[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45558-45571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18566]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 90

[WP Docket No. 07-100; PS Docket No. 06-229; WT Docket No. 06-150; FCC 
12-61]


4.9 GHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission allocated the 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) band in 
2002 for fixed and mobile use and dedicated the band for public safety 
broadband communications. In the ten years since, the band has gone 
underutilized. The

[[Page 45559]]

purpose of these proposed rules is to invigorate and maximize use of 
the 4.9 GHz band and attract more users while improving spectrum 
efficiency. The Commission seeks comment on formal coordination 
requirements, expanded eligibility, how the band can complement the 700 
MHz public safety broadband network, technical rule changes, 
aeronautical mobile operations, interoperability standards, and 
deployment reporting.

DATES: Submit comments on or before October 1, 2012. Submit reply 
comments October 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WP Docket No. 07-100, 
PS Docket No. 06-229, WT Docket No. 06-150, by any of the following 
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and 
Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 
20554. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     Hand or Messenger Delivery: 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-
A325, Washington, DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments, additional 
information on the rulemaking process, and where to find materials 
available for inspection, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Eng, Policy and Licensing 
Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, 
at (202) 418-0019, TTY (202) 418-7233, or via email at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fifth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WP Docket No. 07-100; PS 
Docket No. 06-229; WT Docket No. 06-150; adopted and released on June 
13, 2012. The complete text of this document is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from 
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 
in person at 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 
via telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile at (202) 488-5563, or 
via email at [email protected]. Alternative formats (computer diskette, 
large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available to persons with 
disabilities or by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530, TTY (202) 
418-0432. This document is also available on the Commission's Web site 
at http://www.fcc.gov.

Comments

    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking 
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
     Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before 
entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

Introduction and Background

    In this Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Fifth Further 
Notice), we seek comment on specific proposals designed to establish 
appropriate frequency coordination procedures for public safety 
operations in the 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) and to encourage improved 
spectrum efficiency and greater use of the 4.9 GHz band. These steps 
are part of our continuing effort to provide clear and concise rules 
that facilitate and promote the deployment of new wireless 
technologies, devices and services. In addition, given directives in 
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (``Spectrum 
Act'') to develop a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband 
network, we invite comment on how the 4.9 GHz band can best be used to 
complement this network.
    In April 2009, the Commission released the Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Report and Order and Further 
Notice, respectively) to ``encourag[e] public safety users to more 
fully utilize the 4.9 GHz band'' for broadband communications. In the 
Further Notice, the Commission proposed, among other things, to require 
that applicants for 4.9 GHz primary permanent fixed stations complete 
the formalized licensee-to-licensee coordination process established in 
part 101 for fixed microwave stations.
    The Commission received five comments and two reply comments in 
response to the Further Notice. The commenters raised questions about 
the proposed licensee-to-licensee coordination process, for which a 
majority of commenters proposed database and registration approaches as 
alternatives. In order to permit further comment on proposals for 
coordination, we further explore 4.9 GHz coordination in the Fifth 
Further Notice. The Fifth Further Notice also seeks additional comment 
on the information we received at the February 25, 2011, 4.9 GHz 
Workshop hosted by the Commission on several issues, including not only 
coordination but also eligibility, licensing, band plan, power and 
antenna gain, aeronautical mobile use, and standards.
    We also seek further comment on how public safety use of the 4.9 
GHz band can best promote the long-established goal of establishing a 
nationwide public safety broadband network operating in the 700 MHz 
band. As we observed in

[[Page 45560]]

the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth FNPRM) in this 
proceeding, while the 700 MHz band contemplated for this network is 
allocated for mobile use, public safety broadband networks also have a 
critical need for fixed uses, such as for surveillance and backhaul 
capacity, and that public safety entities are currently using the 4.9 
GHz band for such uses. Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on 
several 4.9 GHz issues, including how 4.9 GHz band networks could 
complement 700 MHz public safety broadband networks.
    The Spectrum Act, enacted on February 22, 2012, has provided the 
road map for deployment of the nationwide interoperable public safety 
broadband network contemplated by the Commission in the Fourth FNPRM. 
Section 6101 of the Spectrum Act directs the Commission to reallocate 
the 700 MHz ``D Block'' (758-763 MHz/788-793 MHz) for public safety 
services. Section 6201 of the Act requires the Commission to assign a 
license for both the D Block and the existing public safety broadband 
spectrum (763-769 MHz/793-799 MHz) to the First Responder Network 
Authority (FirstNet), an independent authority within the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The Spectrum 
Act also establishes a Public Safety Trust Fund, with $7 billion 
available for buildout of the new network. The Fifth Further Notice 
seeks comment about how the new statutory framework for the public 
safety broadband network should affect public safety operations in the 
4.9 GHz band, and whether FirstNet is or should be eligible for a 4.9 
GHz band license.

Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In 2002, when the Commission allocated the 4.9 GHz band for fixed 
and mobile services in support of public safety, it envisioned that the 
band would support new broadband applications such as high-speed 
digital technologies and wireless local area networks (WLANs) for 
incident scene management, dispatch operations, and vehicular/personal 
communications. This allocation responded to new national priorities 
focusing on homeland security, and was designed ``to transition to an 
environment in which the public safety community enjoys maximum access 
to emerging broadband technologies.'' The Commission's allocation 
gained extensive support by first responders, the National Public 
Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), and others asserting that 
the public safety community was in great need of additional spectrum to 
meet their critical operations needs, and that the 4.9 GHz band was 
ideal for these emerging broadband technologies.
    Notwithstanding the Commission's action to accord primary status to 
broadband permanent fixed point-to-point links in 2009, we believe that 
the development of the 4.9 GHz band, to date, has fallen short of its 
potential. There are approximately 2,440 licenses in the 4.9 GHz band. 
We estimate that fewer than 2,442 governmental entities hold these 
licenses because certain entities may have multiple licenses. By 
contrast, Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,476 
local governmental jurisdictions in the United States, all of which are 
eligible to hold licenses in the 4.9 GHz band. We therefore take this 
opportunity to reevaluate our existing policies and to consider new 
approaches to spur robust and efficient use in this band. Toward that 
end, we seek comment on a number of important issues. First, we solicit 
views on the alternative frequency coordination proposals for 4.9 GHz 
licensees advanced in response to our Further Notice. Second, we seek 
comment on how 4.9 GHz licensees currently use this spectrum, how we 
might obtain more information about such uses, what applications and 
uses are best suited for the band, and what are the most cost-effective 
ways to improve accessibility to the band while minimizing the adverse 
impact on incumbent operations. We seek comment on specific proposals 
regarding expanded eligibility and alternative licensing approaches. 
Next, we seek comment about the impact of the newly enacted Spectrum 
Act on broadband uses of the 4.9 GHz band by public safety entities. We 
also seek comment on adjustments to the existing channel plan for this 
band and other technical changes designed to promote more efficient use 
of the spectrum. Finally, we ask whether the need for interoperability 
warrants the adoption of technical standards in this band.
    In this Fifth Further Notice, we also request comment on a wide 
range of questions that will enable us to weigh the costs and benefits 
associated with all rule changes we will be considering. For this 
reason, we request that commenters provide specific data and 
information, such as actual or estimated dollar figures for each 
specific cost or benefit addressed, including a description of how the 
data or information was calculated or obtained and any supporting 
documentation or other evidentiary support. All comments will be 
considered and given appropriate weight. Vague or unsupported 
assertions regarding costs or benefits generally can be expected to 
receive less weight and be less persuasive than more specific and 
supported statements.

Coordination

    As noted above, our rules currently require 4.9 GHz licensees to 
``cooperate in the selection and use of channels in order to reduce 
interference and make the most effective use of the authorized 
facilities.'' In the Further Notice, the Commission expressed concern 
that this rule ``may not ensure that applicants for primary permanent 
fixed stations offer sufficient protection to other primary permanent 
fixed stations and other co-primary users,'' and that ``additional 
measures are required to minimize the potential for interference.'' 
Accordingly, the Commission advanced a proposal for a notification and 
response coordination procedure used in part 101 of the Commission's 
rules. The Commission also invited commenters to suggest any 
alternative measures that would serve the purpose of the proposal. The 
comments identified two such alternatives: the registration and 
database creation approach, and the regional plan approach. We seek 
comment below on these alternatives.
    Although quantifying the benefits of coordination to primary users 
and the added costs imposed on applicants may be difficult, we believe 
it is important to determine whether adopting a coordination procedure 
will significantly benefit the public. This is due to the apparent 
benefits of coordination: (i) Reduced risk of interference, which 
translates into clearer communications, which in turn may mean the 
difference of life or death in an emergency situation, and (ii) 
improved spectrum efficiency, which would allow more entities to use 
the 4.9 GHz band for wireless broadband communications. We therefore 
are seeking more information on the benefits and costs of implementing 
such a procedure. Specifically, are the Commission's concerns from the 
Further Notice as recounted above sufficiently valid to warrant a more 
formal coordination requirement? Is Sec.  90.1209(b) sufficient as it 
is? Are there interference issues today that cannot be resolved by the 
requirements of this rule? How would the 4.9 GHz license environment 
look if the Commission does not alter 4.9 GHz coordination 
requirements? If commenters agree with the Commission's concerns, are 
there non-regulatory alternatives to new coordination procedures?

[[Page 45561]]

Part 101 Approach

    Background and prior comments. In the Further Notice, the 
Commission sought comment on a proposal to modify Sec.  90.1209(b) to 
require applicants for primary fixed stations providing point-to-point 
and point-to-multipoint communications to complete the prior 
coordination procedures of Sec.  101.103(d) of the Commission's rules. 
In response, the National Spectrum Management Association (NSMA) 
supported the approach as ``allow[ing] a high degree of frequency reuse 
while avoiding harmful interference.'' It notes that ``[m]any public 
safety organizations are licensees of fixed microwave spectrum under 
part 101 and we believe that these users have confidence in the value 
of the prior coordination process for these systems.'' NSMA recommends 
that coordination should be required for all permanent fixed systems, 
including secondary systems, for three reasons: site-by-site licensing 
is required for all fixed stations; secondary systems are potential 
interference sources; and this interference is most appropriately 
addressed in the coordination process.
    NPSTC, Harris, APCO and Motorola oppose the part 101 coordination 
method. These parties emphasize that part 101 links are highly 
directional and thus can be represented as narrow paths on a 
coordination map; in contrast, they note, the low-power, less-
directional, geographically-dispersed links in a 4.9 GHz network must 
be represented as a service area or sector. NPSTC argues that Sec.  
101.103(d) requirements regarding ``permissible levels'' of 
interference and resolution of ``technical problems'' are difficult to 
apply in the 4.9 GHz context, where there are a large variety of 
operations and where system overlap is often impossible to avoid. It 
also notes that the Sec.  101.103(d)(1) provision for attaching an 
explanation to the application in the event technical problems cannot 
be resolved includes no criteria to be applied to either accept or 
reject such an explanation. In reply comments, Motorola agrees that 
``requiring public safety agencies to coordinate and reply without 
standards to guide the engagement will lead to protracted and 
burdensome negotiations.'' Motorola states that ``it would be 
difficult, if not impossible, to establish technical criteria for this 
band given the diversity of networks and devices that can be deployed 
in the 4.9 GHz band.'' Harris similarly notes that in this context part 
101 coordination would ``create confusion, be burdensome and would slow 
the deployment of broadband and data-sharing applications.''
    NSMA submitted reply comments to address these concerns about part 
101 coordination. NSMA notes that part 101 coordination ``takes place 
among the licensees'' and does not require the involvement of FCC-
certified frequency coordinators or regional planning committees. 
Moreover, NSMA states that ``the interference criteria used are those 
deemed appropriate by the parties involved and may be based on good 
engineering practice as applicable to the band'' and that part 101 
coordination ``can be completed much more quickly [than 30 days] or 
even verbally if the parties agree.'' Finally, NSMA argues that when 
directional antennas are used to form point-to-point links, ``methods 
of direct interference calculations [used in the part 101 context] 
could be used even if the antennas are lower in gain and larger in 
beamwidth.''
    Discussion. We acknowledge the views of the majority of commenters 
that part 101-type coordination procedures proposed in the Further 
Notice may not be appropriate for this band because they would add a 
level of uncertainty and complexity to the coordination process. For 
example, Sec.  101.103(d)(1) requires applicants to select technical 
parameters ``that will avoid interference in excess of permissible 
levels to other users.'' As NPSTC noted above, ``permissible levels'' 
of interference are not defined in the 4.9 GHz rules under part 90. 
Motorola also noted that requiring public safety agencies to coordinate 
without technical standards to guide the engagement could lead to 
protracted and burdensome negotiations, as incumbent licensees have no 
technical guidance on whether a proposed 4.9 GHz fixed link could cause 
interference to existing 4.9 GHz operations. We recognize that it would 
be difficult to establish technical criteria operations due to the 
diversity of networks and devices that can be deployed in the 4.9 GHz 
band. While we invite further comment on part 101-type coordination 
procedures for the 4.9 GHz band, we consider and invite comments on 
other coordination procedures below.

Registration and Database Approach

    Comments. NPSTC and APCO assert that the Commission should provide 
for a registration procedure administered by the National Regional 
Planning Council (NRPC) in conjunction with individual public safety 
700 MHz regional planning committees (RPCs). NPSTC states that ``a 
NPSTC representative held informal discussions with the NRPC recently 
and it appears that the NRPC, in conjunction with individual RPCs, is 
willing to assist with such a registration process.'' Motorola supports 
this NRPC/RPC registration proposal.
    Discussion. Given the support of the majority of commenters and 
several participants in the 4.9 GHz Workshop, and the passage of time 
since the Commission adopted the majority of the 4.9 GHz service rules 
in 2003 and 2004, we seek further comment on the possibility of having 
the NRPC and/or RPCs administer registration in the 4.9 GHz band. We 
note that neither the NRPC nor any RPC filed comments or reply comments 
to the Further Notice, so we invite their input in particular. 
Commenters should explain whether and why the NRPC and/or RPCs are the 
most appropriate entities to administer this process, or if other 
entities would be better or equally qualified. We solicit views 
concerning each of the following areas described below: registration, 
database options, and coordination.
    Registration. Under the NPSTC and APCO proposal, the registration 
process would populate a database with existing licensee technical 
parameter data so that a coordinating entity may select appropriate 
frequencies for new applicants. Based on our experiences, databases can 
provide a practical tool for certified frequency coordinators to 
perform their channel assignments if the appropriate information is 
included in the database. For example, the Universal Licensing System 
(ULS) does not contain receiver locations for point-to-point or point-
to-multipoint links, base station coordinates, antenna gain, output 
power, and antenna height for facilities licensed on a geographic 
basis. Without this information, a coordinating entity would have great 
difficulty in protecting incumbent primary fixed links and base 
stations from interference from later-coordinated operations.
    For this reason, we propose to require all current 4.9 GHz 
licensees to register the technical parameters of their permanent fixed 
point-to-point, point-to-multipoint and base-to-mobile stations, 
including permanent fixed receivers when applicable, into a database. A 
database registration requirement would reduce the incidence of actual 
interference and would ensure that primary operations receive proper 
interference protection. In combination with existing license 
information available in ULS, this data would provide any coordinating 
entity with a detailed survey of the operating environment in a given 
geographic area. We solicit input on a comprehensive list of technical 
parameters that the database should store for each type of operation to 
facilitate successful coordination. A database administrator would 
first populate the database with

[[Page 45562]]

data from ULS and then update the database on a regular basis. 
Subsequent registrations would supplement ULS data with additional data 
that is not currently in ULS, but would be needed in order to 
coordinate new applications. We envision that a coordinating entity, 
acting on behalf of an applicant, would use this database to select the 
most appropriate frequencies for new facilities. The database would 
need to be updated as licenses for new facilities are granted. We 
envision that this database would enable any coordinating entity to use 
the technical information in the database to coordinate new users while 
protecting incumbent licensees from interference. This framework would 
enable licensees with primary status to register the technical 
parameters of their facilities with the database administrator in order 
to ensure that their existing operations are protected from 
interference from new operations. We seek comment on all aspects of 
this proposal, including the entity best suited to operate the 
database. Are there any other benefits to a registration database 
requirement?
    We seek comment on whether the lack of available information 
regarding existing 4.9 GHz fixed links is a problem that requires our 
attention. Specifically, we welcome views on whether the anticipated 
benefits of using some form of a registration database would outweigh 
the potential burdens imposed on licensees and applicants by the 
collection of the type of information with such a database. The 
registration requirement would also impose information collection costs 
on licensees and applicants. With respect to burdens, what are the time 
and labor costs for licensees to register their data? Are licensees 
concerned about privacy and security regarding putting the details of 
their 4.9 GHz networks into a database? In considering the database 
options below, we ask commenters to consider the overall costs and 
benefits associated with each option.
    Database options. To the extent that commenters support a mandatory 
database registration requirement, we seek comment on the most cost 
effective means to achieve that goal. We tentatively conclude that the 
most cost-effective option is for the Commission to create and maintain 
a 4.9 GHz registration database that is modeled after an existing 
registration database. We note, for example, that the Commission 
created a registration database as part of ULS for use on an interim 
basis in the millimeter wave 70/80/90 GHz bands. For purposes of 
populating the database for the 70/80/90 GHz bands, the Commission 
collected information such as coordinates of permanent fixed 
transmitters and receivers along with technical parameters and 
equipment information on FCC Form 601 Schedule M. We seek comment on 
the utility of this approach. Could the Commission use a similar 
approach to leverage its experience and staff expertise to create a new 
dedicated 4.9 GHz database, thus leading to lower initial development 
costs and ongoing operating costs? The 3650 MHz band has a similar 
database to 70/80/90 GHz, but it does not collect receiver information. 
We tentatively conclude that this model is not ideal because it is 
difficult to coordinate around primary permanent fixed point-to-point 
links if there is no receiver information.
    We also seek comment on whether the Computer-Assisted Pre-
Coordination Resource and Database (CAPRAD) would be more suitable to 
accommodate a database for coordinating applications seeking to use the 
4.9 GHz band. CAPRAD is an established, third-party database for the 
700 and 800 MHz narrowband channels that RPCs use in advance of 
submitting regional plans to the FCC. Although RPCs widely use CAPRAD, 
we note that the Commission has never mandated its use. We note that 
RPCs are unfunded entities and may not be able to afford third party 
database access as part of their coordination duties. Accordingly, we 
seek comment on CAPRAD funding and administration for both development 
of 4.9 GHz capability and long-term continuity and maintenance of the 
database.
    Finally, we solicit views about whether other parties would be in 
the best position to develop and administer a 4.9 GHz database. For 
example, in the White Spaces proceeding, the Office of Engineering and 
Technology designated nine commercial entities to serve as TV band 
device database administrators. Among other requirements, the entities 
had to demonstrate technical expertise, describe database function and 
architecture, and describe how devices would communicate with the 
database. If commenters support a new 4.9 GHz database developed and 
administered by third parties, we seek comment on its funding. Should 
the database administrator(s) charge coordinators for access, and what 
fee structure is reasonable?
    Alternatively, we seek comment on whether the database paradigm 
developed in the TV White Spaces (TVWS) context itself could be 
extended to accommodate public safety use in the 4.9 GHz band. Could 
the TVWS databases be extended to include public safety registration 
information for this band? Could existing or newly authorized TVWS 
database administrators administer this additional functionality? Could 
such a system provide a platform, over time, to enable secondary 
commercial use of the band with database-enabled protections to public 
safety operations? We note that the TVWS database paradigm is vastly 
different from the other suggestions above because it could enable a 
dynamic, almost real-time environment where different entities or 
different transmitters or links could be used at different times based 
on prior knowledge of activity in the band. Is such a dynamic database 
advantageous for the 4.9 GHz band? If so, then what is the feasibility 
for equipment manufacturers to provide geolocation capability to 4.9 
GHz equipment and enable almost real-time flow of geolocation and 4.9 
GHz band usage information between the equipment and a database? How 
would the database integrate existing operations that do not have these 
capabilities with new operations? What is the time frame for developing 
and deploying equipment? Finally, what are the cost implications on 
equipment and for coordination?
    Coordination. We seek suggestions for appropriate coordination 
procedures. Should we mandate that 4.9 GHz applicants seek the 
concurrence of their RPC as a condition to Commission action on new 
applications and major modifications of existing facilities? What 
entities could provide coordination services on a continuing basis? How 
would 4.9 GHz coordination compare to the coordination process handled 
by certified frequency coordinators in the other public safety 
frequency bands? We seek comment on whether alternative entities, such 
as the certified public safety frequency coordinators, should handle 
coordination functions for the 4.9 GHz band. We also seek comment on 
what technical criteria should be used to ensure that new 4.9 GHz 
facilities protect existing users from interference. Should the 
technical criteria be codified in our rules or should it be an 
industry-agreed standard?
    Applicability of coordination procedure. We note that the Further 
Notice proposal for a more formal coordination procedure was limited to 
primary fixed operations. We seek comment on whether we should require 
coordination for other uses, such as temporary fixed, mobile, and (as 
NSMA has urged) secondary permanent fixed uses. We also seek comment on 
whether all possible uses should be subject to a coordination 
requirement, or whether

[[Page 45563]]

certain uses should be exempt and be subject only to Sec.  90.1209.
    Inactive/unformed RPCs. We seek comment on registration 
requirements in regions with inactive or unformed RPCs. NPSTC states, 
``[o]ne concern that could arise with such a process is that a few of 
the 700 MHz RPC's are not yet active.'' In 2008, NPSTC found that ``87% 
of the current [4.9 GHz] licenses do fall within active RPC areas,'' 
which would leave 13% of 4.9 GHz licensees without an RPC. We seek 
updated information on this question. In the event that individual RPCs 
administer registration, should registration in such areas default to 
the NRPC?
    Costs and benefits. We seek comment on the costs and benefits 
associated with registration administered by the NRPC/RPCs. We ask 
commenters representing the NRPC or the RPCs to discuss to what extent 
they possess the personnel, technical, and financial resources to 
administer registration responsibilities for the 4.9 GHz band 
considering that these organizations are unfunded. Should the NRPC/RPCs 
be entitled to charge licensees a fee for registration? What is the 
likely or appropriate amount of such fees or other costs? We seek 
comment on whether the benefits associated with this proposal can be 
quantified and whether they outweigh the costs?

Regional Plan Approach, Sec.  90.1211

    Section 90.1211(a) of the Commission's rules specifies that each 
region may (but is not required to) submit a plan on guidelines to be 
used for sharing spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band. Paragraphs (b) and (c) 
of Sec.  90.1211 contain elements to be included in regional plans and 
instructions for their modification, respectively. In 2004, the 
Commission reaffirmed its decision in the 4.9 GHz Third Report and 
Order not to make regional planning mandatory in the 4.9 GHz band.
    Harris notes that Sec.  90.1211 already specifies a process for 
ensuring coordination of 4.9 GHz links and proposes that it be amended 
so that the Regional Plans also cover permanent fixed links, as well as 
mobile and temporary fixed links. Harris asserts that having a single 
entity manage coordination in each region is appropriate because public 
safety 4.9 GHz networks can use the same infrastructure for fixed and 
nomadic links,'' and that such an approach ``would better implement the 
Commission's intended licensing based on the geographic jurisdiction of 
licensees. In its view, ``[t]he RPCs would be aware of operational 
links within a defined area on a map of a jurisdiction in which a 
licensee uses a specific channel and can provide `coverage sectors' or 
`frequency coverage' where a network is deployed on that frequency.'' 
Harris does not mention the NRPC, and thus appears to endorse a 
regional as opposed to a national approach. Nor does it mention a 
registration database.
    Under the Harris approach, we ask whether RPCs could manage 
coordination in each region by submitting regional plans to the 
Commission rather than having licensees register technical parameters 
in a database. How would RPCs be able to coordinate new applicants 
successfully around incumbent operations without a comprehensive 
database?
    In 2004, the Commission stayed the 2004 deadline for submitting 
regional plans. Because the stay is still in effect, we seek comment on 
whether we should lift the stay in this proceeding and pursue Harris' 
recommendation. What would be the appropriate deadline for RPCs to 
submit plans on guidelines to be used for sharing the 4.9 GHz spectrum 
within the relevant region? Would twelve months after the lifting of 
this stay allow sufficient time? For commenters that support lifting 
the stay, should we modify the rule and now mandate that all active 
RPCs submit plans on guidelines to be used for sharing the 4.9 GHz 
spectrum within the relevant region? Should we require periodic updates 
to the plans to account for evolution in use of the band, and if so 
what period would be appropriate? Should we amend Sec.  90.1211(b) so 
that regional plans include descriptions of permanent fixed links, as 
Harris suggests, and also base stations? What other modifications to 
the rule would be necessary? For commenters that support a continued 
stay, would subsections (b) and (c), which detail minimum common 
elements for all plans and modification procedures, continue to serve 
any purpose? If not, should we delete those rules altogether, and why? 
Finally, are the national registration database approach and the 
regional plan approach mutually exclusive? If not, how could certain 
elements of each approach be combined to serve the public interest?

Expanded Eligibility and Alternate Licensing

    We also take this opportunity to explore additional ways in which 
we could promote efficient and increased use of the 4.9 GHz band. One 
approach is to expand eligibility to include certain non-public safety 
entities. Three other approaches--all suggested by participants at the 
4.9 GHz Workshop--are to implement usage-specific licensing, to 
substitute jurisdictional licensing for individual entity licensing, 
and to allow all permanent fixed point-to-point operations on a primary 
basis regardless of whether they support broadband or narrowband 
traffic. These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive, so we 
seek comment on various combinations of these approaches in addition to 
responses to the more specific questions we ask below.
    Expanded eligibility. Currently, only entities providing public 
safety services are eligible for licenses in the 4.9 GHz band. Non-
public safety entities may use the 4.9 GHz spectrum by entering into 
sharing agreements with eligible 4.9 GHz public safety licensees, but 
only for ``operations in support of public safety.'' We invite parties 
that have entered into such agreements to file comments describing 
their arrangements and how they are using 4.9 GHz spectrum. We seek 
comment on whether the Commission should extend eligibility to use the 
band to non-public safety users, subject to protections to maintain the 
integrity of public safety operations. While we believe that all 
primary uses of the 4.9 GHz band should remain limited to operations in 
support of public safety consistent with Sec.  90.1203(b), we 
tentatively conclude that expanding eligibility for commercial use on a 
secondary basis would benefit and reduce regulatory burdens on non-
public safety entities by removing a barrier to entry to use the 4.9 
GHz band. In particular, we note the spectral proximity of the 4.9 GHz 
band to the 5 GHz band widely used by unlicensed Wi-Fi networks. We 
seek comment on whether expanding eligibility might improve the 
availability, variety, and economics of equipment that uses the band, 
to the benefit of public safety operations. Should the Commission open 
eligibility to commercial users on a secondary or other non-interfering 
basis subject to a shutdown feature to enable priority access by public 
safety entities? Commenters in support of commercial use should provide 
functional details on how such a shutdown feature would operate in 
practice. Could such a mechanism be based upon dynamic access control 
using a database similar to the TV White Spaces database? We seek 
comment on whether critical infrastructure industry (CII) entities, 
including utility companies, should be eligible to hold 4.9 GHz 
licenses on a primary basis, thus removing the requirement for a 
sharing agreement. How would allowing CII to be licensed

[[Page 45564]]

affect the coordination schemes discussed above? Should the Commission 
extend eligibility to government entities that provide non-public 
safety services? Of what relevance here is the Spectrum Act's expanded 
definition of public safety entities to include emergency response 
providers? We seek comment on what other benefits might arise by 
relaxing use of the band. What are the costs for expanding eligibility, 
if any, including spectrum congestion?
    Usage-specific licensing. Currently, all classes of operations in 
the 4.9 GHz band, such as base, mobile, and fixed operations, are able 
to co-exist on one license. Station class codes differentiate the 
various classes. One participant from the 4.9 GHz Workshop recommended 
that the Commission implement different types of licenses based on 
usage. For example, under this recommendation, an eligible user would 
operate permanent fixed links under one license with a distinct radio 
service code, while the same user would conduct its mobile-only 
operations under a separate license with a different radio service 
code. Usage-specific licenses may facilitate coordination, especially 
if the Commission decides not to implement a registration database as 
part of ULS. We seek comment on the merits of usage-specific licensing. 
For example, interested parties would be able to see licenses for base/
mobile operations, point-to-point, and mobile-only, and plan new 
operations around the incumbents accordingly. Would usage-specific 
radio service codes be duplicative of the current system of station 
class codes for different uses on a single license? Would usage-
specific license types have a direct impact on accommodating new 
technology or encouraging development in the band? Would licensees view 
usage-specific license types as restrictive or flexible, and why? If 
commenters support usage-specific licensing, then we also seek comment 
on whether new or existing radio service codes are the better method to 
implement usage-specific license types. We also seek comment on the 
benefits and costs of implementing distinct licensing. Would licensees 
need to modify their licenses or possibly apply for new licenses to 
separate different uses that are currently authorized under one 
license?
    Jurisdictional licensing. Another participant from the 4.9 GHz 
Workshop recommended that the Commission require single jurisdictional 
licensing, as opposed to individual licenses for each agency within a 
jurisdiction. For example, a town's fire, emergency medical services, 
and police departments would operate under one town 4.9 GHz license, as 
opposed to separate licenses. We seek comment on this recommendation. 
Would single jurisdictional licensing help eligible users effectively 
utilize the spectrum and encourage different users to coordinate their 
operations amongst each other? Would this approach, by reducing the 
number of licenses, substantially simplify RPC coordination? In the 
event that the Commission expands primary eligibility to CII entities 
as described above, should CII and traditional public safety entities 
in the same jurisdiction, such as a power utility company and a fire 
department, be forced to share a 4.9 GHz license without the safeguard 
of priority use in favor of the public safety entities in times of 
emergency, or should a private agreement govern use of the license? We 
seek comment on the benefits and costs associated with jurisdictional 
licensing. What other benefits would accrue from jurisdictional 
licensing? What time and costs would be required for individual users 
within a jurisdiction to coordinate their operations amongst each 
other? How would the Commission enforce licensee responsibilities for 
arrangements involving related or unrelated entities operating in the 
same jurisdiction?
    Primary permanent fixed links. Prior to 2009, the Commission 
licensed all permanent fixed stations on a secondary basis to other 
operations in the 4.9 GHz band. In 2009, the Commission amended Sec.  
90.1207(d) to permit licensing of permanent fixed point-to-point and 
point-to-multipoint stations that deliver broadband services on a 
primary basis, while those stations that deliver narrowband traffic 
remain secondary. One participant from the 4.9 GHz Workshop recommended 
that the Commission promote use of the band by allowing all permanent 
fixed point-to-point operations on a primary basis, regardless of 
whether they support broadband or narrowband traffic. We seek comment 
on this proposal. We seek comment on whether such action may result in 
prolonged interference disputes or increased coordination challenges. 
Because the recommendation applies only to permanent fixed point-to-
point stations, we also seek comment on whether permanent fixed point-
to-multipoint stations that do not deliver broadband service would 
remain secondary.

Complement to 700 MHz Broadband Networks

    As noted above, in the Fourth FNPRM, we recognized the need for 
broadband available for fixed uses in connection with the public safety 
broadband network, and invited comment on how the 4.9 GHz band could be 
used to complement the 700 MHz public safety broadband spectrum, which 
is allocated to mobile use. MSI and Harris filed comments relevant to 
this topic. As part of the Spectrum Act, Congress has now mandated the 
creation of FirstNet, which will be responsible for constructing and 
deploying a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network. 
It has also authorized the Commission to ``take any action necessary to 
assist [FirstNet] in effectuating its duties and responsibilities'' 
under that Act. We seek comment on the use of the 4.9 GHz band for 
fixed, backhaul, and mobile uses in support of the 700 MHz band public 
safety broadband network, and whether such uses are appropriate or 
desirable. In general, we seek comment on what changes to the 4.9 GHz 
rules are necessary to better enable the 4.9 GHz band to complement the 
700 MHz public safety broadband network. Finally, we seek comment on 
FirstNet's eligibility to hold licenses in the 4.9 GHz band.
    Fixed uses. In response to the Fourth FNPRM, MSI suggests that 
``[t]he 4.9 GHz band could be used to supplement the 700 MHz public 
safety mobile broadband spectrum particularly for offloading video.'' 
Since the 4.9 GHz band has a fixed service allocation, we believe the 
4.9 GHz band is ideal for video fixed uses, such as point-to-point 
video surveillance links. We seek further comment on whether and how 
fixed links in the 4.9 GHz band could complement the 700 MHz broadband 
public safety network. What other dual-band applications do commenters 
envision? How can fixed links be used during day-to-day operations as 
well as during emergencies or disasters? Are there applications, system 
configurations, or geographic morphologies that are best suited for 
fixed use in the 4.9 GHz band? What changes to the 4.9 GHz rules, if 
any, are necessary to enable fixed links in the 4.9 GHz band to 
complement the 700 MHz public safety broadband network? We ask 
commenters supporting rule changes to discuss how such rule changes 
would serve the public interest. We also request comment on the 
relative costs and benefits of using 4.9 GHz technology to complement 
the 700 MHz public safety broadband network as compared to other 
technologies, such as point-to-point microwave interconnection in other 
bands and fiber optic interconnection.

[[Page 45565]]

    Backhaul and coordination/licensing. We seek comment on how the 4.9 
GHz band can assist public safety communications with their backhaul 
needs. Harris states, ``[t]he 4.9 GHz band could be a vital resource to 
public safety in providing 700 MHz backhaul services.'' Harris 
suggests, ``[r]ules that allow 4.9 GHz networks to compliment [sic] 700 
MHz networks will maximize the capabilities and capacity of both 
bands.'' We seek comment on what specific rules could allow 4.9 GHz 
networks to complement 700 MHz networks? Next, MSI suggests that the 
Commission could ``mandate the use of 4.9 GHz for public safety 
backhaul instead of 6-38 GHz.'' We seek comment on this proposal; 
however, we are concerned about restricting flexibility and choice. If 
the 4.9 GHz band is used for both backhaul and fixed broadband to 
complement 700 MHz, how will coordination be affected? Would 4.9 GHz 
fixed links and backhaul links have similar technical parameters in 
terms such as antenna gain, power, and path? If so, would the two types 
of traffic be treated the same from a coordination standpoint? Should 
4.9 GHz components that interconnect with the 700 MHz public safety 
broadband network be treated different than other 4.9 GHz components 
from a coordination standpoint? Related to our licensing questions 
above, we seek comment on whether a new type of license should be 
issued for 4.9 GHz operations that interconnect with the 700 MHz public 
safety broadband network. What changes to the 4.9 GHz coordination and 
licensing rules, if any, are necessary to enable backhaul use in the 
4.9 GHz band to complement the 700 MHz public safety broadband network, 
and how would these changes serve the public interest?
    FirstNet eligibility. We seek comment on whether FirstNet--the 
statutorily designated licensee of the national public safety broadband 
network operating in the 700 MHz band--is or should be eligible for a 
4.9 GHz band license. The Spectrum Act requires FirstNet's network to 
include a core network that, inter alia, provides ``connectivity 
between * * * the radio access network; and * * * the public Internet 
or the public switched network, or both.'' This function is commonly 
referred to as ``backhaul.'' As we discussed above, the 4.9 GHz band 
could support backhaul links for the Public Safety Broadband Network.
    As noted above, our rules currently limit eligibility for licensing 
in the 4.9 GHz band to ``[e]ntities providing public safety services as 
defined under Sec.  90.523.'' Section 90.523 in turn incorporates the 
definition of public safety services used in section 337(f)(1) of the 
Communications Act, which refers for purposes of allocations in the 700 
MHz band to services the sole or principal purpose of which is to 
protect the safety of life, health, or property; that are provided by 
State or local government entities; or by nongovernmental organizations 
that are authorized by a governmental entity whose primary mission is 
the provision of such services; and that are not made commercially 
available to the public by the provider.
    FirstNet is an ``an independent authority within the NTIA,'' a 
Federal entity. It is not a state or local government entity, nor is it 
a nongovernmental organization that is authorized by a governmental 
entity whose primary mission is the provision of public safety 
services. FirstNet thus does not appear to qualify for 4.9 GHz licenses 
under the current definition. On the other hand, our rules do permit 
4.9 GHz licensees to enter into sharing agreements with or other 
arrangements with entities that do not meet these eligibility 
requirements. Is the rule permitting these sharing agreements 
sufficient to allow FirstNet to take advantage of the opportunities the 
4.9 GHz band has to offer? Or, should we amend our rules to establish 
FirstNet's eligibility? If so, should its eligibility be restricted to 
applications in support of the national public safety broadband 
network, such as backhaul? Of what relevance to these questions is the 
relationship of FirstNet under the Spectrum Act to State government 
entities that participate in the deployment of FirstNet or in the 
statutory ``opt out'' process, or to secondary users of the 700 MHz 
public safety broadband network providing non-public safety services?

Channel Plan Adjustments

    In 2003, the Commission adopted a frequency utilization plan that 
it determined ``will be beneficial from an operational perspective, and 
will not unduly restrict the flexibility of 4.9 GHz band licensees and 
users.'' The Commission created a plan that ``consist[s] of ten one-
megahertz channels and eight five-megahertz channels that can be 
combined to a maximum of twenty megahertz, which provides users with 
maximum flexibility to employ existing technologies, while leaving the 
door open for the implementation of future broadband technologies in 
the band.'' We seek comment on how well the channel plan has served the 
Commission's goals. Moreover, we encourage interested parties to 
comment on the relative costs and benefits of the following specific 
approaches to modifying that plan, and how they might promote more 
efficient use of the band.
    Channel aggregations. We seek comment on whether more flexible 
channel aggregations are necessary to accommodate new technology. We 
note that Sec.  90.1213 already affords some bandwidth flexibility by 
permitting aggregated channel bandwidths of 5, 10, 15, or 20 MHz. What 
other aggregations should the Commission allow? Do licensees have 
throughput requirements that necessitate channel aggregations greater 
than 20 MHz? We also seek comment on the individual channels. Do users 
find inefficiencies with the channel bandwidths for certain 
applications? Should the Commission revise the channel plan to specify 
different channel bandwidths other than 1 and 5 MHz? Interested parties 
should propose specific band plan alternatives along with appropriate 
justification. What are the costs associated with channel plan 
adjustment? What would manufacturers spend to design and produce 
equipment that could conform to a channel plan adjustment?
    Narrow channels. Next, we address the ten 1-MHz bandwidth channels 
at the edges of the 4.9 GHz band. These narrow channels can support 
low-bandwidth applications, such as slow scan video surveillance and 
backhaul of narrowband voice traffic. Accordingly, we seek comment on a 
proposal to designate some or all of the 1-MHz bandwidth channels for 
non-broadband (i.e., narrowband) use on a primary basis, and we ask 
whether such designation would promote use of the 4.9 GHz band. Would 
such designation be detrimental to broadband applications? What would 
be the costs associated with such designation? Are ten 1-MHz bandwidth 
channels sufficient, and if not, what quantity should the band plan 
provide? On the other hand, should the Commission reduce the number of 
1-MHz bandwidth channels to provide more spectrum for broadband 
applications, notwithstanding that current rules allow users to 
aggregate the 1-MHz channels to form larger bandwidths? What effect 
would such a reduction have on potential interference into adjacent 
bands, particularly radio astronomy operations?
    Usage-specific channels. Finally, we seek comment on designating 
certain channels in the band for specific uses, such as fixed point-to-
point or mobile operations. MSI argues that mixed use of fixed and 
mobile services could

[[Page 45566]]

introduce unacceptable interference, and that dedicating a fixed 
portion of the band to point-to-point use and providing a reasonable 
coordination mechanism would help enable the use of 4.9 GHz spectrum 
for broadband backhaul. We invite interested parties to propose 
specific band plans that balance different uses, along with appropriate 
justification. Should applicants be required to demonstrate that other 
microwave bands or terrestrial interconnection facilities are not 
available for their proposed use as a condition for receiving a point-
to-point backhaul authorization in the 4.9 GHz band? Should the use of 
the 4.9 GHz band for point-to-point backhaul links be limited to paths 
in excess of a given length, e.g., greater than 16 km? Alternatively, 
rather than designating certain channels in the band for specific uses 
by rule, should we leave such decisions up to the designated regional 
authority or coordinator for a given area based on the specific needs 
of that area? This would result in different channel uses in different 
areas, but it could provide maximum flexibility for spectrum users. If 
commenters support this scenario, how would users and coordinators 
manage potential interference at regional boundaries?

Other Issues

    In this section, we consider the merits of power limit changes, 
antenna gain, polarization restrictions, aeronautical mobile use, 
standards changes, emission masks, and the implementation of deployment 
reporting requirements.

Power and Polarization Restrictions

    Comments. As noted above, some commenters to the Further Notice 
observed that 4.9 GHz fixed links have a relatively wide beam that is 
less directional than a typical microwave link. Wide beamwidths for 
point-to-point links translate to inefficient use of the 4.9 GHz band 
because they cover a larger sector when only a narrow path is needed to 
reach a single receiver. Links with narrower beams could be coordinated 
closer together without risk of interference, resulting in more 
efficient use of spectrum. Harris argues that ``4.9 GHz fixed links can 
not be deployed with antenna above 26dB gain, and thus will not have a 
smaller beamwidth than ~ 8-10 degrees.'' By contrast, commenters note 
that microwave links have a minimum antenna gain that is higher than 
the maximum antenna gain for 4.9 GHz fixed links, and thus the 
beamwidth is only a few degrees, resulting in narrow, highly 
directional paths. In response to the Fourth FNPRM, NPSTC suggest that 
``one way [to make use of the 4.9 GHz band more efficient] is to 
specify a maximum ERP [effective radiated power] and a larger antenna 
gain thus reducing beam width.'' The 4.9 GHz rules do not contain ERP 
limits but, rather, maximum conducted output power and peak power 
spectral density limits.
    ERP and antenna gain. We seek recommendations for an ERP limit for 
high power, permanent and temporary fixed transmitters. NPSTC also 
suggests exploring use of better coordination and larger antennas to 
make more efficient use of the 4.9 GHz band for broadband backhaul. 
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we should specify a minimum 
antenna gain for high power, permanent and temporary fixed operations, 
thereby to minimize beamwidth and the potential for interference. 
Section 90.1215 provides a maximum directional antenna gain for point-
to-point and point-to-multipoint operations of up to 26 dBi with no 
corresponding reduction in maximum conducted output power or spectral 
density output power. If antennas with a gain of more than 26 dBi are 
used, ERP must be reduced proportionately. The Commission imposed the 
26 dBi antenna gain limit ``in order to avoid interference from fixed 
operations to mobile operations.'' To make point-to-point use in the 
band more efficient, we seek comment on whether the Commission should 
establish a minimum gain for point-to-point transmitting antennas and, 
if so, what value of gain is appropriate and what power reduction, if 
any, should be required. We also seek comment on whether we should 
impose a maximum ERP limitation on point-to-point links. We do not 
propose specific rule modifications at this time without a more 
substantial record. Interested commenters should provide technical 
analyses to support their recommendations on peak power and peak 
spectral density and/or antenna gain, bearing in mind the restriction 
imposed by Sec.  90.205 of the Commission's rules: ``applicants for 
licenses must request and use no more power than the actual power 
necessary for satisfactory operation.'' Should the Commission impose 
side lobe radiation limits on antennas used in point-to-point links? 
Commenters should note that any increase in the power limits for the 
4.9 GHz band would also have to be reflected in our agreements with 
Mexico and Canada for this band. What are the costs associated with 
requiring larger, narrower beamwidth, antennas? Is there a practical 
limit to the size of antenna that may be employed? Is the gain in 
spectrum efficiency commensurate with the cost of larger antennas?
    In addition, we seek comment on requiring point-to-point links to 
use a specific polarization, e.g., horizontal or vertical, to reduce 
potential interference to other links or to portable or mobile devices. 
Applicants are required to specify the type of polarization proposed 
when they file 4.9 GHz applications. Should the Commission specify the 
polarization to be used in devices other than point-to-point links? 
What are the costs to retrofit or replace an antenna to change its 
polarization? Would polarization diversity increase the number of links 
that could be placed in a given area, thus increasing throughput? What 
benefits would this higher throughput provide? Are there other 
polarizations, e.g., angular, elliptical or circular, that would 
increase the number of links that could be placed in a given area or 
reduce potential interference?

Aeronautical Mobile Use

    Background. Sections 2.106 and 90.1205(c) prohibit aeronautical 
mobile operations in the 4940-4990 MHz band. In 2003, the Commission 
concluded that it could not fashion a general rule to permit 
aeronautical mobile operation that would adequately protect radio 
astronomy from interference in all scenarios. However, the Commission 
concurrently established a policy to consider requests for aeronautical 
mobile operations on a case-by-case basis under the waiver process 
based upon a sufficient technical showing that the proposed operations 
would not interfere with in-band and adjacent band radio astronomy 
operations. The Commission has granted roughly a dozen waivers of Sec.  
90.1205(c).
    Discussion. Given the interest in aeronautical mobile use of the 
band, we seek comment about whether to lift the general prohibition and 
allow licensees to bypass the waiver process, while maintaining an 
appropriate level of application review. We propose to revise Sec.  
90.1205(c) so that the rule permits aeronautical mobile operation in 
the band on a secondary, non-interference basis to 4.9 GHz terrestrial 
services and subject to certain conditions and requirements. The 
revised rule would require an applicant to provide a description of 
proposed operation to demonstrate that aeronautical mobile operations 
protect radio astronomy operations and 4.9 GHz terrestrial services 
from interference as a part of its application. The revised rule would 
also require that the applicant certify to the Commission that

[[Page 45567]]

it has served a copy of the application to all listed radio astronomy 
observatories whose boundaries fall within a threshold distance from 
the edge of the aeronautical operation. We seek comment on whether 
these measures are sufficient to protect radio astronomy, or whether 
4.9 GHz aeronautical mobile operation should be secondary to radio 
astronomy operations by rule. We seek comment on whether aeronautical 
mobile operation in the 4940-4990 MHz band poses an interference risk 
to fixed and mobile terrestrial services in the lower adjacent band 
4800-4940 MHz and radio astronomy service in the band 4990-5000 MHz, 
and if so, we seek comment on whether a new rule is necessary to 
address this issue. We also propose to revise the allocation of the 
4940-4990 MHz band in Sec.  2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, 
to provide for aeronautical mobile service in addition to fixed and 
mobile services.
    We therefore seek comment on what threshold distance for 
aeronautical mobile operations should apply, and whether a uniform 
distance is appropriate given the geographic diversity of the nation. 
The revised rule would note that the Commission will coordinate all 
such applications with the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration. We seek comment on whether the rule should impose a 
maximum altitude of 1500 feet above ground, consistent with many of the 
waivers. We also seek comment on allowing only low power devices as 
defined by Sec.  90.1215 for aeronautical mobile use. Moreover, we seek 
comment on whether the Commission should, on a case-by-case basis, 
impose special conditions and operating restrictions on individual 
licenses as necessary to reduce risk of interference to radio astronomy 
operations and 4.9 GHz terrestrial services. In addition, we propose to 
require that applicants submit their applications to their respective 
RPC or the NRPC for coordination. We seek comment on whether and how 
applications for airborne use should be coordinated differently from 
terrestrial uses. Applicants would also have to demonstrate that their 
aeronautical operations comply with our international agreements. For 
instance, 4.9 GHz transmitters may be operated in aircraft along the 
Mexico border provided certain signal strength limits at and beyond the 
border are satisfied.
    While allowing aeronautical mobile use would be a permissive rule 
change rather than a restrictive one, we seek comment on the 
opportunity costs and benefits for licensees that seek to deploy 
aeronautical mobile operations. What are the costs and time 
requirements to provide a description of the proposed operation, to 
determine the distance to radio astronomy observatories, and to serve a 
copy of the application to affected observatories? What is the cost for 
GPS lock or similar equipment designed to cease transmissions in the 
4.9 GHz band if the aerial vehicle exceeds the maximum altitude or a 
certain maximum distance from the center point coordinates? How can 
aeronautical mobile use of the 4.9 GHz band benefit public safety?

Standards

    In 2003 and again in 2004, the Commission declined to adopt 
technical standards that would provide interoperability in the 4.9 GHz 
band because: (1) The variety of services supported by the band did not 
readily lend themselves to standardization or interoperability, and (2) 
standards likely would have cemented the 4.9 GHz band in 2004 
technology such that public safety would have been denied the benefits 
of emerging broadband technologies. We seek comment on whether these 
concerns are still valid today, and whether public safety's need for 
interoperability outweighs these concerns. We note that the Commission 
adopted the Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard as the common air 
interface for the 700 MHz public safety broadband network to ensure 
nationwide interoperability. In that instance, the Commission 
``depart[ed] from the Commission's traditional posture of technological 
neutrality'' because ``establishing a common air interface for 700 MHz 
public safety networks is necessary to achieve our critical goal of a 
nationwide interoperable public safety wireless broadband network.'' We 
share the goal of interoperability for the 4.9 GHz band. Does achieving 
this goal for the 4.9 GHz band require us to determine a standard for 
deployment in this band, or is a more flexible approach possible? 
According to a suggestion from the 4.9 GHz workshop, ``developing open 
standards for equipment and infrastructure will allow interoperability 
and prohibit proprietary system deployments.''
    How should the FCC ensure that a competitive marketplace for 
equipment develops in the 4.9 GHz band? What safeguards can the FCC put 
in place and how should they be applied to equipment that has already 
been deployed in the band? Next, because the 4.9 GHz band supports a 
variety of services, would it make sense to set multiple standards 
depending on the type of use rather than a single standard for all 
uses? Are most users of low power devices (output power under 20 dBm) 
gravitating toward a standard, such as IEEE 802.11, without a 
Commission mandate? Are users gravitating toward another standard for 
high power devices (output power higher than 20 dBm)? At present, is it 
possible to interconnect two or more 4.9 GHz networks for the purpose 
of responding to a multi-jurisdictional emergency? If not, how would 
standards make this possible? We seek comment on the costs and benefits 
for imposing equipment standards. What are the costs for equipment 
manufacturers to conform their designs to new standards, including 
costs associated with testing and FCC equipment certification? How 
would standards affect equipment costs for licensees over time? Because 
Wi-Fi equipment employs the IEEE 802.11 standard, how could economies 
of scale reduce equipment costs? Would standards benefit the public 
safety community by promoting interoperability?
    What is the potential to adapt or redevelop equipment that is 
certified in nearby or adjacent frequency bands for use in the 4.9 GHz 
band? We note that in the band 4800-4940 MHz, the Table of Frequency 
Allocations lists fixed and mobile allocations for Federal users, 
similar to the allocations for 4.9 GHz for non-Federal users. Is any 
equipment from the 4800-4940 MHz band adaptable for the 4940-4990 MHz 
band? On the other hand, is it possible to adapt equipment certified 
for the 4.9 GHz band for other nearby bands? In either case, what are 
the steps and costs for such adaptations? We ask these questions to 
determine whether manufacturers may achieve economies of scale by 
developing multi-band equipment and thus pass on savings to end users.
    Emission masks. In 2004, the Commission loosened emission masks on 
devices in the 4.9 GHz band so that low power devices are subject to 
the DSRC-A mask--identical to the IEEE 802.11a mask; and that high 
power devices are subject to the more restrictive DSRC-C mask. We seek 
comment on how well these emission masks are enabling public safety to 
leverage commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies in adjacent 
bands, such as the 5.4 GHz U-NII band and the ITS band. We seek comment 
on what other masks we should consider that would better enable 4.9 GHz 
users to leverage COTS equipment while reducing adjacent channel 
interference.

[[Page 45568]]

Deployment Reports

    Consistent with our interest above regarding how licensees use the 
band and the importance of spectrum efficiency, we anticipate that it 
will be useful for the Commission to receive periodic updates from 4.9 
GHz licensees on what spectrum uses and applications they are 
deploying, and the progress of those deployments. Progress reports will 
provide the Commission with more information about the kinds of 
operations licensees deploy and will enable it to make more informed 
decisions regarding the development of the 4.9 GHz band rules in the 
future. The deployment report would include information such as status 
of equipment development and purchase, including number of devices and 
users; site development, including use of existing towers; deployments 
and upgrades (commencement and completion), including site information 
and location; and applications in development or in use. We thus seek 
comment on whether to impose on 4.9 GHz licensees a periodic reporting 
requirement. What other specific information should the Commission 
collect in the report? Would it be appropriate to require such 
reporting on a quarterly basis for the first year following the license 
grant and on an annual basis thereafter? Should we subject such a 
requirement to a sunset provision? Should we also require reporting on 
planning and funding? Because a deployment report would describe how a 
particular licensee is using the 4.9 GHz band, would a deployment 
reporting requirement be unnecessary with respect to usage-specific 
licenses? Does one obviate the other? We seek comment on the compliance 
burdens associated with proposed information collection, including the 
costs and time required for completion. Would a reporting requirement 
be beneficial to any party other than the Commission, and if so, how?

Procedural Matters

Ex Parte Presentations

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 
603, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of 
the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the 
policies and rules addressed in this document. The FRFA is set forth in 
Appendix C and the IRFA is set forth in Appendix E of the Fourth Report 
and Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Written 
public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed 
in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in 
response to this Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as set 
forth herein, and they should have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer 
and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will 
send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order and Fifth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA and FRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 
603(a).

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    This Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed 
new information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general 
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this document, as 
required by the PRA. Public and agency comments are due October 1, 
2012. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act 
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific 
comment on how we might ``further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' The 
Commission will submit the Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
to the Office of Management and Budget for review under section 3507(d) 
of the PRA.

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order and 
Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act (``CRA''), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, we order, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 301, 302, 303, 
316, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 
301, 302, 303, 316, and 403, that this Fourth Report and Order and 
Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    We further order that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Center, shall send a copy of this Fourth 
Report and Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including the Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2 and 90

    Communications equipment; Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications

[[Page 45569]]

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2 and 90 as follows:

PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise 
noted.

    2. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended by 
revising page 40 to read as follows:


Sec.  2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

[[Page 45570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AU12.000

BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
* * * * *

[[Page 45571]]

PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

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

    Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r) and 332(c)(7) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 
303(g), 303(r) and 332(c)(7).

    4. Section 90.1203 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  90.1203  Eligibility.

    (a) The following groups of entities are eligible to hold a 
Commission license for systems operating in the 4940-4990 MHz band on a 
primary basis.
    (1) Entities providing public safety services as defined under 
Sec.  90.523. All of the requirements and conditions set forth in that 
section also govern authorizations in the 4940-4990 MHz band.
    (2) Critical infrastructure industry (CII) entities as defined 
under Sec.  90.7.
* * * * *
    5. Section 90.1205 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  90.1205  Permissible operations.

* * * * *
    (c) Aeronautical mobile operations are permitted on a secondary, 
non-interference basis to 4.9 GHz terrestrial services under the 
following restrictions. Altitude may not exceed 457 meters (1500 feet) 
above ground. Licensees may use only low power devices as defined by 
Sec.  90.1215 for aeronautical mobile use. All applications for 
aeronautical operation require prior Commission approval. The applicant 
shall provide a description of proposed operation to demonstrate that 
the proposed aeronautical mobile operations protect radio astronomy 
operations and 4.9 GHz terrestrial services from interference. 
Applicants shall submit their applications to their respective regional 
planning committee or the National Association of Regional Planning 
Committees for coordination. The applicant shall certify that it has 
served a copy of the application to all radio astronomy observatories 
listed in the Table of Frequency Allocations, Sec.  2.106 footnote 
US311 of this chapter, whose geographic boundaries fall within 
[distance to be determined] kilometers of the edge of the proposed 
aeronautical operation. The Commission will coordinate all applications 
for aeronautical mobile operation with the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration. The Commission has the discretion to 
impose special conditions and operating restrictions on individual 
licenses as necessary to reduce risk of interference to radio astronomy 
operations and 4.9 GHz terrestrial services.
    6. Section 90.1209 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  90.1209  Policies governing the use of the 4940-4990 MHz band.

* * * * *
    (b) Each application for a new frequency assignment or for a change 
in existing facilities as listed in Sec.  1.929(c)(4) of this chapter 
must be submitted through the applicable regional planning committee 
(RPC) for coordination. In areas without active RPCs, all licensees 
shall cooperate in the selection and use of channels in order to reduce 
interference and make the most effective use of the authorized 
facilities. A database identifying the locations of registered stations 
will be available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls. RPCs and licensees 
should examine this database before seeking station authorization, and 
make every effort to ensure that their fixed and base stations operate 
at a location, and with technical parameters, that will minimize the 
potential to cause and receive interference. Point-to-point stations 
must employ either horizontal or vertical polarization; point-to-point 
unpolarized transmissions are prohibited. Licensees of stations 
suffering or causing harmful interference are expected to cooperate and 
resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory arrangements. If 
licensees are unable to do so, the Commission may impose restrictions 
including specifying the transmitter power, antenna height, or area or 
hours of operation of the stations concerned. Further, the Commission 
may prohibit the use of any 4.9 GHz channel under a system license at a 
given geographical location when, in the judgment of the Commission, 
its use in that location is not in the public interest.
* * * * *
    7. Section 90.1213 is amended by revising the introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  90.1213  Band plan.

    The following channel center frequencies are permitted to be 
aggregated for channel bandwidths of 5, 10, 15 or 20 MHz as described 
in paragraph (b) of this section. Channel numbers 1 through 5 and 14 
through 18 are 1 MHz bandwidth channels and channel numbers 6 through 
13 are 5 MHz bandwidth channels. Channel numbers 1 through 5 and 14 
through 18 are designated for narrow bandwidth operations and should be 
used in aggregations only if all other 5 MHz channels are blocked.
* * * * *
    8. Section 90.1219 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1219  Deployment reporting.

    (a) Licensees in the 4.9 GHz band shall file deployment reports 
with the Commission. Licensees may attach deployment reports to FCC 
Form 601. The report shall contain the following information:
    (1) Status of equipment development and purchase, including number 
of devices and users;
    (2) Site development, including use of existing towers;
    (3) Deployments and upgrades (commencement and completion), 
including site information and location; and
    (4) Applications in development or in use.
    (b) During the first year following the initial grant or 
modification of a 4.9 GHz license, reports are due every three months 
after the grant date. After the first anniversary of the license grant, 
licensees must file deployment reports on an annual basis.

[FR Doc. 2012-18566 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P