[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