, its requirements will be consistent with the AGRAS technical requirements as we propose to amend them, and if not, what revisions if any should the Commission adopt to accommodate the standard? For example, how might incorporation of the RTCA standard impact a licensee's ability to engage in partitioning and disaggregation in the 450 MHz Service? In the event that accessing the standards is fee-based, should the Commission still incorporate the standards into its rules for the 450 MHz band? Are there any other relevant standards that the Commission should consider adopting for the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service? Commenters should consider the costs and benefits of their proposed standards.

49. As discussed above, we propose to use a nationwide licensing scheme for the 450 MHz spectrum band, but we seek comment on alternative methods that would permit the filing of mutually exclusive applications. On March 9, 2023, the Commission's authority to issue licenses through systems of competitive bidding ( i.e., auction authority) expired. Accordingly, in the event we determine to adopt an alternative mutually exclusive application approach, we seek comment on how the Commission should resolve mutually exclusive applications for new initial licenses in the 450 MHz band in light of the lapse in our authority to use competitive bidding. In the event that the Commission's statutory authority with respect to auctions is restored, we delegate authority to the Bureau and the Office of Economics and Analytics to seek comment on appropriate competitive bidding rules and procedures, consistent with prior Commission guidance to inform the Commission's decision on issues discussed in this NPRM.

50. We seek comment on proposed changes to our rules to expand use of the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to include federal and non-federal radiolocation operations that would better facilitate the detection of UAS, including AAM operations. We seek comment on proposed changes to our rules to expand use of the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to include radiolocation operations that would facilitate counter UAS detection systems in this band. These operations would be secondary in the band to the existing primary aeronautical radionavigation systems used for detect and avoid (DAA) systems onboard aircraft or on the ground. We seek comment on how best to carry out this expansion, how to do so without causing harmful interference to co-channel and adjacent-channel operations, and whether the changes that we propose will achieve these objectives, or if we should consider alternative approaches. We view these updates to our rules as an important step to ensure that, as UAS operations continue to expand, they do so safely.

51. Allocation. The U.S. Table assigns the 200 megahertz of spectrum in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to radionavigation and inter-satellite services on a primary basis for federal and non-federal use; there is no allocation for secondary services, and the band is not divided into channels. Radionavigation is radiodetermination for the purposes of navigation, including obstruction warning. The Commission's rules authorize airborne use of the 24.45-24.65 GHz band for aeronautical radionavigation, including obstruction warning, as well as ground-based radionavigation in limited circumstances. Radiolocation, which is radiodetermination for purposes other than radionavigation, is not presently permitted in the band.

52. Echodyne Petition for Rulemaking. On October 24, 2018, Echodyne Corporation (Echodyne) filed a petition for rulemaking to allow permanent radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band on a secondary basis. Echodyne explained that it had developed a radar designed for airborne DAA operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, and that such operations fall under the radionavigation service. Echodyne stated that it developed a ground-based version of the radar after federal and non-federal customers expressed interest in it. Echodyne argued that radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band would facilitate users' ability to better detect UAS at sensitive sites, including stadiums, prisons, and at the U.S. border. Echodyne therefore asked the Commission to amend its rules to permit radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. Echodyne specifically requested the addition of and revisions to portions of parts 87 and 90 of the rules. The Commission sought comment on the Petition on October 30, 2018. Black Sage Technologies and In-Q-Tel supported Echodyne's petition. There were no other comments.

53. Waivers. To date, the Bureau has granted requests from Echodyne and MatrixSpace, Inc. (MatrixSpace) for limited waivers to conduct ground-based radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, on a site-specific basis, as Aviation Radionavigation Land stations (service code AR, station class code RNV). These grants provide for a five-year term with the possibility of extension, and they are subject to several conditions.

54. Radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band have the potential to augment the safe and secure operation of certain sites, including those that host large public gatherings or are by their nature targets for illicit surveillance or contraband delivery. To date, aside from some theoretical co-existence concerns, we have received no indication that radiolocation operations in this band would pose a threat to existing operations. Accordingly, we propose to amend the U.S. Table and our rules to provide adequate mechanisms to monitor increased UAS deployment in sensitive areas while promoting public safety and the avoidance of harmful interference. Such upgraded opportunities to enforce safe and lawful UAS deployment will help promote community acceptance of advanced aviation.

55. Allowing radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band would put this sparsely used spectrum to expanded use that will facilitate UAS/AAM surveillance and counter UAS. With this proceeding, we aim to ensure co-existence between future secondary radiolocation operations in the band and those of existing primary users, including co-channel licensees and adjacent-channel operations. We seek comment on these proposed amendments to the U.S. Table and to our service rules; and on whether there are any additional issues or proposals that we should consider in this undertaking.

56. We propose to add to the U.S. Table federal and non-federal secondary allocations for radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, which is currently allocated only to radionavigation and inter-satellite services. Those allocations are co-primary, federal and non-federal, and there is no secondary allocation. Although there are relatively few current primary licensees in the band, we propose to add a secondary allocation in order to best ensure the protection of existing licensees. We seek comment on our proposal.

57. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) supports adding a federal as well as non-federal secondary allocation for radiolocation in this band. NTIA notes that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) maintains 185 assignments for radar systems throughout the United States and its possessions on a secondary non-interference basis in this band. There are no reported cases of harmful interference to incumbent services in the band. We tentatively conclude that federal and non-federal radiolocation operations can coexist on a secondary basis in this band. We therefore seek comment on adopting federal and non-federal secondary allocations for radiolocation operations in the band, including how to best promote coexistence between federal and non-federal users. What coexistence measures should we adopt if we add both a federal and non-federal secondary allocation for radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band? Are there additional considerations for a federal allocation in addition to the non-federal allocation? Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of this approach. In order to promote sound, data-driven Commission decision-making, we encourage parties in favor of adding a radiolocation allocation in the band to submit data, analyses, studies, test results, or other relevant information supporting their positions, including the effect on cross-border operations.

58. We also observe that commenters in the Echodyne and MatrixSpace waiver proceedings, notably AT&T and T-Mobile, raised potential concerns regarding interference between radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band and UMFUS operations in the 24.25-24.45 GHz band. However, neither AT&T nor T-Mobile ultimately opposed the requests to which they responded because they deemed any coexistence concerns to be manageable in light of Echodyne's and MatrixSpace's technical submissions.

59. Urban Air Mobility and AAM have the potential to significantly increase the use of aeronautical radionavigation systems used for DAA. We seek comment on the potential for harmful interference that could result from radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. To the extent possible, commenting parties should support with data any concerns—or the absence of concern—related to harmful interference. Where they exist, do interference concerns relate primarily to co-channel operations, adjacent-channel operations, or both? How should such concerns be accounted for in our technical rules? What mechanisms should the Commission employ to address any interference concerns, e.g., a density limitation, power control, licensee coordination, others? For example, should the Commission adopt a density limitation restricting the number of radiolocation devices in a specified geographic area as a means to protect primary radionavigation operations from secondary radiolocation operations? If so, what is an appropriate density limitation? Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of their proposed approaches. Does interference need to be addressed in a different manner than is described in the proposed technical rules, discussed below? We also seek comment on the costs and benefits that might result from this proposal. Finally, are there potential issues not raised in this NPRM that might arise if we adopt the proposal?

60. Frequencies. We propose to add the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to the list of frequencies that are available to the Radiolocation Service in part 90 of our rules, and in accord with our proposed addition to the U.S. Table, we propose to establish that such radiolocation operations will be on a secondary basis. We seek comment on these proposals—which would align only in part with Echodyne's Petition—and their implications. To that end, we note that Echodyne asks in its Petition for amendment of certain provisions of part 87 of our rules as well. At this time, we believe that such amendments are not necessary to enable radiolocation operations in the band, and that they would instead create redundancies and potential confusion for prospective licensees. We seek comment on our proposal to amend part 90 but not part 87. Should we, as Echodyne suggests, add to certain part 87 provisions language that would permit airborne radiolocation devices? What are the potential benefits or drawbacks to such an approach? What would distinguish a request to conduct radiolocation operations under part 87 from a request to do so under part 90?

61. License Term, Performance Requirements, Renewal. In order to streamline the application and authorization process for prospective licensees, we propose to make use of our existing licensing rules to enable secondary radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. These rules include, for example, that license applications must comply with our part 1 rules, and that licenses will be granted for a term of ten years upon initial grant or renewal. Given the purely operational nature of this proposed expansion to the band, we believe that deployment of the familiar application and authorization process and terms will lend efficiency to the licensing of prospective new radiolocation operations in the band. We seek comment on this proposal. Is there any reason to depart from the Commission's established licensing framework for secondary radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band?

62. Applicability of Related Part 90 Rules. We further propose to apply to nascent radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band the additional licensing and operating rules that apply generally to part 90 services. These are the rules that govern, for example, foreign ownership, construction requirements, and applications for temporary permits. We seek comment on our proposal to apply these general part 90 rules to radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. We note that Echodyne petitions for an addition to § 90.103 that would permit licensees to deploy multiple fixed stations over a given geographic area without precise fixed locations. We nevertheless propose not to depart from our existing part 90 site-based licensing regime for radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. The geographic approach that Echodyne proposes is akin to how we have handled part 90 operations at temporary locations. We believe that a traditional site-based approach is better suited to the long-term radiolocation operations that we propose to license after this proceeding. We seek comment on this proposal, and whether a more flexible geographic approach might offer benefits or drawbacks to these new operations. As noted above, we also seek comment on the relevance and applicability of part 87 to our proposal, including its general licensing and operating rules.

63. We further propose to preserve and apply, with minimal amendment, provisions of the Commission's technical rules to enable more effective UAS detection in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band while avoiding harmful interference. We endeavor to tailor these changes as narrowly as necessary to deploy secondary radiolocation operations in the band. We seek comment on the proposed technical rules, and we ask commenters to address whether additional provisions should be amended in order to effectively implement the expansion of the band's usage. Conversely, we seek comment on whether any of the proposed changes might be unnecessary or present technical challenges. We encourage commenters to offer alternative proposals, and to be specific about the provisions and changes that they recommend, including the rationale for such proposals and their costs and benefits.

64. Power Levels and Emissions. For radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, we propose to consider and authorize requested transmitter power on a case-by-case basis, consistent with other part 90 licenses. We further propose to retain the emission type limitations that govern radiolocation operations; essentially, such limitations would be determined on a case-by-case basis and established upon a satisfactory showing of need. In its Petition, Echodyne requested retention of these flexible, case-by-case standards, submitting that they can “accommodate use of this band” for radiolocation, and we seek comment on the appropriateness of extending them to potential new radiolocation operations.

65. Out-of-Band Emissions. We propose to apply the existing out-of-band emissions limit in § 90.210(b) of our rules (Emission Mask B) to radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. We seek comment on this proposal, which Echodyne argued would be sufficient to protect neighboring licensees from interference resulting from secondary radiolocation operations. Are there any technical considerations distinct to radiolocation versus radionavigation operations that merit a different out-of-band emissions limit? Commenters should specifically address, as appropriate, the potential impacts on existing primary operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, as well as those of UMFUS licensees operating in the neighboring 24.25-24.45 GHz band, and any other potentially affected operations. As noted above, we seek comment on the implications of preserving this out-of-band-emissions limit, whether it is sufficient, or if a more stringent requirement might be necessary to avoid harmful interference that might result from new radiolocation operations. We also seek comment on the costs and benefits attendant to this proposal.

66. Other Technical Rules. Finally, we propose to apply the general part 90 technical rules, with certain amendments, to radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. These rules govern authorization of equipment, bandwidth limitations, and frequency stability. We propose to leave unchanged the rules requiring equipment authorization. In its Petition, Echodyne seeks an addition to § 90.103 to note that transmitters that have received part 87 authorization need not receive separate part 90 authorization. We propose not to adopt this change, and instead to require that devices intended for radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band be re-authorized under part 90, consistent with other part 90 licensees. We believe that this proposal would help ensure that radiolocation operations in the band are conducted in compliance with the applicable part 90 technical requirements, and that having a complete, searchable list in our Equipment Authorization System of devices capable of such operations will facilitate tracking and accountability to that end. We seek comment on this proposal and any alternatives. What, if any, amendments to our part 90 rules might be necessary to effect this proposal? What costs and benefits will result from our re-authorization proposal? Further, we presently review and authorize, on a case-by-case basis, bandwidth limits for stations that operate in all frequency bands above 2500 MHz, and we propose to leave that provision unchanged. We propose to add radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to the table in § 90.213 of our rules to establish the frequency stability standard that will govern such operations. We note that the part 90 frequency stability table does not currently impose a particular frequency stability standard for operations above 2.45 GHz; we seek comment on whether the status quo should be altered, as we propose, for the 24.45-24.65 GHz band only.

67. We seek comment on all of these proposed changes to, and applications of, our existing service rules. Are these proposals sufficient to enable radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band? Should we consider modification of additional rule provisions? Are any of the proposed changes unnecessary, or do they present potential technical, operational, cost-intensive, or regulatory issues? Commenters who suggest that we amend part 87 as well as part 90 should also address whether and to what extent part 87's technical rules should be amended in order to enable radiolocation in the band.

68. Finally, we seek to facilitate the provision of broadband service on commercial aircraft by modernizing legacy power rules for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. AAM is anticipated to strengthen regional air travel, and Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems could be beneficial for passengers taking AAM flights. For example, connectivity on these flights would allow passengers to check the status of a connecting flight, coordinate transportation for after the flight, and maintain communication with others.

69. Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems operate in the 849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz band and are governed by part 22 of the Commission's rules. In 2005, the Commission adopted a revised regime for air-ground operations, determining that nationwide licenses would be assigned to the entities and their respective band plans receiving the highest gross aggregate bid at auction. In 2006, the Commission auctioned nationwide licenses for this band; Gogo Business Aviation LLC (Gogo) won a license for three megahertz and LiveTV, LLC won a license for one megahertz. In 2013, Gogo acquired LiveTV, LLC, and became the sole nationwide licensee in this band. Through use of the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band, Gogo provides a variety of in-flight airborne services. When operating, commercial aircraft connect to ground station transmitters, which then power Gogo's commercial services. For this band, effective radiated power (ERP) is measured by peak power.

70. Gogo's Waiver Request. On May 26, 2021, Gogo sought a waiver of § 22.867 of the Commission's rules, which regulates how ERP is measured for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. In its waiver request, Gogo sought to measure ERP by average power rather than by peak power, as specified by the Commission's rules. Gogo argued that without the waiver and with the prescribed peak power measurement technique, the average operational power of Gogo's Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex (OFDM) technology would be unduly constrained, and the overall utility of the band would be unnecessarily hindered. On July 7, 2021, the Bureau sought comment on Gogo's waiver request. Following discussions with stakeholders, on June 21, 2022, the Division granted Gogo's waiver request. The Division found that for non-constant envelope technologies like OFDM, applying the peak power measurement technique in § 22.867 would force Gogo's average operating power to be lower due to the occurrence of very short duration spikes in signal strength that do not represent a significant interference threat, but rather are characteristic of spectrally efficient higher order modulation techniques. Measuring such modulation techniques by average operational power with a limit on the PAR of the modulation used would allow Gogo to maintain sufficient capacity to meet the expected and re-emerging growth in the competitive general aviation market and regional commercial airline market. Presently, Gogo is able to regulate by average power with an appropriate PAR limit pursuant to this waiver grant.

71. Gogo's Petition for Rulemaking. As a condition of the grant, on July 21, 2022, Gogo filed a petition asking the Commission to initiate a rulemaking to modernize the legacy power rules for the 849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz band. More specifically, Gogo proposes amending the rule measuring ERP by peak power to instead measure by average power with an appropriate PAR limit and requests power regulation relief similar to that given to other legacy services, including the Personal Communications Service (PCS), Advanced Wireless Service (AWS), and 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone Service (Cellular Service). Furthermore, Gogo recommends modifying seven additional rules to enable more flexible use of the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. On June 20, 2024, the Bureau placed Gogo's petition for rulemaking on public notice. In response to the Public Notice, the Commission received one comment and one reply comment, and both commenters support proceeding with an NPRM.

72. APCO's Petition for Reconsideration of Gogo's Waiver. On July 22, 2022, APCO filed a petition seeking reconsideration of Gogo's waiver grant, which permits Gogo to measure ERP by average power, rather than peak power. In its petition, APCO argues that the Bureau should strengthen the waiver's conditions related to Gogo's responsibility to identify and resolve interference to public safety operations, analyze the interference potential, and address the peak power rule through a rulemaking proceeding instead. On August 1, 2022, Gogo filed in opposition to this petition, defending against the arguments in APCO's petition and asserting that the petition was procedurally defective because it was filed one day after the deadline. On August 5, 2022, APCO responded to Gogo's opposition. The Bureau has not taken action on APCO's petition for reconsideration.

73. We tentatively conclude that it would be in the public interest to revise the power rules for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. We believe that reforming these rules would provide flexibility for operational power in this band and promote technology neutrality. Further, by amending these rules, we would harmonize Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems power rules with other legacy service power rules, including PCS, AWS, and the Cellular Service. Additionally, we believe these proposed rules would advance the Commission's longstanding commitment to ensuring that spectrum is put to its highest and best use, as Gogo would be able to more efficiently utilize this band. Finally, we tentatively conclude that revising our rules would protect public safety licensees from interference due to operations in the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.

74. We propose to regulate power for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems on an average basis. The Commission's Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems rules currently measure permissible ERP on a peak basis. Specifically, § 22.867 restricts peak ERP for airborne mobile station transmitters to 12 watts ERP and ground station transmitters to 500 watts ERP in the 849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz band. In its petition for rulemaking, Gogo proposes that the Commission amend § 22.867 to regulate based on average power rather than on peak power. Gogo asserts that employing peak power unnecessarily impedes the overall utility of its in-flight services without reducing the risk of harmful interference to co-channel or adjacent channel licensees. Further, it argues that revising this rule would align it with the power rules for other legacy services. Finally, Gogo asserts that changing this rule and the related ones will serve the public interest and allow it to deploy its next generation technology “to deliver higher capacity, higher quality broadband connectivity to several thousand aircraft operating throughout the United States and Canada.”

75. We tentatively conclude that it would serve the public interest to amend § 22.867 to change the manner in which power levels are measured for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. The Commission's long-standing policy has been to promulgate rules that are technology neutral in order to allow “competing telecommunications technologies to succeed or fail in the marketplace on the basis of their merits and other market factors, and not primarily because of government regulation,” such as in the 2005 PCS and AWS Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. More recently, wireless network operators have transitioned to wideband technologies in order to improve network efficiencies. Peak power, however, is not technologically neutral because the rule disadvantages wider bandwidth technologies, which tend to produce larger power spikes, where peak power is higher than average power, which is not the case for narrower bandwidth technologies. As a result, operators such as Gogo, must operate at lower average operating power due to the occurrence of these very short duration spikes in signal strength. Further, as explained by Gogo, the wideband technology's average operational power can be excessively constrained, and the utility of the in-flight commercial airborne services can be unnecessarily curtailed. We tentatively conclude that our proposal promotes operational flexibility and efficient spectrum usage, as the use of wideband technologies would not be hampered under an average power measurement technique, as compared to a peak power measurement technique.

76. Furthermore, we tentatively conclude that amending our rules to regulate by average power would be consistent with prior Commission decisions for similar legacy services and would harmonize the legacy service rules. For example, the Commission revised the peak power rules for PCS and AWS in 2008, and for the Cellular Service in 2017, replacing peak power with average power, primarily due to the increased pervasiveness of wideband technologies. In reforming the radiated power rules for PCS and AWS, the Commission concluded that, for non-constant envelope technologies, such as OFDM, CDMA, and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA), limiting PCS and AWS power on an average basis would more accurately predict the interference potential for such technologies, and the Commission reiterated this finding in revising the Cellular Service rules. The record in the PCS and AWS proceeding demonstrated that using peak power measurements for non-constant envelope technologies inaccurately suggested a much higher overall operational power, compared to average power levels, due to short duration power spikes. The current rules for PCS, AWS, and the Cellular Service reflect these conclusions. We tentatively conclude that the Commission's conclusions in these prior proceedings are applicable to Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems, as its peak power rule is incompatible with modern, more efficient wideband technologies, such as OFDM, and application of this rule would hamper operations, thereby shrinking coverage of Gogo's in-flight commercial services.

77. In its comments regarding Gogo's Petition for Rulemaking, APCO specifically asks us to scrutinize Gogo's proposal to replace peak power regulation with average power regulation. APCO urges the Commission to evaluate Gogo's interference assumptions to confirm that Gogo's proposals do not increase the potential for interference to public safety entities, conduct a comprehensive and independent technical analysis to be included in an applicable rulemaking proceeding, and ensure we receive technical studies that can be made available for comment.

78. Ultimately, we propose to depart from the current peak power rule to measure instead by average radiated power for the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. We seek comment on our proposal, including its costs and benefits. Generally, we request that commenters consider the advantages and disadvantages of peak and average radiated power limits in terms of controlling the interference potential of stations, conforming to current industry measurement procedures using available measuring instruments, minimizing the burden of compliance with the rules, and having applicability to the wide range of technologies in use currently and which may be in use in the future. Further, we seek comment on requiring measurement of average power to be made during a period of continuous transmission and what the resolution bandwidth should be. We also seek comment on the potential impact that our proposal to regulate by average power could have on adjacent licensees, including public safety licensees, and whether any additional measures should be implemented to protect other licensed operations, including public safety operations. Finally, we seek comment on any other issues related to measuring by peak or average radiated power that commenters believe are related and pertinent. Commenters are encouraged to submit technical analyses or other data to support their power-related proposals.

79. We propose continuing to express power limits as ERP for the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band, instead of adopting EIRP. When the Commission revised its rules for air-ground operations in 2005, it determined that a ground station maximum power limit of 500 watts ERP and an airborne mobile station maximum power limit of 12 watts ERP would provide a licensee with sufficient flexibility to deploy its technology while limiting potential harmful interference to services operating in adjacent spectrum. While there is not complete uniformity in how the radiated power limits are expressed in the various commercial wireless service bands, the power limits for AWS and the Cellular Service are expressed in terms of ERP. We tentatively conclude that it serves the public interest to continue to express limits in ERP for the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band as prescribed by § 22.867 because it will ensure consistency and minimize difficulty for measuring operational power in this band. We seek comment on our proposal to maintain power limits in terms of ERP or whether we should convert this power requirement to EIRP. Finally, given our proposal to change power measurements for this band, we seek comment on whether this proposal would create any interference issues for part 90 licensees in the 800 MHz band with respect to § 22.877. Commenters should address the costs and benefits of their recommendations.

80. We propose to implement a PAR limit of 13 dB for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. When accompanying an average power approach, a PAR limit guards against interference by restricting the magnitude of power spikes. Because regulating on an average power basis will allow for emissions higher than permitted under the current peak power basis, we tentatively conclude that it serves the public interest to adopt a PAR limit to mitigate the potential for undesirable interference that could result otherwise. The Commission reached this same conclusion in the 2008 PCS and AWS Order and 2017 Cellular Service Order when adopting an average power measurement technique and a PAR limit of 13 dB for each service. We tentatively conclude that these conclusions are equally applicable to adopting a PAR limit to accompany average power measurement for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems.

81. We propose to implement a PAR, specifically a PAR limit of 13 dB, to accompany the proposed average power measurement technique. Additionally, we propose for the limit to apply to the highest peak power density relative to the highest average power density measured over the entire occupied bandwidth. Finally, we propose to define PAR as “the ratio of a radiated emission's peak power to its average power.” In its Petition for Rulemaking, Gogo urges us to adopt a PAR limit of 13 dB because this limit would reduce the risk of harmful interference while striking the right balance between enabling use of modulation schemes with high PARs and protecting other licensees from high PAR transmissions. We tentatively conclude it would serve the public interest to adopt a PAR limit of 13 dB because it will mitigate harmful interference by restricting the magnitude of power spikes occurring due to regulating by average power while also allowing more flexible operational power in the band.

82. We seek comment on whether, if we adopt an average power requirement, it should be accompanied by a PAR limit. We also seek comment on whether 13 dB is an appropriate PAR limit or if some other value is more appropriate. If we adopt a PAR to be applied over an emission's bandwidth, we seek comment on applying that limit to the highest peak power density relative to the highest average power density measured over the entire occupied bandwidth. We also seek comment on adding our proposed definition of PAR to § 22.99. Finally, we seek comment on whether any other part 22 rules regarding equipment standards and measurement need to be updated or modified to be consistent with the equipment certification rules in part 2. We seek detailed and specific comments on all questions and issues mentioned above regarding adopting a PAR limit and any other issues that commenters believe are related and pertinent. Commenters should address the costs and benefits of any recommendations.

83. We propose to adopt a PSD model for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. PSD describes the amount of ERP that would be allowed per unit of bandwidth from a base station antenna, such that wideband emissions would be permitted more power commensurate with their bandwidth. Calculating power per megahertz is important as bandwidth changes depending on the use of the bandwidth. As stated in the 2008 PCS and AWS Order and 2017 Cellular Service Order, our goal is to promote spectral efficiency and provide licensees with flexibility to select the technology that best suits their needs, whether narrowband or wideband, without being disfavored. The Commission adopted a PSD model for PCS, AWS, and the Cellular Service to utilize spectrum more efficiently and accommodate newer wideband technologies. Implementing a PSD model for these services also fostered technology neutrality, as existing narrowband emission technologies carry three to eight voice conversations per emission, while existing wideband emission technologies carry as many as 20 to 40 voice conversations per emission. When a power rule makes no distinction between wideband and narrowband emissions, it applies the same peak radiated power limit to both. Consequently, a wideband emission system is allowed to provide only about one fifth of the radiated power for each voice conversation that a narrowband emission system is allowed to provide, assuming that each system is operating at the maximum power permitted by rule. Thus, the average voice conversation on a wideband emission system would have a lower signal-to-noise ratio, which, despite the partially compensating processing gain provided by signal spreading, would reduce the coverage range.

84. Adding a PSD model would also advance the Commission's long-standing goal of harmonizing our rules across commercial wireless services to the extent practicable, taking into account the unique features of each service band. Simultaneously, we are mindful of the need to protect licensees in the immediately adjacent bands. The Commission has previously balanced these same interests and instituted a PSD model for several legacy services. In bands with similar propagation characteristics to the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band, the Commission has transitioned to PSD limits where PSD limits were not initially adopted, including in the 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone Service, which is adjacent to the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. The Commission's reasoning for adopting these PSD limits for the Cellular Service was to provide enhanced technological flexibility for Cellular carriers while also protecting public safety communications from increased interference, and these are goals that we seek to achieve in the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band as well.

85. Consistent with the Commission's previous decisions to adopt PSD limits, we propose to revise the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems power rules to implement power measurement of airborne mobile station transmitters and ground station transmitters using a PSD model. We tentatively conclude it serves the public interest to adopt a PSD model because it will allow for efficient use of wideband technologies in this band. We seek comment on implementing a PSD model for the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band, as we have for other wireless services utilizing wideband technologies, and, if implemented, what those limits should be. We also seek comment on whether we should implement guardrails for the 800 MHz band to prevent or address interference. Additionally, we seek comment on how we should craft the power measurement rules to accommodate the various technologies used in the band and others that may be used in the future. Finally, we seek detailed and specific comments on any other issues that commenters believe are related and pertinent, including costs and benefits of any proposals.

86. We propose eliminating certain rules that are obsolete or no longer relevant for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. First, we propose eliminating § 22.853, which restricts a licensee from holding more than three megahertz of spectrum in the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. In its petition for rulemaking, Gogo argues that this rule is too restrictive because the additional one megahertz of spectrum would otherwise be unused due to previous licensees' inability “to develop an economically viable use of the spectrum” and highlights that the Bureau granted Gogo's request for waiver of this rule. We tentatively conclude that we should act consistent with the Bureau's findings in the 2013 Gogo Waiver Order, which allows Gogo to operate in all four megahertz of commercial air-ground spectrum, because it maximizes use of this spectrum and ensures the additional one megahertz does not remain fallow. Additionally, we propose deleting § 22.859, which concerns continued incumbent operations in Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems that were authorized before January 1, 2004 following the adoption of the 2005 Air-Ground Order. In its Petition for Rulemaking, Gogo asserts that this section is obsolete due to the completed transition of the incumbents out of the band. We tentatively conclude that § 22.859 should be deleted because it does not serve its intended purpose since the incumbents referred to in the rule no longer operate in the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. We also propose deleting § 22.165(f) because the cross-reference is no longer relevant. Finally, we propose to remove § 1.929(e)(2), which addresses whether a filing is classified as major or minor. Gogo urges removal of this section because, following the 2005 Air-Ground Order, the rule contains a cross-reference to a list of ground stations that no longer exists. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that § 1.929(e)(2) is obsolete. We tentatively conclude these proposals serve the public interest because they revise obsolete and irrelevant rules. We seek comment on whether we should remove these sections from the Commission's rules and any other issues that commenters believe are related and pertinent.

87. Additionally, we propose amending §§ 22.313 (station identification), 22.861 (emission limitations), and 22.863 (frequency stability) to allow for more flexible use of the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. More specifically, Gogo urges us to reincorporate the station identification exemption for commercial air-ground operators in § 22.313 and include language in §§ 22.861 and 22.863 to account for common control of air-ground licenses held by the same licensee. These proposed rule changes can be found in Appendix A. In response to Gogo's Petition for Rulemaking, APCO urges us to scrutinize Gogo's proposal to “add commercial [air-ground] operations to the station identification exemption list.” In its reply, Gogo asserts that “[a] signal identifier alone lacks sufficient information to determine whether a signal is the source of harmful interference” and that it is unnecessary as Gogo is the sole licensee in the band. Consistent with Gogo's argument in its reply, we tentatively conclude that maintaining § 22.313 as it currently exists would leave a rule that is “outdated and uniquely burdensome.” To this end, the Commission previously has eliminated this requirement for similar radio services. Therefore, we propose to amend § 22.313 to include stations operating in the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band to the station identification exemption list. We seek comment on our proposal for § 22.313. We tentatively conclude our proposed modifications to §§ 22.313, 22.861, and 22.863 serve the public interest by clarifying and modernizing our rules and allowing more flexibility for licensees. We seek comment on amending these sections.

88. We also take the opportunity to eliminate an outdated reference to licensees authorized in the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band prior to January 1, 2004. This reference appears in both §§ 22.878 and 22.879, but these licensees no longer exist in this band, so the language distinguishing them is now obsolete. We tentatively conclude that this change would clarify and simplify our rules. Therefore, we seek comment on amending §§ 22.878 and 22.879 to remove the reference to licensees authorized prior to January 1, 2004. We seek comment on whether there are additional rules that should be amended or adopted concerning operations for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. Overall, we seek detailed and specific comments on all questions and issues regarding these related rules and any other issues that commenters believe are relevant and pertinent, including any costs and benefits.

89. Finally, we seek comment on APCO's continuing concerns regarding the potential impact to public safety entities as a result of Gogo's operations. Are there additional rules that should be amended or adopted to protect public safety entities? For example, should we require Gogo to respond to reports of interference in a timely manner, as APCO recommends? Given that Gogo has been operating pursuant to its waiver, we invite stakeholders to opine on whether additional measures are necessary to protect public safety licensees and/or help them identify sources of harmful interference, without disproportionately burdening Gogo. We also seek comment on whether to codify in our rules any of the conditions stipulated in the Gogo Waiver Order.

90. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule and policy changes addressed in this NPRM. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. The Commission invites the general public, particularly small businesses, to comment on the IRFA.

91. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes amendments to several areas of its service rules in order to facilitate the deployment of various manifestations of Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) and other uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) operations. The NPRM proposes to address operations in three distinct bands of spectrum: the 450 MHz band; the 24.45-24.65 GHz band; and the 800 MHz Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. The changes that the Commission proposes for each band seek to advance its goal of safe and effective facilitation of facets of AAM and UAS services.

92. Air-Ground Communications in the 450 MHz Band. The NPRM in this proceeding acts, in part, on a February 2021 petition for rulemaking by AURA Network Systems OpCo, LLC (AURA) and A2G Communications, LLC (A2G), which recommended that the Commission commence a rulemaking proceeding to amend portions of its rules as necessary to allow the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service (AGRAS) 450 MHz band to be used to provide UAS Control and Non-Payload Communications (CNPC). The NPRM now proposes and seeks comment on several rule amendments to update the rules governing the use of the 450 MHz band by proposing to create new service rules that allow for UAS CNPC operations in the band. First, the NPRM proposes to amend the allocation in the 450 MHz band to include UAS CNPC in addition to the existing air-ground radiotelephone service. Next, the NPRM proposes to transition the licensing regime in the 450 MHz band from site-based licensing to a geographic licensing structure with a single nationwide license that has additional rights and greater flexibility. Finally, the NPRM proposes to adopt flexible licensing and operating rules and technical rules that will facilitate robust use of the band in the public interest and will minimize interference to neighboring operations. The objective of this proposal is to position the 450 MHz band as one of several alternatives for local, regional, and nationwide UAS CNPC used for the safety of flight for UAS. This proposal is consistent with the Commission's efforts in other frequency bands to improve spectrum efficiency and expand operational flexibility.

93. UAS Detection in the 24.45-24.65 GHz Band. The NPRM acts on an October 2018 petition for rulemaking by Echodyne Corporation (Echodyne), which recommended that the Commission permanently allow radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band on a secondary basis. The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on revisions to the U.S. Table and corresponding amendments to the Commission's rules that would enable the detection of UAS by permitting such operations in the band. The Commission's objective for the 24.45-24.65 GHz band is to thereby facilitate UAS detection at sensitive sites that include stadiums, prisons, the U.S. border, and critical infrastructure ( e.g., utilities), and to elevate the potential of an underused segment of spectrum while minimizing the risk of harmful interference.

94. Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. Finally, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on modernizing the legacy rules governing Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. The NPRM acts on the petition for rulemaking filed by Gogo Business Aviation, LLC in July 2022, which recommended amending several of the Commission's rules to enable more flexible air-ground operations in the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. In this band, licensees facilitate the provision of broadband service on commercial aircraft. The legacy rules for this band impose power limits that have fallen out of step with the realities of operations in this band. Namely, the Commission's rules currently require that operational power be regulated by peak power, which is not technology neutral for broadband technologies. The Commission proposes instead to measure and regulate the effective radiated power of Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems operations according to their average power. Further, the Commission proposes adopting a peak-to-average ratio (PAR) and a power spectral density (PSD) model. The changes the Commission proposes would bring these rules into harmony with those that govern similar operations in other bands, enable more efficient use of the spectrum, and promote technology neutrality.

95. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to §§ 1, 4, 301, 303, 307-310, 316, 318, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307-310, 316, 318, and 332.

96. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

97. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service is a wireless service in which licensees are authorized to offer and provide radio telecommunications service for hire to subscribers in aircraft. A licensee may provide any type of air-ground service ( i.e., voice telephony, broadband internet, data, etc.) to aircraft of any type, and serve any or all aviation markets (commercial, government, and general). A licensee must provide service to aircraft and may not provide ancillary land mobile or fixed services in the 800 MHz air-ground spectrum.

98. The closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite). The SBA small business 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 licensees in this industry can be considered small.

99. Based on Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately four licensees with 110 active licenses in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For purposes of auctions, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. In the auction of Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 MHz band, neither of the two winning bidders claimed small business status.

100. 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, the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services therefore, 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.

101. 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.

102. 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.

103. 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 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.”

104. 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.

105. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of internet services ( e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small.

106. 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 businesses 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 firms had fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

107. Uncrewed Aircraft Radio Equipment Manufacturers. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to uncrewed aircraft radio equipment manufacturers. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses 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 firms had fewer than 250 employees. In addition, the SBA provides a size standard for the Aircraft Manufacturing industry which includes the manufacture of uncrewed and robotic aircraft. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 1,500 employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 254 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 227 firms had fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in this industry are small.

108. Uncrewed Aircraft System Operators. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to UAS operators. The Commission lacks data on the number of operators in the United States that could be subject to the rules, therefore it is not possible to determine the number of affected small entity operators at this time. We find, however, that the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Remote ID rule is helpful. In this analysis, the FAA assessed the impact of the rule on small entity non-recreational UAS operators based on an analysis that the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) performed relating to part 107 waivers. In the analysis, the AUVSI determined that 92 percent of the waivers were issued to entities with fewer than 100 employees. Based on this data, the FAA determined that a majority of entities operating uncrewed aircraft for other than recreational purposes are small. Accordingly, based on the FAA's determination we conclude that a majority of uncrewed UAS operators are small entities.

109. The proposed changes to the Commission's service rules in the NPRM, if adopted, could impose new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities. At this time, however, the record does not include sufficient cost/benefit analyses to allow the Commission to quantify the costs of compliance for small entities including whether it will be necessary for small entities to hire professionals to comply with the proposed rules if adopted. The NPRM nevertheless seeks comment, particularly from small entities, on the costs and burdens of the proposed rules and whether there are any actions the Commission should take to minimize concerns by small entities regarding their compliance requirements. Below is an overview of the potential compliance obligations small entities may face due to the proposed rule changes for the three distinct bands of spectrum discussed in the NPRM.

110. Air-Ground Communications in the 450 MHz Band. As discussed above, the potential rule changes proposed in the NPRM, if adopted, could impose new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities. In addition to the proposed rule changes associated with the amended allocation in the 450 MHz band, there could also be new service rule compliance obligations. For the new operations allowed and the new licensing framework in the band, the NPRM seeks comment on various service rules that should apply, including performance, construction, and technical operating requirements. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment on the costs and benefit of the proposed approaches and any associated rule changes or requirements.

111. Application Freeze. In order to maintain the existing licensing landscape in the band, and to permit the incumbent licensee to submit necessary filings, while this rulemaking proceeding is pending, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau suspended acceptance and processing of new applications to conduct part 22 general aviation air-ground service operations in the 450 MHz band.

112. Voluntary Transition to a Nationwide License. The NPRM proposes to voluntarily transition the band to a geographic licensing structure with a single nationwide license, thereby creating a less burdensome environment for small entity compliance. It tentatively concludes that the licensing regime is in the public interest because of the public safety need for UAS CNPC across the country. Further, the NPRM proposes certain eligibility restrictions an entity must meet in order to qualify for the geographic license with nationwide coverage. Specifically, it proposes to define “covered incumbent” as an applicant eligible for the nationwide 450 MHz Air-Ground Service license that can demonstrate that: (1) it provides coverage at 25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii using all available communication frequencies; and (2) the locations of the sites used to provide this coverage prevent the authorization of any other entity to provide contiguous, regional service using multiple communication frequencies. The covered incumbent eligibility criteria intends to ensure expanded operations are expeditiously deployed in the band, putting the spectrum to its highest and most efficient use.

113. In addition, the NPRM proposes to transition to a geographic license framework by converting a single incumbent's site-based licenses into a nationwide license. Under the proposed approach, a covered incumbent seeking the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service nationwide license would apply to modify one of its site-based licenses into the nationwide license and turn in its remaining site-based licenses. This application for modification would be completely voluntary.

114. Certification. The NPRM proposes that a request to modify a site-based license into the new nationwide license must include as an attachment a certification that the applicant has satisfied the eligibility criteria (Eligibility Certification). The proposed criteria for a covered incumbent are: (1) it provides coverage at 25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii using all available communication frequencies; and (2) the locations of the sites used to provide this coverage prevent the authorization of any other entity to provide contiguous, regional service using multiple communication frequencies. The NPRM further proposes that, in order to meet the first prong of covered incumbent criteria, the Eligibility Certification must list the licenses and frequencies that the applicant holds in the 450 MHz band to demonstrate that it meets the proposed threshold. The NPRM proposes that the covered incumbent can meet the second prong of the covered incumbent criteria by providing a coverage map that demonstrates how the incumbent's site locations and service prevent the authorization of any other entity to provide contiguous, regional service using multiple communication frequencies. Lastly, the NPRM proposes to require the covered incumbent to submit the Eligibility Certification and coverage map in ULS.

115. License and Operating Rules. The NPRM proposes to adopt additional service rules that would provide UAS operators with the ability to conduct control and non-payload operations in the band. In addition, the NPRM proposes specific eligibility criteria for the covered incumbent to modify one of its site-based licenses into a nationwide license and proposes to maintain the existing part 22 general eligibility standard for licenses in the 450 MHz band. It also proposes to license the 450 MHz band on an exclusive, nationwide license basis. Lastly, the NPRM tentatively concludes that the license term for the nationwide license should be 15 years.

116. Performance Benchmarks. The NPRM proposes two options to meet the performance requirements and proposes to have an interim and final performance requirement in each option. In the proposed Option 1, to meet the interim performance benchmark, the licensee must continue to provide service at 25,000 feet over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii and service at 400 feet covering 17.5 percent or more of each REAG geographic area. To meet the final performance requirement under proposed Option 1, the licensee must provide service in CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii at 25,000 feet and service at 400 feet covering 35 percent or more of each individual license area REAG geographic area. Under the proposed Option 2, to meet the interim performance benchmark, the licensee must provide service at 400 feet covering 35 percent or more of each individual REAG geographic area. To meet the final performance requirement under this option, the licensee must provide service covering 70 percent or more of each individual license area REAG geographic area. The NPRM proposes that the licensee may choose to fulfill its performance requirement either by a combination of high and low altitude services under Option 1 or significant service at low altitude under Option 2. The NPRM further proposes that, in the event the nationwide licensee fails to meet the first performance benchmark in any REAG, the licensee's second benchmark and license term would be reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the second performance benchmark two years sooner (at 6 years into the license term) and reducing its license term to 13 years. Lastly, the NPRM proposes that if the nationwide licensee fails to meet the second performance benchmark in any REAG, its authorization for the license shall terminate automatically without Commission action.

117. Compliance Procedures. The NPRM proposes a rule requiring licensees to submit electronic coverage maps in the ULS that accurately depict both the boundaries of the licensed area and the coverage boundaries of the actual area to which the licensee provides service. The NPRM proposes that the covered incumbent must notify the Commission by filing FCC Form 601 when it meets its construction obligations within the construction period. It proposes that the notification must be filed within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable construction period. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment on this proposal and any alternatives. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether a covered incumbent has any special or unique issues such that they would require additional time to comply.

118. General Applicability of Other Part 22 and Part 1 Rules. The NPRM proposes that the nationwide licensee in the 450 MHz band should be governed by licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all part 22 services, including foreign ownership and permanent discontinuance of operations. The NPRM also proposes to retain existing station identification rules for general aviation air-ground stations (ground and mobile) and not to require station identification for ground and mobile stations providing UAS CNPC. FAA rules presently regulate remote identification of UAS, so the NPRM proposes not to adopt duplicative rules.

119. Technical Rules. The NPRM seeks comment on the appropriate power levels in the 450 MHz band and proposes to eliminate the 20 kilohertz channel requirement. The NPRM further proposes to apply the existing 43 + 10 log (P) dB out of band emissions limit at the edge of the last channel at the legacy band edges. Additionally, it also proposes to eliminate the channel siting requirement in the Commission's rules for the 450 MHz band. The NPRM proposes to retain the transmitter location rules for the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service. The NPRM also notes that there are several additional technical rules applicable to all part 22 services, including §§ 22.365 (Antenna structures; air navigation safety), 22.377 (Certification of transmitters) 22.379 (RF Exposure), and 22.383 (In-building radiation systems). It proposes to apply these general part 22 rules to the 450 MHz Air-Ground Service. Further, the NPRM proposes to apply these rules to licensees that acquire their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation (to the extent the service rules permit such licenses). Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on incorporating RTCA standards into our rules for the 450 MHz band.

120. UAS Detection in the 24.45-24.65 GHz Band. The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on changes to the Commission's rules to expand use of the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to include radiolocation operations that would better facilitate the detection of UAS, including AAM operations. These changes would primarily impose existing part 90 technical, licensing, and operating compliance requirements on new radiolocation operations in the band. The NPRM also proposes to establish a frequency stability standard on radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, and it would require that the devices used to conduct such operations receive authorization to do so under the Commission's part 90 rules.

121. Radiolocation Allocation in the 24.45-24.65 GHz Band. The NPRM proposes to add to the U.S. Table a federal and a non-federal secondary allocation for radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. The band is currently allocated only to radionavigation and inter-satellite services. The NPRM seeks comment on this approach, especially with regard to any potential for harmful interference between radiolocation operations and existing co-channel and adjacent-channel operations.

122. Part 90 Licensing and Operating Rules for Radiolocation Operations. The NPRM proposes to add the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to the list of frequencies available to the Radiolocation Service in part 90 of the Commission's rules, and to apply the existing part 90 rules related to license applications, term, performance requirements, and license renewal to such operations. The NPRM further proposes to apply to radiolocation operations the additional rules that govern part 90 services generally. Such rules include those that govern foreign ownership, construction requirements, and applications for temporary permits.

123. Part 90 Technical Rules for Radiolocation Operations. The NPRM proposes to preserve and apply, with minimal amendments, existing provisions of the Commission's part 90 technical rules to radiolocation operations in the 24.45-25.65 GHz band. For example, the NPRM proposes to impose power limits on a case-by-case basis, as described in § 90.205, consistent with comparable part 90 licenses. The NPRM similarly proposes, per § 90.207, to determine emissions-type limitations on a case-by-case basis, and to establish them upon a satisfactory showing of need. The NPRM also proposes to apply § 90.210's Emission Mask B to radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. Finally, the NPRM proposes to continue to review and authorize on a case-by-case basis bandwidth limits for stations conducting radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band, consistent with § 90.209, and to establish a frequency stability standard for such operations in § 90.213.

124. Equipment Authorization for Radiolocation Operations. The NPRM proposes to require transmitters used to conduct radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band to receive authorization to operate under part 90 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for such authorization are set forth in § 90.203.

125. Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. The Commission proposes changes to the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems rules to more efficiently utilize this spectrum, harmonize these rules with rules of similar legacy technologies, and promote technology neutrality. More specifically, we propose to amend the rules to regulate by average power rather than by peak power, adopt a PAR limit, and implement a PSD model. While the Commission does not propose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements for this band, we do propose compliance requirements for licensees.

126. Power Measurement. The Commission proposes to regulate power for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems on an average basis. The rules for this band currently measure permissible ERP on a peak basis. More specifically, § 22.867 restricts peak ERP for airborne mobile transmitters to 12 watts ERP and ground station transmitters to 500 watts ERP in the 849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz. We do not yet specify particular limits for these airborne mobile and ground station transmitters, but, if this rule is adopted, we would require licensees to regulate by average power not to exceed a certain level.

127. Peak-to-Average Ratio. The Commission proposes to implement a PAR limit of 13 dB for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. When accompanying an average power approach, a PAR limit guards against interference by restricting the magnitude of power spikes. Because regulating on an average power basis would allow for emissions higher than permitted under the current peak power basis, we tentatively conclude that it serves the public interest to adopt a PAR limit to mitigate the potential for undesirable interference that could result otherwise. In the event the Commission adopts a PAR, the Commission would restrict licensees to a PAR limit of 13 dB.

128. Power Spectral Density Model. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to adopt a PSD model for the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems band. PSD describes the amount of ERP that would be allowed per unit of bandwidth from a base station antenna, such that wideband emissions would be permitted more power commensurate with their bandwidth. We have previously implemented a PSD model for similar bands, such as the 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone Service, to promote technology neutrality for entities utilizing broadband technologies in these bands. While existing Commission rules do not yet specify a certain PSD limit for this band, if a PSD model is adopted and a limit is specified, we would allow entities employing wideband technologies to utilize a PSD model.

129. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance 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.”

130. Air-Ground Communications in the 450 MHz Band. The proposals contained in the NPRM are designed to facilitate more intensive use of 650 kilohertz of low-band spectrum for air-ground communications through flexible rights and policies, in order to position the 450 MHz band as one of several alternatives considered for local, regional, and nationwide UAS networks. This action is critical to modernize the legacy, site-based general aviation air-ground service rules that currently limit service to voice communications with aircraft at high altitudes, thereby prohibiting data communications, and effectively prohibiting wide-area, low-altitude service. The Commission has taken steps to enable it to minimize the economic burden on small entities that could occur if some of the rule changes or approaches proposed in the NPRM are adopted. Specifically, in the NPRM, the Commission seeks to identify whether a covered incumbent will face any special or unique issues with respect to the proposed licensing and operating rules such that they would require certain accommodations or additional time to comply by seeking comment on this issue. The Commission also seeks to identify and consider other modifications that could be made to our rules regarding administrative processes that would reduce the economic impacts of proposed rule changes on the covered incumbent. Additionally, we seek to obtain any information, through comments or otherwise, specific to the interests of small entities, which should provide the Commission with the requisite data it needs to effectively consider the most cost-effective approach to minimize the economic impact for such entities while achieving its statutory objectives.

131. The proposed transition to a geographic licensing regime would be completely voluntary, which may minimize impact of the rules on small entities. Further, the NPRM considers and seeks comment on allowing the covered incumbent to choose between two performance requirement options. The NPRM proposes a license term of 15 years. The certainty of a longer license term would provide a licensee that is a small entity sufficient incentive to make the long-term investments necessary for compliance. Additionally, certain applicable technical rules would be eliminated or remained unchanged, which would either reduce or, at least maintain, the existing economic obligations of small entities.

132. The Commission finds an overriding public interest in encouraging investment in wireless networks, facilitating access to scarce spectrum resources, and promoting the rapid deployment of mobile services to both the American public and its small businesses. All licensees, including small entities, play a crucial role in achieving these goals. Thus, to identify additional approaches that could further minimize the economic impact on small entities the Commission seeks comment on alternative obligations, timing for implementation, scope of subject licenses, and other measures that could accommodate the needs and resources of small entities. Prior to adopting final rules in this proceeding, the Commission will evaluate comments filed in response to the NPRM, and carefully consider the matters and the impact of all rule changes on small entities.

133. UAS Detection in the 24.45-24.65 GHz Band. The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on modest rule changes to enable radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band. We believe that very few changes to our part 90 rules will be required in order to facilitate this expanded utility of a band of spectrum that is presently underused. We therefore propose to retain and apply relevant, familiar, and generally applicable part 90 licensing, operation, and technical rules wherever possible. This approach is tailored to minimize any new burden on small entity and all other applicants. We nevertheless seek comment on the costs and benefits of our various proposals, including the application of existing rules, as well as our proposals to add a federal and a non-federal, secondary radiolocation allocation to the U.S. Table, and to require new part 90 equipment authorization for transmitters that will conduct radiolocation operations in the 24.45-24.65 GHz band.

134. Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems. The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on the adoption of average power regulation, a PAR limit, and a PSD model for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems, as well as considers the advantages and disadvantages of peak and average radiated power limits in terms of controlling the interference potential of stations, and conforming to current industry measurement procedures using available measuring instruments. The NPRM invites interested parties to comment on these proposals as well as consider the costs and benefits of each proposal. The Commission believes that, if adopted, these rules would enable the licensee to provide connectivity for passengers on commercial aircraft in a more efficient manner for its broadband technologies, and this connectivity is available to all individuals and entities onboard. For example, small businesses would be able to utilize this connectivity while on a commercial flight.

135. Additionally, these proposals would put the Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems licensee, regardless of size, more on regulatory par with other wireless service licensees. The Commission has historically valued harmonization in the rules for wireless licensees by eliminating burdensome requirements, as appropriate. These proposals align the rules for Commercial Aviation Air-Ground Systems with the rules for the Personal Communications Service, Advanced Wireless Service, and Cellular Radiotelephone Service, which would reduce confusion and ease the regulatory burden on small entities providing or receiving those services. Further, we anticipate that these modernized rules would encourage the licensee to invest in and deploy more advanced technologies as they evolve.

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 § 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.”

None.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 22, and 90 to read as follows:

450 MHz Air-Ground Service

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Order, document FCC 25-8, adopted on January 15, 2025, and released on January 16, 2025, in WT Docket No. 24-99. The full text of this document is available for public inspection at the following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-increase-broadband-services-900-mhz-band.

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document is available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

1. In 2020, the Commission realigned the 900 MHz band to make available six of the band's ten megahertz for the deployment of broadband services and technologies. To facilitate a rapid transition, the Commission adopted a negotiation-based mechanism that, if private agreements are reached, would make available on a county-by-county basis six megahertz of low-band spectrum for the development of broadband technologies and services (also referred to as “3/3” broadband because of the paired 3 megahertz spectrum), while reserving the remaining four megahertz of the band for continued narrowband operations. The Commission also implemented a framework whereby it would issue new initial licenses to applicants meeting certain eligibility requirements. The Commission also created rules that permit a 900 MHz broadband licensee to relocate mandatorily a limited percentage of covered incumbents—except those with complex systems—from the new broadband segment by paying reasonable relocation costs, including providing comparable facilities. In addition, the Commission adopted operational and technical rules to minimize harmful interference to narrowband operations. The Commission also issued an Order of Proposed Modification regarding AAR's 900 MHz nationwide ribbon license to prevent disruptions to the railways, enhance rail safety, and fully clear a virtually nationwide incumbent from the 3/3 900 MHz broadband segment.

2. On February 28, 2024, ten entities filed a petition for rulemaking asking the Commission to adopt a framework that would increase the existing broadband allocation in the 900 MHz band by providing an option for ten megahertz broadband (or “5/5” broadband) networks in the band. Petitioners stated that this ten megahertz broadband spectrum opportunity will aid in ensuring that utilities, critical infrastructure, and business enterprise entities have access to additional capacity to support their 900 MHz private wireless broadband deployments. Under their proposed plan, Petitioners asserted that narrowband incumbents would remain protected under the existing framework in the rules and would only vacate an existing narrowband segment to allow 5/5 megahertz broadband operations if the relevant parties made a private agreement to do so. Petitioners suggested that no changes are necessary to the current harmful interference, technical, or performance requirement rules to implement 5/5 megahertz broadband operations. Likewise, Petitioners proposed that, as with the current rules, the licensee of an authorization for an 5/5 900 MHz broadband segment could be required to make any necessary anti-windfall payments to the U.S. Treasury.

3. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to implement a framework to transition the entire ten megahertz in the 900 MHz band for broadband use and seeks comment on the eligibility criteria, application requirements and procedures, licensing and operating rules, and technical requirements, among other issues. Additionally, in the Order, the Commission delegates authority to WTB to modify or terminate the current freeze on certain applications in the 900 MHz band.

4. Band Realignment to Create a 5/5 900 MHz Broadband Segment. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to realign the 900 MHz band to create a 5/5 megahertz broadband segment that would be available on an optional and voluntary basis and in a manner that ensures the protection of incumbent and adjacent band licensees. The Commission seeks comment on whether this proposal aligns with and further advances the Commission's important goals for this band to create additional market-driven opportunities for robust broadband networks, while maintaining the narrowband option for B/ILT and SMR spectrum users. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether this proposal furthers important goals of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), including improving the efficiency of spectrum use.

5. The Commission proposes to designate the 896-897.5 MHz, 900.5-901 MHz, 935-936.5 MHz, and 939.5-940 MHz segments as a Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Service governed by part 27 of the Commission's rules and add an informational reference to “Wireless Communications (Part 27)” in the Table of Frequency Allocations. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and the conclusion that the proposed approach is consistent with the Commission's authority in section 303(y) of the Act. The Commission seeks comment on the proposal to designate the entire band for broadband operation, the costs and benefits of this proposal, and any alternative proposals, and asks commenters to further develop the record by explaining why a ten megahertz broadband segment in the band is appropriate at this time.

6. Voluntary, Negotiation-based Transition. The Commission tentatively concludes that a market-driven, voluntary exchange process is the best approach for relocating site-based and geographic-based incumbents and further transitioning all ten megahertz in the 900 MHz band for broadband use, and seeks comment on this proposal. Additionally, the proposal in the NPRM will preserve the right to mandatorily relocate the remaining 10% (or less) of covered incumbents, if any, except for complex systems, only as it pertains to the 3/3 900 MHz broadband segment for both 3/3 900 MHz broadband licensees and 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensees. However, a 5/5 broadband applicant must negotiate a full, voluntary clearing or protection of all incumbents in the current four megahertz 900 MHz narrowband segment. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and alternatives, such as allowing mandatory relocation across the entire ten megahertz of spectrum in the 900 MHz band under certain circumstances. The Commission seeks comment on continuing to protect complex systems, as defined in the rules, and whether the definition of complex systems should be maintained. The Commission asks commenters to address whether and how the Commission should be involved in the relocation of incumbents, especially because the entire 900 MHz band would be authorized for broadband, and any holdout incumbents would be relocated out of the 900 MHz band. Commenters that support a mandatory relocation provision or an alternative approach should also explain whether any of our current rules would need to be altered in order to facilitate implementation in the 5/5 broadband context.

7. Finally, the Commission has noted that it has broad authority to determine in the public interest what licensing scheme fits best with the characteristics of particular bands and services and tentatively concludes that itis authorized under section 309 of the Act to adopt a framework that would allow a complete transition of the 900 MHz band to broadband where incumbents and applicants can voluntarily negotiate a transition. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.

8. Eligibility for a 5/5 900 MHz Broadband License. To effectuate the framework that proposed in the NPRM, the Commission tentatively concludes that the eligibility requirements for a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license will generally mirror the current eligibility requirements for a 3/3 900 MHz broadband license, with key differences as noted below. Specifically, the Commission proposes that in order for an applicant to be eligible for a 5/5 megahertz broadband license in a county, it must: (1) hold the licenses for more than 50% of the total amount of licensed 900 MHz spectrum (narrowband or broadband) for the relevant county; (2) sufficiently show that, as it pertains to the 3/3 broadband segment (897.5-900.5 MHz/936.5-939.5 MHz), the prospective licensee either: (a) holds a 3/3 900 MHz broadband license in the relevant county; or (b) itself holds, or has reached an agreement to clear through acquisition or relocation, or has demonstrated how it will provide harmful interference protection to, 90% or more of covered incumbent licensees collectively holding licenses in that segment, in the county and within 70 miles of the county boundary and geographically licensed channels where the license area completely or partially overlaps the county; and (3) reach an agreement to clear through acquisition or relocation, or demonstrate how it will provide harmful interference protection to, all covered incumbent licensees collectively holding licenses in the narrowband segments in the county and within 70 miles of the county boundary and geographically licensed channels where the license area completely or partially overlaps the county. The Commission seeks comment on the proposed eligibility requirements. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative eligibility criteria, such as whether to include incumbent licenses where a broadband applicant negotiates a cancelation of the incumbent license for purposes of meeting the eligibility requirements or whether to adopt stricter eligibility requirements for 5/5 broadband licenses overall.

9. Application Requirements and Procedures for a 5/5 900 MHz Broadband License. The Commission tentatively concludes that it will apply similar application requirements and implementation procedures, with minor modifications, to 5/5 900 MHz broadband applications, including requiring an Eligibility Certification and Transition Plan for applications, as currently apply to 3/3 900 MHz broadband applications, and seeks comment on this conclusion. The Commission will use the information an applicant provides in its Eligibility Certification and Transition Plan to determine whether a grant of a 900 MHz broadband license is in the public interest. In the Eligibility Certification and Transition Plan, the Commission proposes requiring the 5/5 broadband license applicant to submit all information necessary to determine the validity of the applicant's eligibility, including information necessary to assess its ability to acquire, relocate, or protect covered incumbents.

10. In particular, the Commission proposes that a 5/5 broadband license application must include an Eligibility Certification that, at a minimum, shows that the applicant meets the specific edibility criteria proposed above. In addition, the Commission proposes that the 5/5 broadband license application must include a Transition Plan in which (1) the applicant must show it has reached an agreement to relocate or protect the necessary incumbent licensees collectively holding licenses in the 900 MHz band in the county and within 70 miles of the county boundary and geographically licensed channels where the license area completely or partially overlaps the county, and (2) that applicants must describe in detail all information and actions necessary to accomplish the realignment to either 3/3 megahertz broadband or 5/5 megahertz broadband. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, and alternatives. The Commission also seeks comment on whether narrowband licensees should be required to file Transition Plans. Further, the Commission proposes that the 5/5 broadband license applicant include in its Transition Plan a certification from a FCC-certified frequency coordinator that the Transition Plan's representations can be implemented consistent with Commission rules and seeks comment on this proposal. Finally, the Commission proposes that applicants seeking to transition multiple counties simultaneously may file a single Transition Plan that covers all of its county-based applications.

11. The Commission proposes to commence the 5/5 broadband transition by issuing a public notice announcing the date that the Commission will begin accepting applications on a rolling basis consistent with the proposed eligibility and application requirements and seeks comment on this proposal and any other issues relating to the filing of applications. The Commission also proposes that, notwithstanding the presence of incumbents in the 5/5 broadband segment requiring clearing by agreement, the timeline for complying with the applicable construction obligations will commence upon the Commission's grant of the new license. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and on any alternative procedures that the Commission should consider for the 5/5 900 MHz broadband framework.

12. To facilitate the proposed voluntary exchange process and to mitigate the risk of an undue windfall to the prospective broadband licensee, the Commission proposes that a 5/5 broadband applicant would be required to return all narrowband licenses and 3/3 broadband license(s), if applicable, up to ten megahertz, that it holds in the counties in which the applicant seeks a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license. In addition, the applicant would make a monetary payment to the U.S. Treasury, prior to the grant of a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license, to account for any difference between the amount of spectrum that the applicant surrenders and what will be provided from the Commission's inventory. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal as well as related questions that may arise in a 5/5 broadband transition. The Commission also seeks comment generally on the risks that a prospective 5/5 broadband licensee would realize an undue windfall in markets where a voluntary exchange is achieved, and on what actions may be necessary to mitigate such risks.

13. The Commission seeks comment on questions related to altering anti-windfall provisions to account for various circumstances. The Commission proposes to make a one-time adjustment to the anti-windfall payment calculation to account for inflation since 2020, and seeks comment on whether to adjust the anti-windfall calculation for inflation on a one-time basis or annually. The Commission tentatively concludes that the 600 MHz auction prices remain the best valuation source for anti-windfall payments for 900 MHz broadband licenses and that it has statutory authority to require a mandatory anti-windfall payment for a 5/5 broadband transition. The Commission seeks comment on both conclusions.

14. In the proposed 5/5 broadband framework, the Commission proposes to designate the entire 900 MHz band as a Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Service governed by part 27 of the Commission's rules and tentatively concludes that the current licensing and operating rules that apply to the 3/3 broadband licenses will also apply to the 5/5 broadband licenses. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and ask commenters to identify any aspects of our general part 27 service rules that should be modified to accommodate the characteristics of the proposed 5/5 900 MHz broadband framework.

15. License Area. In order to effectuate our proposed framework, the Commission proposes to continue to license all broadband operations in the 900 MHz band on a geographic-area basis by county, defined using the United States Census Bureau's data reflecting county legal boundaries and names valid through January 1, 2017. The Commission seeks comment on this and whether alternative license areas should be considered and the costs and benefits of the various approaches for the most suitable license area for 900 MHz band 5/5 broadband licenses, especially with respect to rural areas.

16. License Term. As with the 3/3 900 MHz broadband segment, the Commission proposes that authorizations for 5/5 broadband licenses will have a term not to exceed 15 years from the date of the grant and 10 years from the date of any subsequent renewal. Further, where a 3/3 broadband licensee seeks to expand its current broadband authorization by applying for a 5/5 broadband license, the Commission proposes that the former license term(s) will no longer apply and instead the new 5/5 broadband 15-year initial and 10-year subsequent license terms, from the date of the grant of the 5/5 broadband license, will apply to all of the authorized frequencies. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, as well as alternate proposals for the appropriate license term.

17. Performance Requirements. The Commission also tentatively concludes that the current performance requirements for 900 MHz broadband licensees will apply in the 5/5 broadband context. The Commission typically establishes performance requirements to ensure that spectrum is intensely and efficiently utilized, and it has applied different performance and construction requirements to different spectrum bands based on considerations relevant to those bands. Accordingly, to ensure that licensees begin providing service to consumers in a timely manner, the Commission proposes to apply our current performance requirement rules whereby a 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensee must: (1) provide reliable signal coverage and offer broadband service; and (2) meet either (a) a population coverage requirement, or (b) a geographic coverage requirement. The Commission also proposes that current 3/3 broadband licensees that expand their operations by applying for and receiving a 5/5 broadband license will receive two separate performance requirement deadlines—performance deadlines associated with its former 3/3 broadband license will continue to apply to those licenses, and performance deadlines for the newly authorized spectrum will commence upon grant of the 5/5 broadband license and apply throughout its term. The Commission proposes that the period for complying with these performance requirements would begin on the date that the license is granted. The Commission tentatively concludes that 12 years from the date of license grant will provide sufficient time for any 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensee to meet the proposed coverage requirements. After satisfying the 12-year, final performance benchmark, a 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensee would be required to continue to provide reliable signal coverage and offer service at or above that level for the remaining three years in the proposed 15-year license term in order to warrant license renewal. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, including whether the proposals represent the appropriate balance between license-term length and a significant final performance benchmark and on the proposed performance requirements and any potential alternatives.

18. The Commission also seeks comment on whether narrowband licensees in the 900 MHz band should be required to satisfy more stringent performance requirements than those set forth in our existing rules, whether or not those licensees ultimately agree to relocate their facilities.

19. Broadband Requirement. The Commission proposes to require 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensees to deploy broadband technologies and offer broadband services to satisfy the proposed performance requirements. A 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensee could meet a safe harbor by offering broadband if the service has the following minimum features: provide 5/5 megahertz 3GPP standard LTE service offering for advanced services, basing its LTE network on 3GPP standard release 8 or a later release. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and alternative approaches to the current broadband safe harbor rule that may be more appropriate in the 5/5 broadband context.

20. Penalties. In conjunction with our suggested performance benchmarks, the Commission proposes that if a 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensee fails to meet the interim performance benchmark, the licensee would be required to meet the final performance benchmark two years sooner ( i.e., at 10 years into the license term) and would have a reduced license term from 15 years to 13 years. Moreover, the Commission proposes that if a 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensee fails to meet the final performance benchmark, its authorization for that license area will terminate automatically without Commission action. Further, consistent with the Commission's rules for other broadband licenses, the Commission proposes that any 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensee that forfeits its license for failure to meet its performance requirements would be precluded from regaining that license. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and on other penalties that would effectively ensure timely buildout.

21. Renewal Term Construction Obligations. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should implement renewal term construction obligations for the 5/5 broadband segment. Commenters advocating rules specific to the 5/5 900 MHz broadband segment should address the costs and benefits of their proposed rules, and they should discuss how a given proposal would encourage investment and deployment in areas that might not otherwise benefit from significant wireless coverage.

22. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies. The Commissions seeks comment on whether any new basis exists to revisit the determination that a 900 MHz broadband segment is not included in the Commission's spectrum aggregation screen if the Commission ultimately adopts rules for the 5/5 megahertz broadband segment proposed herein.

23. The Commission seeks comment on continuing to utilize flexible technical rules for broadband operations that enable a wide variety of services, while providing sufficient protection to the incumbent licensees utilizing narrowband spectrum as well as to licensees in the 3/3 broadband segment and on the appropriate technical rules for 5/5 900 MHz broadband operations.

24. Broadband Operations. The Commission tentatively concludes that it will apply the existing transmitter power limit rules in the 5/5 broadband context and seeks comment on this conclusion. More specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the likelihood of harmful interference under the current rules and whether the existing transmitter power limits rules are sufficient as currently written.

25. The Commission seeks comment generally on whether the existing out of band emission (OOBE) rules should be applied to a 5/5 megahertz broadband licensee, including whether the rules require any amendment. Because a 5/5 broadband segment would place a broadband signal immediately adjacent to dissimilar licensees in adjacent bands, having different technical characteristics and system architectures, the Commission seeks comment on whether a different or stricter OOBE limit is needed to prevent harmful interference. In particular, commenters should address whether there is a likelihood of harmful interference under the current rules with 5/5 900 MHz broadband operations. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there is a specific 3GPP standard that should apply to reduce the risk of harmful interference, either in-band or to adjacent band users and whether the current technical parameters for the 900 MHz broadband segment are consistent with the harmful interference resistance of current 900 MHz narrowband radio equipment and systems, and whether they will help ensure adequate harmful interference protection to narrowband operations. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should implement additional interference protections to ensure that 5/5 900 MHz broadband operations do not cause harmful interference to adjacent Narrowband PCS licensees.

26. The Commission seeks comment generally on whether the existing rules for interference protections and resolution would be sufficient to protect site-based narrowband operations if the proposal to authorize 5/5 broadband operations is adopted. The Commission seeks comment generally on whether there are any additional requirements that the Commission should implement. The Commission tentatively concludes that it will extend the current field strength limit to a 5/5 broadband license, and seeks comment on this conclusion.

27. 900 MHz licensees with operations in the United States/Mexico and United States/Canada border regions are subject to, and their operations shall be in accordance with, international agreements and/or bilateral arrangements between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should consider any additional rules or license conditions as it applies to a prospective 5/5 broadband licensee's cross-border operations.

28. Narrowband Operations. The Commission seeks comment on whether any changes to the existing technical and operational rules are necessary or desirable to sustain continued 900 MHz site-based narrowband operations. Where a county has successfully been transitioned to 5/5 broadband, would narrowband licensees in adjacent counties not transitioned to broadband require modified interference protection from newly licensed co-channel broadband operations? If so, commenters should specify the changes they believe should be made to the technical and operational rules for narrowband licenses.

29. Under the current freeze on certain applications in the 900 MHz band, no applications for new or expanded 900 MHz B/ILT or SMR operations will be accepted unless the application pertains to the relocation of incumbents for broadband transition purposes. When the Commission implemented and subsequently modified the freeze, it found that this freeze serves the public interest because it aids in preserving and stabilizing the current landscape of authorized operations in the band while the transition of the 900 MHz band is ongoing. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks general comment on how it should address future licensing of the 900 MHz band for new or modified operations, and whether it is appropriate at this time to modify or terminate the freeze in whole or in part. If the Commission modifies the freeze, the Commission seeks comment on the circumstances and criteria under which it should do so.

30. Commenters should also address whether any other modifications to the freeze are necessary at this time. For example, should the Commission modify the freeze to allow applicants to apply for new licenses in areas with no 900 MHz licenses ( e.g., MTA-50 Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, and MTA-51 American Samoa)? If the Commission determines that a freeze modification is necessary and in the public interest, it seeks comment on whether it should do so pursuant to specific parameters or over a specific timeframe?

31. In addition to seeking comment generally on modifying or fully terminating the freeze, the Commission asks commenters to address whether terminating the freeze in whole or modifying in part is necessary at this time taking into consideration the Commission's proposal to increase the broadband segment in the band. How, if at all, do these changes impact the analysis of the terminating or modifying the freeze? The Commission asks commenters to address whether there are any other circumstances under which a modification or termination of the freeze would be appropriate.

32. The Commission also seeks comment on improvements that could be made to the current 3/3 900 MHz broadband rules. More specifically, are there other efficiencies that could be made to the eligibility, licensing, or mandatory relocation rules based on stakeholders' experience over the past three years? The Commission proposes, for example, that licensees seeking mandatory relocation must file the required notifications, as outlined in § 27.1504 of our rules, in the Commission's Universal Licensing Service as pleadings to the relevant licenses in addition to the current requirements, and seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on whether applicants and/or licensees should be required to take additional steps to identify and/or contact complex systems, incumbent license holders, or holdouts? Should the current mandatory relocation rules for 900 MHz broadband be revised to include a timeframe or deadline for negotiations? Further, should any of the 5/5 broadband framework rules and requirements proposed above be applied in the 3/3 broadband context?

33. Recognizing that certain areas, including MTA-50 Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and MTA-51 American Samoa, have no 900 MHz incumbents, the Commission seeks comment on how to ensure that valuable spectrum in those places does not remain unused. For example, should the Commission adopt new or revise existing eligibility and service rules that would permit a single entity to obtain a license for 900 MHz broadband in areas with no 900 MHz incumbents and what should those eligibility and service rules include to ensure the spectrum is put to use by a qualified applicant in a manner that avoids issues relating to mutually exclusive application? What approach would allow for efficient 900 MHz broadband deployment in areas that have otherwise not been served through the Commission's current licensing structures?

34. The Commission also directs the Bureau to lift, in whole or in part, or otherwise modify the freeze upon a finding by the Bureau that doing so is necessary to achieve the Commission's goal of efficient spectrum management and that maintaining the freeze in its current form is no longer in the public interest. The Commission instructs the Bureau to consider the record in this proceeding in exercising its delegated authority, to announce that finding, and the date on which the termination or modification will be effective, by public notice.

35. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of rule and policy proposals contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission invites the general public, in particular small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

36. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may contain potential new or revised information collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on potential new or revised information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

37. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

38. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments in the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

39. The NPRM proposes to realign the 896-901/935-940 MHz band (900 MHz band) to create an additional, expanded broadband segment. More specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on the Commission's proposal to realign the 900 MHz band to create a ten megahertz broadband segment option to enable private broadband network solutions. This broadband segment would be composed of two five megahertz segments (5/5 900 MHz broadband). The NPRM also proposes to permit a voluntary, market-driven approach between incumbents to effectuate band clearing and realignment to authorize broadband deployment. The objective of this proposal is to increase access to spectrum to promote innovative broadband services and private broadband networks that improve spectrum efficiency and expand operational flexibility, while continuing to accommodate use by narrowband incumbents where needed. In addition, the increased access to spectrum will be an economic boon to small entities that provide or utilize services in the band.

40. The NPRM also seeks comment on a voluntary, negotiation-based process to transition the entire ten megahertz segment in the 900 MHz band for broadband use in counties where broadband proponents and incumbent licensees reach private agreements to do so. This proposal would balance the needs of incumbents, some of which are small entities, while permitting additional broadband where incumbents enter private agreements to realign the band. In order to implement this proposed framework, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the current 900 MHz broadband rules in part 27 of the Commission's rules, such as the eligibility criteria, application requirements and procedures, licensing and operating rules, and technical requirements, are the appropriate vehicles for effectuating a ten megahertz broadband licensing framework. The Commission's proposed framework in the NPRM will further important Commission goals for this band by creating additional opportunities for robust private broadband networks that support critical communication systems while taking into account the need for continued narrowband operations.

41. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302a(a), 303, 307-310, 319, 324, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a(a), 303, 307-310, 319, 324, and 332, and section 1.411 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.411.

42. 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.

43. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes, 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.

44. 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.

45. 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 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, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

46. 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.

47. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees—900 MHz Band (PLMR MHz Band). Private land mobile radio (PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. Companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories use these radios. The 900 MHz band (896-901/935-940 MHz) is designated for narrowband PLMR communications by Business/Industrial/Land Transportation (B/ILT) licensees and for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) providers, with deployed systems primarily used for two-way communication by land transportation, utility, manufacturing, and petrochemical companies, as well as for broadband by 900 MHz broadband licensees. Only B/ILT, SMR, and 900 MHz broadband licensees are eligible to operate in the 900 MHz band. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with a 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 licensees in this can be considered small.

48. Based on Commission data, as of December 14, 2021, there were 2,716 active licenses (714 B/ILT and 2,002 SMR licenses) in the 900 MHz band (896-901/935-940 MHz). The Commission's small business size standards with respect to PLMR licenses in the 900 MHz band involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For the auction of 900 MHz SMR licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues of $15 million or less in the three preceding calendar years and a “very small business”, as an entity with average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, approximately 59 winning bidders claiming small business credits won approximately 263 licenses and 3 winning bidders claiming small business credits won approximately 7 licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in these 900 MHz band PLMR license auctions had an active license as of December 2021.

49. 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 the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that a majority of B/ILT and SMT PLMR—900 MHz Band licenses are held by small entities.

50. The potential rule changes proposed in the NPRM, if adopted, could impose new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities. In addition to the proposed rule changes associated with the proposed realignment of the 900 MHz band, there could also be new service rule compliance obligations. For the operations in the newly created ten megahertz broadband segment, the NPRM seeks comment on various service rules that should apply, including performance, construction, and technical operating requirements. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment on the costs and benefits of the proposed realignment approaches and any associated rule changes or requirements.

51. Band Realignment And Transition Mechanism. To effectuate a 5/5 megahertz broadband option in the 900 MHz band, the proposal in the NPRM would change the allocations in the Table of Allocations to allow broadband across all ten megahertz. The Commissions seeks comment on this proposal, on potential alternatives, and the need for a further expansion of broadband in the 900 MHz band at this time. The NPRM further proposes to permit a market-driven approach through voluntary exchanges between incumbents to effectuate band clearing and realignment, while preserving existing rights and protections for licensees and incumbents, some of which are small entities. The Commission seeks comment on this voluntary transition mechanism for 5/5 900 MHz broadband.

52. Eligibility and Applications. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes that an applicant meet certain eligibility criteria to obtain a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license and that applications reflect the prospective licensees qualifications. The NPRM proposes that an application for a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license must include: (1) a certification that the applicant satisfies the eligibility restrictions (Eligibility Certification), and (2) a plan for transitioning the band in the particular county (Transition Plan) that describes the private agreements between the prospective broadband licensee and all covered incumbents. The Commission also proposes that the Eligibility Certification must show: (1) the applicant holds the licenses for more than 50% of the total amount of licensed 900 MHz spectrum (narrowband or broadband) for the relevant county; (2) as it pertains to the 3/3 broadband segment (897.5-900.5 MHz/936.5-939.5 MHz), the prospective licensee either: (a) holds a 3/3 900 MHz broadband license in the relevant county; or (b) has reached an agreement to clear through acquisition or relocation, or demonstrated how it will provide harmful interference protection to, 90% or more of covered incumbent licensees collectively holding licenses in that segment, in the county and within 70 miles of the county boundary and geographically licensed channels where the license area completely or partially overlaps the county; and (3) the applicant itself holds and/or has either reached an agreement to clear through acquisition or relocation, or demonstrates how it will provide harmful interference protection to all covered incumbent licensees collectively holding licenses in the remainder of the 900 MHz band in the county and within 70 miles of the county boundary and geographically licensed channels where the license area completely or partially overlaps the county.

53. Additionally, in the NPRM the Commission proposes that the Transition Plan must describe in detail all information and actions necessary to accomplish the realignment, including that the applicant must demonstrate one or more of the following for incumbent licensees collectively holding licenses in the 900 MHz band in the county and within 70 miles of the county boundary and geographically licensed channels where the license area completely or partially overlaps the county, when including its license holdings in the county as applicable: (1) agreement by covered incumbents to relocate from the broadband and/or narrowband segments, as applicable; (2) protection of site-based covered incumbents through compliance with minimum spacing criteria; (3) protection of site-based covered incumbents through new or existing letters of concurrence agreeing to lesser base station separations; (4) protection of geographically-based covered incumbents through private contractual agreements; and/or (5) evidence that it holds licenses for the site-channels in the county and within 70 miles of the county boundary and geographically licensed channels where the license area completely or partially overlaps the county. Further, the Commission proposes that the 5/5 broadband license applicant include in its Transition Plan a certification from an FCC-certified frequency coordinator that the Transition Plan's representations can be implemented consistent with Commission rules.

54. Small entities may require the expertise of engineers to analyze steps necessary to effectuate relocation to the narrowband segment, but the Commission expects such tasks could be completed by engineering staff that already oversee their licensed operations and would not require small entities to hire additional staff. Similarly, while small entities may desire the advice of legal counsel in negotiating the Transition Plan, the Commission does not anticipate that such matters will be so complex as to require additional legal or regulatory compliance staff. The Commission seeks comment and supporting information from small entities who may disagree with this presumption.

55. Anti-Windfall Provisions. The NPRM proposes that a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license applicant must return to the Commission all of its licensed 900 MHz narrowband and/or broadband spectrum, up to ten megahertz, for the relevant county in which it seeks a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license. Whenever a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license applicant relinquishes less than ten megahertz of spectrum in exchange for receiving a ten megahertz broadband license, it must make a monetary payment to the U.S. Treasury, prior to the grant of a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license under the proposal. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and potential alternatives.

56. Licensing and Operating Rules. The Commission proposes to designate 900 MHz broadband service as a Miscellaneous Wireless Service and that broadband licensees in the 5/5 900 MHz broadband segment would be required to comply with current licensing and operating rules that are applicable to 3/3 900 MHz broadband licensees and seeks comment on this approach. This proposal would maintain the same license area, license term, and performance requirements that are applicable to a 3/3 900 MHz broadband licensee in parts 1 and 27. Specifically, the NPRM proposes a 15 year license term with 10 year renewals for licenses based on county boundaries. A licensee that expanded an existing 3/3 900 MHz broadband license would be subject to a new license term upon grant of a 5/5 900 MHz broadband license under the proposal. Small entities, particularly those who do not currently hold licenses subject to the Commission's part 27 rules, may need to hire professionals to facilitate compliance with the licensing and operating rules applicable to part 27 services.

57. Performance Requirements. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment and proposes to maintain the current performance requirements, which require a 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensee to provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least forty-five (45) percent of the population in each of its license areas within six years of the license issue date (first performance benchmark), and to at least eighty (80) percent of the population in each of its license areas within 12 years from the license issue date (second performance benchmark). A licensee that expanded an existing 3/3 900 MHz broadband license would be subject to two performance deadlines, one for the initial 3/3 license and one for the new 5/5 license under the proposal. Further, recognizing the potential use of the 5/5 900 MHz broadband segment by private wireless users such as electric utilities or other B/ILT eligibles, the NPRM seeks comment on whether alternative metrics may be necessary to accommodate such users. Along with performance benchmarks, the NPRM also seeks comment on proposed penalties it believes will most effectively ensure timely buildout. Specifically, the NPRM proposes that, in the event a 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensee fails to meet the first performance benchmark, the licensee's second benchmark and license term would be reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the second performance benchmark two years sooner (at 10 years into the license term) and reducing its license term to 13 years. Further, the NPRM proposes that, in the event a 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensee fails to meet the second performance benchmark for a particular license area, its authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet the performance requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action.

58. The proposed performance benchmarks would apply to any small entity that obtains a new 5/5 900 MHz broadband license. Given the proposal to require that the prospective broadband licensee hold the existing licenses, the Commission anticipates the new broadband licensee will have existing operations in, and be familiar with, the 900 MHz band. While the prospective broadband licensee may already have the engineering staff and expertise necessary to provide existing narrowband services in the 900 MHz band, given the proposal to require broadband services for the purposes of satisfying performance benchmarks, the new licensee may need to hire additional staff to ensure compliance with those requirements. The Commission seeks comment from small entities regarding this issue.

59. Technical Rules. The NPRM generally proposes to keep the same technical rules in place for 5/5 900 MHz broadband operation, for transmitter power limits, field strength, and harmful interference resolution, and seeks comment on whether the Commission's current rules on OOBE should be applied to a 5/5 900 MHz broadband licensee. Additionally, the NPRM notes that future broadband licensees in the 900 MHz band would be subject to any new or modified international agreements and/or bilateral arrangements governing border-area operations and seeks comment on whether additional rules or license conditions are necessary. The proposed technical rules in the NPRM largely mirror existing part 27 and 90 technical rules, and small entities that are existing operators would likely already have staff with the requisite expertise to ensure compliance. For small entities that are not existing operators and do not have existing staffing dedicated to tailoring technical systems, engineering expertise may be necessary for the purposes of making ensuring compliance with the proposed technical parameters and interference protection criteria.

60. Application Freeze. In order to preserve the spectral landscape while this rulemaking proceeding was pending, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau suspended acceptance and processing of applications for new and expanded use of 900 MHz B/ILT channels. In the Report and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order, the Commission lifted the freeze for the limited purpose of permitting covered incumbents to file applications to relocate their operations to different frequencies, as long as the application is part of a Transition Plan for a prospective broadband applicant or related to an agreement with a broadband license after license grant ( e.g., as part of mandatory relocation). The Order also permitted the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to adjust the freeze, if necessary, to implement the transition as needed. The NPRM seeks comment on this application freeze, including whether it should be modified or ended, and, if so, under what circumstances.

61. The Commission invites comment on the costs and burdens of the proposals in the NPRM that may impact small entity callers. The Commission expects the information received in comments, including, where requested, cost and benefit analyses, will help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities that may result if the proposals and associated requirements discussed in the NPRM are ultimately adopted.

62. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance 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.”

63. As discussed above, the proposals contained in the NPRM are designed to enable broadband operations in the 900 MHz band to facilitate use of this band for next-generation technologies and services. This action is critical to the continuation of technological advancement, furthers the goals of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and serves the public interest. The Commission is likewise committed to ensuring that the disruption to incumbent operations, and the economic impact of this proceeding on both incumbent licensees and new broadband licensees, is minimal. The Commission has taken steps to enable it to minimize the economic burden on small entities that could occur if some or all of the rule changes or approaches proposed in the NPRM are adopted and, in developing these proposals, has also considered significant alternatives to those approaches. For example, the Commission considered but rejected proposals such as two county licensing schemes for 3/3 broadband, shorter broadband license terms, and the filing by applicants of multiple Transition Plans for instances where the applicants are seeking to transition multiple counties simultaneously. In the NPRM, however, the Commission seeks to identify whether small entities face any special or unique issues with respect to the proposed eligibility, licensing, and operating rules such that they would require certain accommodations or additional time to comply by seeking comment on this issue. The Commission also seeks comment on modifications that could be made to our rules regarding administrative processes that would reduce the economic impacts of proposed rule changes on small entities. Comments provided by small entities that are particularly impacted by the proposed rules, if adopted, should provide the Commission with the requisite data needed for it to effectively consider the most cost-effective approach to minimizing the economic impact for such small entities while still achieving its statutory objectives.

64. In developing our proposals further realigning the 900 MHz band, the Commission considered how its proposal impacts narrowband operations in the 900 MHz band, which includes small entities as well as other applicants and licensees. The Commission finds that increased access to broadband would serve the public interest if existing narrowband operations can be accommodated. Rather than proposing rules that would create an undue burden to incumbent operations, the Commission proposes rules that require the protection of 900 MHz band incumbents and ensure that incumbents' status quo environment will be maintained at a minimum. For example, the Commission considered adopting some version of our current mandatory relocation rules for the current 900 MHz narrowband segment that would permit a broadband licensee to mandatorily relocate only a limited number of holdouts, and the rules the Commission proposes in the NPRM reflect a market-driven approach. In the NPRM the Commission proposes that, the 900 MHz band will be transitioned only in markets where it is achievable through substantially successful negotiations; no incumbent systems will be subject to mandatory relocation unless provided with comparable facilities, and systems that meet a certain threshold number of integrated sites are not even subject to mandatory relocation.

65. In order to minimize the economic impact resulting from the proposed rules on small entities and other licensees in the 900 MHz band, the technical rules applicable to operations in the two narrowband segments would largely remain unchanged under the proposal in the NPRM. In other words, despite the creation of the 5/5 megahertz broadband segment, 900 MHz narrowband B/ILT and SMR users and 3/3 900 MHz broadband licensees would operate under the same technical rules as today and would not impose any additional economic impact for small entities. For example, the technical rules the Commission proposes to apply to all broadband licensees maintain the 900 MHz band's current strict interference base station distance separation protections; thus, incumbents will not be subject to closer separations than provided under current rules unless agreed upon through negotiation.

66. The Commission finds an overriding public interest in encouraging investment in wireless networks, facilitating access to scarce spectrum resources, and promoting the rapid deployment of mobile services to Americans. All licensees, including small entities, play a crucial role in achieving these goals. Thus, to identify additional approaches that could further minimize the economic impact on small entities the Commission seeks comment on alternative obligations, timing for implementation, scope of subject licenses, and other measures that could accommodate the needs and resources of small entities. Prior to adopting final rules in this proceeding, the Commission will evaluate comments filed in response to the NPRM, and carefully consider these matters and the impact of all rule changes on small entities.

67. None.

68. It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302, 303, 307-310, 319, 324, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a, 303, 307-310, 319, 324, and 332, and section 1.411 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.411, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order are hereby adopted .

69. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 4 and 5 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, and sections 0.201, 0.331, and 1.103 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.201, 0.331, 1.103, this Order delegating authority to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

70. It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking filed by Ameren Services Company; Anterix, Inc.; Enterprise Wireless Alliance; Evergy, Inc.; Lower Colorado River Authority; Portland General Electric; San Diego Gas & Electric; Southern Communications Services, Inc.; Utility Broadband Alliance; and Xcel Energy Services, Inc. in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding RM-11977 is granted to the extent specified herein, that RM-11977 is incorporated into this proceeding, WT Docket No. 24-99, and that RM-11977 is terminated .

71. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2, 27, and 90 as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

The revision and addition read as follows:

The revision and additions read as follows:

Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a proposed rule on January 15, 2025, to revise the listing of the grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) in the lower-48 States with revised protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (90 FR 4234). The proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, which ends on March 17, 2025. To give all interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule, we are extending the comment period for a period of 60 days. Please refer to the proposed rule for more information on our proposed action and the specific information we seek. Additional information about the proposed rule, including supplementary materials and the comments received, is available in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2024-0186 on https://www.regulations.gov.

If you already submitted comments or information on the January 15, 2025 (90 FR 4234), proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. Any such comments are incorporated as part of the public record of the rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination.

Comments should be as specific as possible. Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.

You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES . We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES . If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any fishery management plan or amendment to such a plan to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan or amendment to such a plan, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.

The Council prepared the FMP that is being revised by Amendment 55. If approved, Amendment 55 would be implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

NMFS and the Council manage the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery, which includes scamp, yellowmouth grouper, and the species in the other SASWG complex, under the FMP, in Federal waters from North Carolina south to the Florida Keys in the South Atlantic. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS and regional fishery management councils prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. To further this goal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fishery managers to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.

Unless otherwise noted, all weights in this document are described in round weight.

The South Atlantic stock of scamp was assessed for the first time through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 68 Research Track (RT) assessment in September 2021 (SEDAR 68 RT [2021]). In 2020, the first stage of the SEDAR 68 data process was a Stock Identification (ID) Workshop (SEDAR 68 Stock ID Workshop [2020]), which concluded that scamp are very difficult to distinguish from yellowmouth grouper and thus, much of the assessment data likely represents both species in unknown proportions. The SEDAR 68 Stock ID Workshop (2020) recommended that the stock assessment be conducted on both scamp and yellowmouth grouper jointly, with the two species treated as a single complex because of the known species identification issues. This recommendation resulted in the SEDAR 68 Operational Assessment [OA], which was completed in 2022 (SEDAR 68 OA [2022]). The stock status for scamp and yellowmouth grouper was unknown prior to completion of the two assessments. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the SEDAR 68 OA (2022) at their April 2023 meeting. The assessment included data through 2021 and incorporated the revised landings estimates for recreational catch using the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Fishing Effort Survey (FES). The results of the SEDAR 68 OA assessment indicated that the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock is overfished but not undergoing overfishing. The Council's SSC determined that the assessment was conducted using the best scientific information available and was adequate for determining stock status and supporting total fishing level recommendations. NMFS notified the Council of the overfished status of the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stocks via letter dated September 21, 2023.

Following a notification from NMFS to a Council that a stock is overfished, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to develop an FMP amendment with actions that rebuild the affected stock. Therefore, the Council developed Amendment 55 to respond to the results of SEDAR 68 OA (2022).

Amendment 25 to the FMP (Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit Amendment) (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012) established single species and species complex annual catch limits (ACLs) and AMs. Single species ACLs were established for assessed and targeted species, species where ACL=0, and species that could not be placed in a complex based on the criteria below. Scamp was one of the species that met the criteria for a single species ACL. Complex ACLs for groups of species were established for other snapper-grouper species using associations based on one or more of the following: life history, catch statistics from commercial logbook and observer data, recreational headboat logbook and private/charter survey, and fishery-independent data. Based on the criteria for complex ACLs in Amendment 25, yellowmouth grouper was included in the other SASWG complex along with red hind, rock hind, yellowfin grouper, coney, and graysby. Regulatory Amendment 13 to the FMP updated the commercial and recreational ACLs for select unassessed species including scamp and yellowmouth grouper (78 FR 36113, June 17, 2013). Amendment 29 to the FMP established the current commercial and recreational ACLs for scamp and yellowmouth grouper (80 FR 30947, June 1, 2015).

Amendment 55 would remove yellowmouth grouper from the other SASWG complex and establish a new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. For the new complex, Amendment 55 would establish SDC, a rebuilding plan, the total ACL, sector ACLs, recreational bag limits, commercial trip limits, and AMs. Amendment 55 would also revise the total ACL and sector ACLs for the species remaining within the other SASWG complex.

Yellowmouth grouper is currently part of the other SASWG complex containing rock hind, red hind, coney, graysby, yellowmouth grouper, and yellowfin grouper. Amendment 55 would remove yellowmouth grouper from the other SASWG complex and establish a new complex containing both scamp and yellowmouth grouper. Rock hind, red hind, coney, graysby, and yellowfin grouper would remain in the reorganized other SASWG complex.

There is no maximum sustainable yield (MSY) value for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. Amendment 55 would establish the MSY proxy as the yield when fishing at the fishing mortality rate (F) that produces a spawning potential ratio (SPR) of 40 percent for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. MSY is defined as the largest long-term average catch that can be taken from a stock under current conditions. Currently, scamp (individually) and yellowmouth grouper (as part of the other SASWG complex) have MSY proxies of F30%SPR; however, SEDAR 68 OA (2022) recommended an MSY proxy for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock complex of F40%SPR. As described in Amendment 55, the MSY proxy recommendation is to use F30%SPR for very resilient stocks and use F40%SPR for species with life-history characteristics consistent with scamp and yellowmouth grouper. In March 2023 the Council received a letter from NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) stating that the best scientific information available recommends that F40%SPR is more likely than F30%SPR to achieve a level of biomass that would produce the MSY for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock complex. Therefore, the Council decided to establish the MSY proxy of F40%SPR for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex.

There is no maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. Amendment 55 would establish MFMT equal to F40%SPR for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex, with a currently estimated value of 0.28. MFMT is defined as the level of fishing mortality above which overfishing is occurring. Currently, scamp (individually) and yellowmouth grouper (as part of the other SASWG complex) have a MFMT equal to the MSY proxy of F30%SPR; however, SEDAR 68 OA (2022) recommended a MFMT equal to the MSY proxy of the yield at F40%SPR for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock complex. The Council determined that the proposed MFMT is based on the best scientific information available and would be consistent with the proposed MSY.

There is no minimum stock size threshold (MSST) for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. Amendment 55 would establish MSST equal to 75 percent of the spawning stock biomass (SSB) at F40%SPR, with a currently estimated value of 801.60 metric tons. MSST is defined as the SSB level below which a stock is declared overfished. Currently, scamp (individually) and yellowmouth grouper (as part of the other SASWG complex) have a MSST equal to the SSB at MSY (SSB MSY ) times either one minus the natural mortality (M) or 0.5, whichever is greater. However, SEDAR 68 OA (2022) defined the MSST as 75 percent of SSB at F40%SPR for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock complex. The Council determined that the proposed MSST for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock complex would be based on the best scientific information available.

There is no OY for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. Amendment 55 would establish an OY of 95 percent MSY for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. In Amendment 55 the OY would be 353,670 pounds (lb) (160,422 kilograms (kg)) and the MSY would be 372,280 lb (168,863 kg). OY is the long-term average yield desired from a stock or fishery as reduced from MSY for the fishery based on relevant economic, social, and ecological factors. The Council acknowledged the uncertainty in landings estimates for scamp and yellowmouth grouper but noted that scientific uncertainty had been appropriately accounted for and the 5 percent buffer between OY and the MSY would account for the uncertainty in social, economic, and biological factors.

Amendment 55 would establish a 10-year rebuilding plan for the complex, which is the longest allowable rebuilding scenario (Tmax) allowed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(4)(A)). In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 Guidelines state that if the stock is projected to rebuild in 10 years or less, then Tmax is 10 years (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(B)( 1 )). The Council's preferred choice of the 10-year timeframe for rebuilding in Amendment 55 beginning in 2025, is intended to reduce the severity of the proposed management measures and thus result in fewer short-term negative social and economic impacts on fishing communities.

There is no acceptable biological catch (ABC) or total ACL for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. As described in Amendment 55, the ABC would be equal to the total ACL for the complex and an ABC would be established of 67,450 lb (30,595 kg), for the 2025 fishing year; 72,200 lb (32,749 kg), for the 2026 fishing year; 75,050 lb (34,042 kg), for the 2027 fishing year; 77,900 lb (35,335 kg), for the 2028 fishing year; and 79,800 lb (36,197 kg), for the 2029 and subsequent fishing years. The ABC values are based on the Council's SSC recommendations based on the latest commercial landings data and inclusive of recreational data from the MRIP-FES and are considered to be consistent with the best scientific information available. The Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 guidelines specify that Councils can choose to account for management uncertainty by setting the ACL less than the ABC, but also states that ACLs may be set very close to or equal to the ABC. In Amendment 55, the Council decided to set the total ACL equal to the ABC for the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. This level of removals is below the MSY and the overfishing limit, and provides greater assurance that overfishing is prevented, the long-term average biomass is near or above the biomass that would produce the MSY (B MSY ), and the overfished stock complex of scamp and yellowmouth grouper is rebuilt within the Council's chosen rebuilding timeframe.

Amendment 55 would revise the commercial and recreational allocations for scamp and yellowmouth grouper. The current sector ACLs for scamp are based on the commercial and recreational allocations of the total ACL at 69.36 percent and 30.64 percent, respectively, and 1.35 percent and 98.65 percent, respectively, for yellowmouth grouper, that were established through Amendment 25 to the FMP (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012). The Council used the distribution of landings to determine allocations by sector using a formula of (0.5 * catch history) + (0.5 * current trend) whereby, catch history is equal to the average landings of 1986 through 2008 and current trend is equal to the average landings of 2006 through 2008 to determine the existing allocations.

In Amendment 55, the Council would set the commercial and recreational sector allocations for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex based on a unique allocation formula (“split reduction method”) that also accounts for the revisions to the calibrated recreational landings estimates from the MRIP-FES. This method would implement the reductions in total harvest needed for the complex and establish the total ACL and proportionally allocate the total ACL to each sector, based upon the distribution of landings under more recent time periods that the Council determined better reflect the way the fishery is currently operating. The Council chose the 5-year total average of commercial and recreational (FES) landings from 2018 through 2022, and split the reduction needed from the current total ACL equitably among the sectors to achieve the reduction in harvest needed to constrain the harvest to the total ACL. In each subsequent year throughout the rebuilding plan, as the total ACL increases, the ACL poundage increase is allocated equally between both sectors and added to each sector's respective ACL from the previous year. The proposed commercial and recreational allocation percentages and sector ACLs would change each year from 2025 through 2029 and then remain set at the 2029 level. For the commercial sector, allocation percentages would range from 64.90 to 62.59 percent and for the recreational sector the allocation percentages would range from 35.10 to 37.41 percent through 2029.

The current commercial and recreational ACLs for scamp are 219,375 lb (99,507 kg), and 116,369 lb (52,784 kg), respectively. Yellowmouth grouper is currently part of the other SASWG complex and the commercial and recreational ACLs for the other SASWG complex are 55,542 lb (25,193 kg), and 48,648 lb (22,066 kg), respectively.

In Amendment 55, the Council determined that their preferred sector allocation method more fairly deals with the initial reduction in ACLs for scamp and yellowmouth grouper that would result from the updated catch levels, and reduces the proportion of each sector's allowable catch based on recent landings so that the effect on each sector is more equitable. Similarly, the Council noted that the new allocations would achieve a balance between the needs of both sectors and also increase each sector's allowable catch proportionately on a poundage basis throughout the rebuilding plan. The Council determined that the new sector allocation method distributes both fishing restrictions and recovery benefits for scamp and yellowmouth grouper fairly and equitably among both sectors in the new complex. In addition, this allocation method is also reasonably calculated to promote conservation, since it achieves OY while sector catch limits remain within the boundaries of a total ACL that is based upon an ABC recommendation that would end overfishing and rebuild the stock complex, incorporating the best scientific information available.

When applying the commercial sector allocation percentage as discussed, the proposed commercial ACLs for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex would be 43,772 lb (19,855 kg), for the 2025 fishing year; 46,147 lb (20,932 kg), for the 2026 fishing year; 47,572 lb (21,578 kg), for the 2027 fishing year; 48,997 lb (22,225 kg), for the 2028 fishing year; and 49,947 lb (22,656 kg), for the 2029 and subsequent fishing years.

When applying the recreational sector allocation percentage as discussed, the proposed recreational ACLs for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex would be 23,678 lb (10,740 kg), for the 2025 fishing year; 26,053 lb (11,817 kg), for the 2026 fishing year; 27,478 lb (12,464 kg), for the 2027 fishing year; 28,903 lb (13,110 kg), for the 2028 fishing year; and 29,853 lb (13,541 kg), for the 2029 and subsequent fishing years.

Currently, the recreational bag limit is three scamp or three yellowmouth grouper per person per day within the overall three fish grouper and tilefish combined aggregate bag limit. Amendment 55 would establish an aggregate complex bag limit of one fish (either scamp or yellowmouth grouper combined) per person per day within the overall three fish grouper and tilefish combined aggregate bag limit.

Given the reduction in harvest needed to increase the likelihood of rebuilding the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock, the Council decided to establish the proposed aggregate bag limit for these species that would continue to allow recreational retention while also helping to constrain recreational harvest to the reduced recreational ACL.

There is no commercial trip limit for either scamp and yellowmouth grouper as a species or as an aggregate of species. Amendment 55 would establish an aggregate commercial trip limit for scamp and yellowmouth grouper of 300 lb (136 kg), gutted weight.

Under the proposed trip limit, the Council determined that there could be an increased likelihood of the scamp and yellowmouth grouper portion of the snapper-grouper fishery remaining open and available to fisherman and consumers for as long as possible while reducing harvest to ensure the rebuilding plan is achieved.

There are not currently any commercial AMs for the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. For the new complex, Amendment 55 would establish an in-season commercial closure for the remainder of the fishing year, if commercial landings for scamp and yellowmouth grouper, combined, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of the complex. Amendment 55 would also establish post-season AMs if commercial landings for scamp and yellowmouth grouper, combined, exceed the complex commercial ACL, regardless of stock status or whether the total ACL was exceeded, the commercial ACL of the complex for the following fishing year would be reduced by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.

To achieve rebuilding, the Council decided it was important that the commercial AMs be as effective as possible in preventing commercial landings from exceeding the commercial ACL. An in-season closure and a post-season overage adjustment (payback) of the commercial ACL would ensure that commercial landings remain at or below the proposed commercial ACL.

There are not currently any recreational AMs for the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. Amendment 55 would establish a post-season recreational AM. If recreational landings for scamp and yellowmouth grouper, combined, exceed the recreational ACL of the complex, then the length of the following year's recreational fishing season for the complex would be reduced by the amount necessary to prevent the recreational ACL from being exceeded in the following year, regardless of stock status.

The Council determined that recreational landings estimates are not timely enough for in-season monitoring of the complex. The proposed post-season AM is consistent with what the Council has established for similar snapper-grouper species, in which a season reduction is reliant on a single trigger: that recreational landings exceed the recreational ACL. The Council determined that this post-season AM, when triggered, would be more effective in constraining recreational landings from exceeding the recreational ACL during the following year. This post-season AM is also not reliant on the total ACL being exceeded or an overfished stock status and that it would be the most appropriate choice for the recreational sector and therefore have the greatest chance of contributing to rebuilding of the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock complex.

The current ABC for the other SASWG complex that contains rock hind, red hind, coney, graysby, yellowmouth grouper, and yellowfin grouper is 104,190 lb (47,260 kg), and was implemented by Amendment 29 to the FMP (80 FR 30947, June 1, 2015). The total ACL was set equal to the ABC and included recreational estimates from MRIP's Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS). The current commercial ACL is 55,542 lb (25,193 kg) and the recreational ACL is 48,648 lb (22,066 kg). Amendment 55 would retain the same ABC for the reorganized other SASWG complex of 104,190 lb (47,260 kg), while not including yellowmouth grouper as part of the value. The proposed total ACL for the reorganized other SASWG complex would be 100,151 lb (45,428 kg), and would retain recreational estimates from MRIP-CHTS in the estimation of the total ACL. The commercial ACL would be 53,380 lb (24,213 kg), and the recreational ACL would be 46,771 lb (21,215 kg). The sector allocations for the other SAWSG complex would not change in Amendment 55 and would remain at 1.35 percent commercial and 98.65 percent recreational.

The species within the other SASWG complex are considered data limited and none of the species in the complex have stock assessments. Following the Council's SSC Unassessed Stocks Workgroup meeting in 2020, an ABC was recommended, however, this catch level was determined by the Council's SSC by using the third highest landings using distinct years depending on the species and Only Reliable Catch methodologies, which are both no longer considered best scientific information available. During the Council SSC's April 2023 meeting, the SSC recommended that the other SASWG ACL be modified while still retaining the MRIP-CHTS recreational estimates included in the estimation of the total ACL. The Council's SSC also recommended that the other SASWG ABC and ACL be revised in the Council's upcoming Unassessed Species Amendment using MRIP-FES recreational estimates. As the Council's Unassessed Species Amendment is not expected to be completed until 2026 or later, an action to update the other SASWG ABC and ACL using MRIP-FES recreational data was not included in Amendment 55. The MRIP-FES based catch estimates for the other SASWG species have not yet been through a sufficient scientific review process, which the SSC determined was necessary prior to developing new ABCs and ACLs based on the FES data. Amendment 55 would also not modify the current commercial or recreational AMs for the other SASWG complex (50 CFR 622.193(j)).

A proposed rule to implement Amendment 55 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule for Amendment 55 to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.

The Council has submitted Amendment 55 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 55 must be received by May 16, 2025. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 55 or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove, Amendment 55. Comments received after the comment periods will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.