[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36164-36230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14494]



[[Page 36163]]

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 120

June 23, 2015

Part IV





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, et al.





Shared Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 36164]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 90, 95, and 96

[GN Docket No. 12-354; FCC 15-47]


Shared Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) adopts rules to establish a new Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service in the 3550--3700 MHz band. This document implements a three-
tiered spectrum authorization framework in the 3550-3700 MHz band to 
facilitate a variety of small cell and other broadband uses of the band 
on a shared basis with incumbent federal and non-federal users.

DATES: Effective July 23, 2015, except for Sec. Sec.  96.17(d), 
96.21(a)(3), 96.23(b), 96.29, 96.33(b), 96.35(e), 96.39(a), 96.39(c)-
(g), 96.41(d)(1), 96.43(b), 96.45(b), 96.45(d), 96.49, 96.51, 96.57(a)-
(c), 96.59(a), 96.61, 96.63, and 96.67(b)-(c) which contain information 
collection requirements that are not effective until approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget. The FCC will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing the effective date for those sections.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Powell, Mobility Division, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-1613 or by email at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order in GN Docket No. 12-354, FCC 15-47, adopted April 17, 2015 
and released April 21, 2015. The full text of this document is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. 
The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202)488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or 
via email at [email protected]. The full text may also be downloaded at: 
www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with 
disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    The Commission will send a copy of this Report & Order in a report 
to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Ex Parte Presentations

    This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.\1\ 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 w 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 section 1.1206(b).\2\ In proceedings governed 
by section 1.49(f) \3\ or for which the Commission has made available a 
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and 
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments 
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system 
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format 
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 47 CFR part 1, subpart H.
    \2\ 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
    \3\ 47 CFR 1.49(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that our ex parte rules provide for a conditional exception 
for all ex parte presentations made by NTIA or Department of Defense 
representatives.\4\ This proceeding raises significant technical issues 
implicating federal and non-federal spectrum allocations and users. 
Staff from NTIA, DoD, and the FCC have engaged in technical discussions 
in the development of this Report and Order and we anticipate these 
discussions will continue after this Report and Order is released. 
These discussions will benefit from an open exchange of information 
between agencies, and may involve sensitive information regarding the 
strategic federal use of the 3.5 GHz Band. Recognizing the value of 
federal agency collaboration on the technical issues raised in this 
Report and Order, NTIA's shared jurisdiction over the 3.5 GHz Band, the 
importance of protecting federal users in the 3.5 GHz Band from 
interference, and the goal of enabling spectrum sharing to help address 
the ongoing spectrum capacity crunch, we find that this exemption 
serves the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 47 CFR 1.1204
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment Filing Procedures

    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy 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.
    [ssquf] 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 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any

[[Page 36165]]

envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,\5\ the 
Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules 
adopted and proposed in this document, respectively. The FRFA is set 
forth in Appendix B. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. 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 Report and Order as set forth on the first page of 
this document, and 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 this Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).\6\ In 
addition, the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 5 U.S.C. 603-04.
    \6\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Report and Order contains new information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 
general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment 
on the new information collection requirements contained in this 
proceeding.

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis of the Report and Order

I. Introduction

    With this Report and Order (Report and Order or R&O), we adopt 
rules for commercial use of 150 megahertz in the 3550-3700 MHz band 
(3.5 GHz Band), and in so doing open a new chapter in the history of 
the administration of one of our nation's most precious resources--the 
electromagnetic radio spectrum. Wireless broadband is transforming 
every facet of American life. We live in a world of wirelessly 
connected people, apps, and things. The 3.5 GHz Band has physical 
characteristics that make it particularly well-suited for mobile 
broadband employing small cell technology. The creation of our new 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service in this band will therefore add much-
needed capacity to meet the ever-increasing demands of wireless 
innovation. As such, it represents a major contribution toward our 
collective goal of making 500 megahertz newly available for broadband 
use.
    Advances in radio and computing technologies provide new tools to 
facilitate more intensive spectrum sharing. Our new rules use these 
tools to dissolve some age-old regulatory divisions, between commercial 
and federal users, exclusive and non-exclusive authorizations, and 
private and carrier networks. Starting from some of the recommendations 
of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 
(PCAST), these rules incorporate a wide range of viewpoints and 
information collected through three rounds of notice and comment. Over 
time, some of the approaches we advance in the 3.5 GHz ``innovation 
band'' could lead to greater productivity in other parts of the radio 
spectrum.
    The R&O establishes a roadmap for making the entirety of the 3.5 
GHz Band available for commercial use in phases. The 3550-3650 MHz band 
segment is currently allocated for use by Department of Defense (DoD) 
radar systems. The National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA) first proposed making the band available for 
shared use in its 2010 ``Fast Track Report.'' Based on technical 
assumptions available at the time, NTIA's analysis showed that large 
exclusion zones would be required to protect the DoD radar systems. 
Last year's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM or 3.5 GHz 
FNPRM) (79 FR 31247, June 2, 2014) sought comment on the Fast Track 
exclusion zones, but mentioned ongoing discussions among federal 
agencies on ways to reevaluate the zones. On March 24, 2015, NTIA filed 
a letter recommending a framework that would reduce the geographic area 
of the zones by approximately 77 percent. NTIA's letter also 
recommended the use of sensor technology to permit commercial use 
inside the zones, providing a roadmap to full nationwide commercial use 
of the band.
    This federal/non-federal sharing arrangement is part of a broader 
three-tiered sharing framework enabled by a Spectrum Access System 
(SAS). Incumbent users represent the highest tier in this framework and 
receive interference protection from Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users. Protected incumbents include the federal operations described 
above, as well as Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and, for a finite 
period, grandfathered terrestrial wireless operations in the 3650-3700 
MHz portion of the band. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service itself 
consists of two tiers--Priority Access and General Authorized Access 
(GAA)--both authorized in any given location and frequency by an SAS. 
As the name suggests, Priority Access operations receive protection 
from GAA operations. Priority Access Licenses (PALs), defined as an 
authorization to use a 10 megahertz channel in a single census tract 
for three years, will be assigned in up to 70 megahertz of the 3550-
3650 MHz portion of the band. GAA use will be allowed, by rule, 
throughout the 150 megahertz band. GAA users will receive no 
interference protection from other Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users.
    Our new rules advance a potential solution to a long-standing 
problem in spectrum policy: how to select the most appropriate 
commercial authorization or licensing mechanism for a new band. The 
record has brought us back to first principles. We have considered 
ideas from three major traditions in spectrum management: flexible-use 
geographic licensing, site-based frequency coordination, and unlicensed 
authorization. Ultimately, we adopt a hybrid framework that selects, 
automatically, the best approach based on local supply and demand. 
Where competitive rivalry for spectrum access is low, the GAA tier 
provides a low-cost entry point to the band, similar to unlicensed 
access. Where rivalry is high, an auction resolves mutually

[[Page 36166]]

exclusive applications in specific geographic areas for PALs. Finite-
term licensing facilitates evolution of the band and an ever-changing 
mix of GAA and Priority Access bandwidth over time. The SAS serves as 
an advanced, highly automated frequency coordinator across the band. It 
protects higher tier users from those beneath and optimizes frequency 
use to allow maximum capacity and coexistence for both GAA and Priority 
Access users.
    This regulatory adaptability should make the 3.5 GHz Band 
hospitable to a wide variety of users, deployment models, and business 
cases, including some solutions to market needs not adequately served 
by our conventional licensed or unlicensed rules. Carriers can avail 
themselves of ``success-based'' license acquisition, deploying small 
cells on a GAA basis where they need additional capacity and paying for 
the surety of license protection only in targeted locations where they 
find a demonstrable need for more interference protection. Real estate 
owners can deploy neutral host systems in high-traffic venues, allowing 
for cost-effective network sharing among multiple wireless providers 
and their customers. Manufacturers, utilities, and other large 
industries can construct private wireless broadband networks to 
automate processes that require some measure of interference protection 
and yet are not appropriately outsourced to a commercial cellular 
network. Smart grid, rural broadband, small cell backhaul, and other 
point-to-multipoint networks can potentially access three times more 
bandwidth than was available under our previous 3650-3700 MHz band 
rules. All of these applications could share common wireless 
technologies, providing economies of scale and facilitating intensive 
use of the spectrum.
    In specifying rules for the SAS--the lynchpin of the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service--we balance a need for clear definition of its 
role, purposes, and functions against a desire to allow market forces 
and industry standards to inform the specifics of implementation. We 
will open a process by which multiple entities can apply for 
certification to operate as SAS Administrators. Through this approval 
process, applicants will demonstrate their ability to perform the 
enumerated SAS functions. Because the regime depends on a high degree 
of interaction among different users, the approval process will be 
designed to confirm the ability of an SAS to ensure that lower tiers do 
not transgress the rights of higher tiers. This will be especially 
important with respect to incumbent military users of the band. A 
similar approach will also apply to the authorization and operation of 
the Environmental Sensing Capability (ESC).
    This Report and Order initiates a comprehensive regulatory scheme 
to promote development of innovative technologies and services in the 
3.5 GHz Band. Nonetheless, there are a few, highly technical areas 
where we have concluded that additional record development would 
provide beneficial clarity or consensus to shape some specific parts of 
the rules.

II. Background

A. Policy Context

    America's appetite for wireless broadband service is surging. 
According to Cisco, North American mobile traffic grew 63 percent in 
2014 and will continue to grow at a near-50 percent compound annual 
growth rate over the next five years. In this context, the FCC, NTIA, 
and federal agencies have worked collaboratively to make additional 
spectrum available to meet demand.
    In March 2010, the National Broadband Plan recommended that the 
Commission make 500 megahertz available for broadband use by 2020, with 
300 megahertz suitable for mobile use by 2015. It supported the 
development of opportunistic technologies to enable dynamic shared 
access to spectrum. The National Broadband Plan also recommended that 
the Commission and NTIA work together to identify spectrum that can be 
made available for wireless broadband use, on an exclusive, shared, 
licensed, and/or unlicensed basis.
    On June 28, 2010, President Obama released a Presidential 
Memorandum entitled ``Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution,'' 
which directed NTIA to collaborate with the FCC to make available 500 
megahertz of spectrum available for commercial wireless services while 
ensuring no loss of critical government capabilities.
    Pursuant to this Presidential Memorandum, in October 2010, NTIA 
released its ``Fast Track'' Report, which identified 3550-3650 MHz as 
one of several federal bands that could be made available for 
commercial wireless broadband by 2015. As discussed below, this band 
has long been allocated for use by military radar systems. Based on a 
preliminary electro-magnetic compatibility analysis, the Fast Track 
Report included significant restrictions on broadband use to protect 
existing DoD radars from commercial systems and vice-versa.
    In July, 2013, PCAST released its report. Given the increasing 
demand for commercial wireless spectrum and the continuing critical 
needs of federal users, the report concluded that the best way to 
increase the availability of broadband spectrum is to promote spectrum 
sharing between federal and commercial users through the use of new 
technologies. PCAST recommended that shared spectrum be organized into 
three tiers. The first tier would consist of incumbent federal users. 
These users would be entitled to full protection for their operations 
within their deployed areas, consistent with the terms of their 
assignments. The second tier would consist of users that would receive 
short-term priority authorizations to operate within designated 
geographic areas. Secondary users would receive protection from 
interference from third tier users but would be required to avoid 
interference with and accept interference from Federal Primary users. 
Third tier users would be entitled to use the spectrum on an 
opportunistic basis and would not be entitled to interference 
protection. Coordination among different tiers would be accomplished 
through a database-driven SAS. The use of low-power small cells for 
broadband would facilitate spectral reuse and sharing, increasing 
overall efficiency. PCAST recommended that the Federal Government 
identify 1,000 megahertz of federal spectrum for shared use under this 
system to create the first ``shared use spectrum superhighways.''
    On June 13, 2013, President Obama released another Presidential 
Memorandum entitled ``Expanding America's Leadership in Wireless 
Innovation.'' Echoing the PCAST report, this second Memorandum directed 
the executive branch to increase broadband access to spectrum through 
sharing with federal users (78 FR 37431, June 20, 2013).

B. Spectrum Environment

1. 3550-3650 MHz Band
    The 3550-3650 MHz band is allocated to the Radiolocation Service 
(RLS) and the Aeronautical Radionavigation Service (ARNS) (ground-
based), on a primary basis for federal use (47 CFR 2.104(h)(4) and 
2.1(c)). Footnote G59 states that all federal non-military RLS use of 
the 3500-3650 MHz band shall be on a secondary basis to military RLS 
operations (47 CFR 2.106, note G59). Footnote G110 states that federal 
ground-based stations in the ARNS may be authorized in the 3500-3650 
MHz band when accommodation in the 2700-2900 MHz band is not 
technically

[[Page 36167]]

and/or economically feasible (47 CFR 2.106, note G110).
    Both fixed and mobile high-powered DoD radar systems on ground-
based, shipborne, and airborne platforms operate in this band. These 
radar systems are used in conjunction with weapons control systems and 
for the detection and tracking of air and surface targets. The U.S. 
Navy uses the band for radars on guided missile cruisers. The U.S. Army 
uses the band for a firefinder system to detect enemy projectiles. The 
U.S. Air Force uses the band for airborne radar Station Keeping 
Equipment throughout the United States and Possessions to assist pilots 
in formation flying and to support drop-zone training.
    The 3500-3600 MHz and 3600-3650 MHz bands are allocated to RLS on a 
secondary basis for non-federal use (47 CFR 2.106).
    The 3600-3650 MHz band is also allocated to the FSS (space-to-
Earth) on a primary basis for non-federal use and, per footnote US245, 
use of this FSS downlink allocation is limited to international inter-
continental systems and is subject to case-by-case electromagnetic 
compatibility analysis. The Commission has licensed primary FSS earth 
stations to receive frequencies in the 3600-3650 MHz band in 35 cities. 
Airbus DS SatCom Government, Inc. operates two gateway earth stations 
(located northeast of Los Angeles and New York City) that provide 
feeder links for Inmarsat's L-band mobile-satellite service system.
2. 3650-3700 MHz Band
    The 3650-3700 MHz band is also allocated for terrestrial non-
federal use. In March 2005, the Commission adopted a Report and Order 
that amended Part 90 by adding new Subpart Z--Wireless Broadband 
Services in the 3650-3700 MHz Band (3.65 GHz Order, 70 FR 24712, May 
11, 2005). Such service is authorized through non-exclusive nationwide 
licenses and requires the registration of individual fixed and base 
stations. All stations operating in this band must employ a contention-
based protocol (47 CFR 90.1305). Base and fixed stations are limited to 
25 watts per 25 megahertz equivalent isotropically radiated power 
(EIRP) and the peak EIRP power density shall not exceed 1 watt in any 1 
megahertz slice of spectrum; mobile and portable stations are limited 
to 1 watt per 25 megahertz EIRP and the peak EIRP density shall not 
exceed 40 mW in any 1 megahertz slice of spectrum (47 CFR 90.1321). 
Base and fixed stations may only be located within 150 kilometers of an 
FSS earth station if the licensee of the earth station agrees to such 
operation (47 CFR 90.1331). Requests for base or fixed station 
locations closer than 80 kilometers to three Federal Government 
radiolocation facilities are only approved upon successful coordination 
by the Commission with NTIA. Mobile and portable stations may operate 
only if they can positively receive and decode an enabling signal 
transmitted by a base station; airborne operations are prohibited (47 
CFR 90.1333).
    The 3650-3700 MHz band is allocated for primary use by the federal 
RLS at three designated sites (47 CFR 2.106, note US348). The 3650-3700 
MHz band is also allocated for use by ship stations located at least 44 
nautical miles from shore in offshore ocean areas on a non-
interference-basis (47 CFR 2.106, note US349).
3. Adjacent Bands
    Below 3550 MHz. Several of the allocations discussed above extend 
below 3550 MHz. Of particular relevance to this proceeding are the 
primary allocations for shipborne, airborne, and ground-based radars 
operated by DoD.
    Above 3700 MHz. FSS, which has a co-primary allocation at 3600-3650 
MHz, also makes extensive use of the 3700-4200 MHz band (C-Band) in the 
United States and globally in order to provide video distribution, 
mobile voice and data backhaul, retail services, aeronautical 
applications, and other uses, to commercial and government customers. 
Terrestrial microwave services licensed under Part 101 of the 
Commission's rules also operate in this band (See 47 CFR 101.17 and 
101.101).

C. Procedural History

1. 3.5 GHz NPRM
    The 3.5 GHz NPRM furthered the Commission's ongoing efforts to 
address the growing demand for fixed and mobile broadband capacity by 
proposing to make an additional 100 megahertz (or up to 150 megahertz 
under a supplemental proposal) of spectrum available for shared 
wireless broadband use. Specifically, the NPRM proposed to create a new 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service under Part 95 of the Commission's 
rules. The proposed service built on our existing TVWS rules (See 47 
CFR 15.701, et seq.). First, technical rules would focus on the use of 
low-powered small cells to drive increases in broadband capacity and 
spectrum reuse. Second, an SAS would coordinate multiple tiers of 
commercial use.
    The NPRM proposed that the SAS would accommodate three service 
tiers: (1) Incumbent Access; (2) Priority Access; and (3) General 
Authorized Access. Incumbent Access users would include authorized 
federal and grandfathered FSS users currently operating in the 3.5 GHz 
Band. These users would have protection from harmful interference from 
all other users in the 3.5 GHz Band. In the Priority Access tier, the 
NPRM proposed that the Commission authorize certain users with critical 
quality-of-service needs (such as hospitals, utilities, and public 
safety entities) to operate with some interference protection in 
portions of the 3.5 GHz Band at specific locations. Finally, in the GAA 
tier, the NPRM proposed that users be authorized to use the 3.5 GHz 
Band opportunistically within designated geographic areas. GAA users 
would be required to not cause interference to, and accept interference 
from Incumbent and Priority Access tier users. The NPRM also included a 
supplemental proposal to expand the proposed licensing and 
authorization model to an additional adjacent 50 megahertz of spectrum 
in the 3650-3700 MHz band, making up to 150 megahertz available for 
shared wireless broadband access.
    The NPRM noted that the technical characteristics of the 3.5 GHz 
Band and the existence of important incumbent operations in the band in 
many areas of the country make the band an ideal platform to explore 
innovative approaches to shared spectrum use and small cell technology. 
NTIA's Fast Track Report recommended, based on technical assumptions 
typical of traditional macrocell deployments of commercial wireless 
broadband technology, that new commercial uses of the band occur 
outside of large ``exclusion zones'' to protect Federal Government 
operations. Given that the exclusion zones would cover approximately 60 
percent of the U.S. population and because of limited signal 
propagation in the band, the band did not appear to be well-suited for 
macrocell deployment. However, the NPRM stated that these very 
disadvantages could be turned into advantages if the band were used to 
explore spectrum sharing and small cell innovation.
    We received 65 comments and 26 reply comments in response to the 
NPRM. These comments, and those received in subsequent rounds, are 
summarized and referenced in this Report and Order where appropriate.
2. Licensing Public Notice
    In November 2013, in response to record comments received up to 
that point, the Commission released the

[[Page 36168]]

Licensing PN (78 FR 73794, December 9, 2013), which described a Revised 
Framework that elaborated upon some of the licensing concepts and 
alternatives set forth in the NPRM. The Revised Framework retained the 
three-tier model proposed in the NPRM but expanded eligibility for 
access to the Priority Access tier with competitive bidding for 
assigning licenses within that tier. Like the NPRM's main proposal, the 
Revised Framework cited the unique capabilities of small cell and SAS 
technologies to enable sharing among users in the Priority Access and 
GAA tiers. Specifically, the Revised Framework contained the following 
core concepts:
     An SAS to dynamically manage frequency assignments and 
automatically enforce access to the Priority Access and GAA tiers;
     Expansive eligibility for Priority Access tier use;
     Granular, but administratively streamlined licensing of 
the Priority Access tier;
     Exclusive spectrum rights for Priority Access subject to 
licensing by auction in the event of mutually exclusive applications;
     A defined ``floor'' of GAA spectrum availability, to 
ensure that GAA access is available nationwide (subject to Incumbent 
Access tier use);
     Additional GAA access to unused Priority Access bandwidth, 
as identified and managed by the SAS, to maximize dynamic use of the 
unutilized portion of the band and ensure productive use of the 
spectrum;
     Opportunities for Contained Access Users to obtain 
targeted priority spectrum use within specific facilities (such as 
buildings) meeting certain requirements to mitigate the potential for 
interference to and from Incumbent Users and other Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users; and
     A set of baseline technical standards to prevent harmful 
interference and ensure productive use of the spectrum.
    We received 35 comments and 27 reply comments in response to the 
Licensing PN.
3. Workshops
    We convened two workshops to discuss technical issues related to 
this proceeding. The first workshop, held on March 13, 2013, explored 
broad issues that emanated from the original NPRM. The second workshop, 
held on January 14, 2014, further explored the technical requirements, 
operational parameters, and architecture of the proposed SAS (SAS 
Workshop). A group of engineers representing industry stakeholders, 
trade associations, and academia submitted technical papers in advance 
of the workshop and participated in panels throughout the day.
4. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    In April 2014, the Commission released the 3.5 GHz FNPRM, proposing 
specific rules for a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 
GHz Band to be codified in a new proposed Part 96. The FNPRM built upon 
the concepts and proposals set forth in the NPRM and the Licensing PN 
and reflected the extensive record generated in the proceeding. 
Notably, the 3.5 GHz FNPRM proposed to:
     Implement the three-tier authorization model proposed in 
the NPRM;
     Establish Exclusion Zones based on recommendations set 
forth in the Fast Track Report to ensure compatibility between 
incumbent federal operations and Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users;
     Create an open eligibility authorization system for 
Priority Access and GAA operations;
     Establish granular, exclusive spectrum rights for the 
Priority Access tier, consistent with parameters discussed in the 
Licensing PN;
     Set a defined ``floor'' for GAA spectrum availability, to 
ensure that GAA access is available nationwide (subject to Incumbent 
Access tier use);
     Set guidelines to allow Contained Access Users to request 
up to 20 megahertz of reserved frequencies from the GAA pool for use 
within their facilities;
     Establish baseline technical rules for fixed or nomadic 
base stations operating in the 3.5 GHz Band;
     Set guidelines for the operation and certification of SASs 
in the band.
    The FNPRM also sought comment on: (1) Protection criteria for 
Incumbent Users; (2) potential protection of FSS earth stations in the 
C-Band; (3) competitive bidding procedures for resolving mutually 
exclusive applications for PALs; and (4) the possible extension of the 
proposed rules to include the 3650-3700 MHz band.

III. Discussion

A. Allocation

    Background. In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on the 
allocation structure that should be used to accommodate the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service at 3550-3650 MHz. Specifically, the NPRM 
proposed to retain the primary allocation for existing federal radar 
systems, and also allocate that band for non-federal fixed and mobile 
use. In addition, the NPRM proposed to restrict primary non-federal FSS 
earth station use in the upper half of the band (3600-3650 MHz) to the 
FSS earth stations licensed or applied for as of the effective date of 
the Report and Order in this proceeding. The Commission noted the 
existence of primary federal allocations for aeronautical 
radionavigation service and ground-based radars, and stated that the 
Commission would work with NTIA regarding the continued need for those 
allocations. The NPRM sought comment on the potential for interference 
to and from existing and future international FSS operations in the 3.5 
GHz Band. In the NPRM, the Commission noted its belief that its 
proposed framework met the requirements for allocation of flexible use 
spectrum under Section 303(y) of the Act. In this regard, it noted that 
a non-federal Fixed and Mobile allocation is consistent with 
international allocations for use of the 3.5 GHz Band, that the 
proposed framework would spur innovation and investment in new wireless 
technologies with little to no impact on incumbent uses, and that the 
framework was structured to prevent interference between users through 
the SAS and technical and operational rules proposed therein.
    In the FNPRM, the Commission refined the proposals initially made 
in the NPRM. The Commission proposed to add non-federal fixed and land 
mobile allocations to the 3550-3650 MHz band on a primary basis to 
permit commercial use of the band consistent with the Commission's 
accompanying licensing and service rule proposals. Additionally, the 
Commission proposed to remove the secondary radiolocation service 
allocation from the 3550-3650 MHz band in the non-Federal Table, and to 
add three US footnotes to: (1) Permit non-federal stations in the 
radiolocation service that were licensed or applied for prior to the 
effective date of this Report and Order to continue to operate on a 
secondary basis until the end of the equipment's useful lifetime; 
(2)(a) limit primary FSS use of the 3600-3650 MHz band to earth 
stations authorized prior to, or granted as a result of an application 
filed prior to, the effective date of this Report and Order and 
constructed within 12 months of initial authorization; (2)(b) specify 
that FSS use of the 3600-3650 MHz band for all other earth stations 
will be on a secondary basis to non-federal stations in the fixed and 
land mobile services; and (3) specify provisions for federal use of the 
aeronautical radionavigation

[[Page 36169]]

(ground-based) and radiolocation services and for non-federal use of 
the fixed and land mobile services in the 3550-3650 MHz band. The 
Commission sought comment on these proposals. The FNPRM also sought 
comment on whether federal fixed and mobile operations should be 
permitted in the 3.5 GHz Band, and what the implications would be of 
such federal use on non-federal use of the band.
    A small number of commenters addressed these allocation proposals. 
The Utilities Telecom Council, Edison Electric Institute, and National 
Rural Electrical Cooperative Association (Utility Groups) and Motorola 
Mobility support the proposals for non-federal fixed and mobile 
allocation of the 3550-3650 MHz band, and for the restrictions on the 
primary FSS earth station use to those earth stations licensed or 
applied for as of the effective date of the Report and Order in this 
proceeding. Motorola Mobility argues that this limitation will result 
in more robust use of the band for the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service, and for this same reason, argues that the Commission should 
not permit federal fixed and mobile operations in the 3.5 GHz Band. On 
the other hand, the Satellite Industry Association (SIA) opposes a 
primary allocation for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, but argues 
that if the Citizens Broadband Radio Service is granted primary status, 
such status should not preclude future FSS deployment because it would 
be contrary to the Commission's stated premise that the FSS and 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service can share spectrum. SIA contends that 
the proposal to relegate future FSS operations to secondary status 
would unnecessarily limit the much-needed flexibility of satellite 
network operators and strand existing investment in 3600-3650 MHz space 
stations, harming satellite operators, their customers, and their 
investors.
    As detailed in Section III(G)(1), NTIA generally supports the FCC's 
proposal to add a co-primary, non-federal fixed and mobile allocation 
to the band. NTIA describes a phased approach to implementing 
protection criteria of federal operations, including the approval of an 
ESC to detect signals from federal radar systems. The ESC input would 
be used by the SAS to direct Priority Access licensees and GAA users to 
another portion of the 3.5 GHz Band or, if necessary, to cease 
transmissions to avoid potential interference to federal radar systems. 
NTIA also encourages the Commission to retain the federal allocation 
for airborne radar systems subject to the same type of approach used in 
the AWS-3 proceeding (i.e., commercial operations will accept 
interference from federal airborne systems), including a clear 
statement in the rules that the airborne radars will not seek 
protection from Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices (CBSD). NTIA 
also requests that the Commission reinstate the protections for a site 
in Pascagoula, MS in the 3650-3700 MHz band. NTIA asserts that the DoD 
informed NTIA that it still has an active assignment in use at that 
location on a regular basis.
    Discussion. After review of the record, we adopt allocation 
proposals largely consistent with the FNPRM proposals, as amended to 
reflect the NTIA Letter. The allocations are appropriate to permit both 
robust development of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service and 
protection of Incumbent Users. We believe that the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service has the potential to provide a valuable new service to 
address broadband capacity shortages. Accordingly, we are adding 
primary fixed and mobile except aeronautical mobile allocations to the 
3550-3650 MHz band in the non-federal table. We are also limiting the 
primary FSS operations in the band to those authorized prior to, or 
granted as a result of an application filed prior to the effective date 
of this Report and Order, and constructed within 12 months of the 
initial authorization. We are also removing the non-federal 
radiolocation allocation and agreeing to continued federal use of 
airborne radars in the band based on the NTIA Letter. Finally, we 
sunset the freeze we imposed on new earth station applications in the 
NPRM. The freeze will expire on the effective date of this Report and 
Order, which replaces the freeze with a rule making such facilities 
secondary to non-federal stations in the fixed and land mobile 
services.
    We also find that these changes to the Table of Allocations are 
made consistent with the Commission's authority under Section 303(y) of 
the Communications Act. We adopt our tentative conclusion and find 
that: (1) the allocations are in the public interest; (2) new and 
revised uses of the band would not deter investments in communications 
services and systems or technology development; and (3) new and revised 
uses of the band would not result in harmful interference among users 
of the band. Adding non-federal co-primary fixed and mobile (except 
aeronautical mobile) allocations in the 3550-3650 MHz band will add 
much needed capacity to meet the rapidly increasing demands of wireless 
innovation, and promote investment in new services and technologies for 
use in that band. In addition, the allocation plan we adopt today will 
create a system for shared use of the band with incumbent federal users 
in a way that maximizes efficient use of spectrum through the 
combination of small cell technology and more sophisticated spectrum 
management techniques through the SAS designed to prevent harmful 
interference. Moreover, we note that these allocations are consistent 
with the ITU Region 2 Allocation Table.
    The non-federal co-primary fixed and mobile except aeronautical 
mobile allocations will allow for shared use of the band between 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service and incumbent federal Radiolocation 
and Aeronautical Radionavigation and non-federal FSS services. These 
allocations are consistent with prior Commission actions to repurpose 
certain bands for new broadband uses. To ensure that essential federal 
radiolocation systems operating in the band continue their operations 
without impact from the sharing arrangements, we are prohibiting CBSDs 
from causing harmful interference to, or claiming protection from, 
federal stations aboard vessels (shipborne radars) and at designated 
ground-based radar sites. In addition, authorized users of CBSDs must 
not claim protection from airborne radars and airborne radar receivers 
must not claim protection from CBSDs operating in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service. We therefore establish rules to protect 
federal radar systems from Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations 
as described below. These rules are reflected in footnote US433 to the 
Table of Allocations. Also, we will take such actions as are necessary 
to amend the Commission's rules to reflect any modification to the list 
of sites designated by NTIA where federal radar systems will operate.
    We will continue to permit primary operations in the 3600-3650 MHz 
band for those FSS earth stations authorized prior to, or granted as a 
result of an application filed prior to, the effective date of this 
Report and Order, and constructed within 12 months of their initial 
authorization. However, we will not accept applications for 
modifications to existing FSS earth station facilities after the 
effective date of the Report and Order, except for changes in 
polarization, antenna orientation, or ownership. We will also allow 
modifications to increase the antenna size to mitigate interference 
from new services. In addition, we will consider reasonable waiver 
requests from existing FSS licensees to accommodate additional 
modifications, including facility relocation, on a case-

[[Page 36170]]

by-case basis. Any new FSS earth stations in the 3600-3650 MHz band, 
applied for following the effective date of the Report and Order, will 
be authorized on a secondary basis to non-federal stations in the fixed 
and land mobile services. These provisions are reflected in footnote 
US107 to the Table of Allocations. We believe these changes to the 
Table of Allocations are necessary to ensure the ongoing stability of 
the band and ensure its availability for mobile broadband services. We 
will also coordinate with the border countries as necessary to ensure 
that the Citizens Broadband Radio Service does not cause harmful 
interference to international FSS operations in the band as set forth 
in Section III(G)(3).
    While we appreciate SIA's concerns that the proposed allocation 
changes may impact existing FSS growth and the investment in the band, 
these changes are consistent with Commission policies adopted more than 
14 years ago for sharing in the adjacent 3650-3700 MHz band, wherein 
existing FSS earth stations were grandfathered on a primary basis and 
new FSS earth stations were permitted to operate on a secondary 
basis.\8\ Further, as noted above, there is a co-primary FSS allocation 
in the 3700-4200 MHz band that can be used to accommodate future FSS 
earth station growth that cannot be accommodated in the 3600-3650 MHz 
band (47 CFR 2.106). We also disagree with SIA that these changes are 
contrary to the Commission's stated premise that the FSS and Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service can share spectrum. The purpose of the 2012 
freeze was to ``ensure a stable spectral ecosystem for the proposed 
Citizens Broadband [Radio] Service.'' Moreover, there will continue to 
be FSS use of the 3600-3650 MHz band, with grandfathered operations on 
a co-primary basis with the Citizens Broadband Radio Service and new 
uses on a secondary basis to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Amendment of the Commission's Rules With Regard to the 
3650-3700 MHz Government Transfer Band, ET Docket No. 98-237, RM-
9411; The 4.9 GHz Band Transferred from Federal Government Use, WT 
Docket No. 00-32; First Report and Order and Second Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, 65 FR 69451(November 17, 2000) (3650-3700 MHz 
First R&O) (allocating the 50 megahertz of spectrum in the 3650-3700 
MHz band to fixed and mobile services on a primary basis to 
facilitate the provision of a broad range of services, including 
traditional voice telephony and broadband data and video services; 
while ``grandfathering'' existing primary FSS earth stations and 
permitting new secondary FSS earth station use of that band). While 
allowing existing sites to freely relocate could cause instability 
in the band and endanger spectrum access for Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users, we acknowledge that such relocations may 
occasionally be necessary. Therefore, to accommodate what SIA 
represents would be the ``quite rare'' need for ``[r]elocation or 
addition of an FSS earth station,'' as when a licensee is unable to 
extend its lease at any existing site or when that site is damaged, 
we will entertain applications for waivers for site relocations 
within 16.1 km of existing facilities. See SIA FNPRM Comments at 19-
20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We emphasize that CBSDs are prohibited from causing harmful 
interference to any FSS earth stations authorized prior to the 
effective date of this Report and Order, as those earth stations will 
retain primary status. The approach we adopt in the 3600-3650 MHz band 
is similar to the one we adopted in the 3650-3700 MHz band and will 
permit the FSS to continue to make productive use of that band, without 
increasing impairments to the new Citizens Broadband Radio Service use.
    In addition, we will eliminate the non-federal radiolocation 
allocation in the 3550-3650 MHz band. There are a number of other bands 
available for non-federal radiolocation use, and we see no need to 
continue to authorize use for such radiolocation services in the 3550-
3650 MHz band, especially considering the impact of potential 
interference to Citizens Broadband Radio Service. However, we will 
continue to permit non-federal radiolocation stations that were 
licensed or had filed an application for authorization prior to the 
effective date of this Report and Order to continue to operate on a 
secondary basis until the end of the equipment's useful lifetime. These 
provisions are reflected in footnote US105 to the Table of Allocations.
    No commenting party addressed the potential addition of a federal 
fixed and mobile allocation for the 3.5 GHz Band in response to the 
NPRM and FNPRM's request for comment on federal Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service use of the band in addition to non-federal use. At this 
time we will not include a federal fixed and mobile allocation in the 
3.5 GHz Band. However, if and when federal agencies determine they may 
benefit from use of Citizens Broadband Radio Service equipment, we will 
work with NTIA to ensure use by the federal agencies is consistent with 
the rules adopted herein.
    We will continue to allow federal airborne radar use in the band, 
with some qualifications. As NTIA noted, in the AWS-3 proceeding, we 
allowed federal airborne radar use to continue in the band and required 
commercial systems to accept interference from these systems. Unlike 
the AWS-3 band, there are no federal airborne radar systems currently 
operating in the 3550-3650 MHz band. However, NTIA recommends an 
approach that would allow federal incumbent users to retain the 
flexibility to deploy radar systems in the band. We do not believe that 
the potential future deployment of federal airborne radar systems will 
significantly impact the commercial viability of the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service. Accordingly, we adopt NTIA's recommendation for 
preserving the allocation allowing federal airborne radar systems in 
the 3550-3650 MHz band, with the proviso that such systems shall not be 
entitled to interference protection from Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users in the band. As described below in Section III(G)(1)(b), 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users will also have to accept the 
risk of interference from airborne systems.
    Finally, in the 3650-3700 MHz band, footnote US 109 establishes an 
80 kilometer protection zone around two federal government 
radiolocation facilities at Saint Indigoes MD and Pensacola FL (47 CFR 
2.106, note US109). As specified in 47 CFR part 90.1331, commercial 
fixed and mobile operations within the protection zone must be 
coordinated with NTIA (47 CFR 90.1331). Prior to 2012, an additional 
site located in Pascagoula, MS had also been protected in the band. 
That site was removed in the 2012 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Order implementing the results of the 2007 WRC (WRC-07) (77 FR 76250, 
December 27, 2012). The NTIA Letter notes that DoD has an active 
frequency assignment at the Pascagoula, MS location that regularly uses 
the 3650-3700 MHz portion of the band. Therefore, we revise footnote US 
109 to include the Pascagoula, MS site and protect it from harmful 
interference consistent with other protected federal radiolocation 
sites in the band.

B. Access Model and Bandplan

    We adopt an access model for the 3.5 GHz Band consistent with the 
proposals set forth in the NPRM, Licensing PN, and FNPRM. We also adopt 
the supplemental proposal to include the 3650-3700 MHz band in the 
authorization framework. We will immediately effectuate three-tiered 
sharing, with Priority Access Licenses authorized in the bottom 100 
megahertz of the combined band. By adopting a flexible access model 
across the entire band, we aim to create a versatile 150 megahertz band 
for shared wireless broadband use that can adapt to market and 
technological opportunities.
1. Three-Tier Access Model
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed to implement the three-tier

[[Page 36171]]

authorization framework originally described in the NPRM and further 
discussed in the Licensing PN. Under this framework, existing primary 
operations--including authorized federal users and grandfathered FSS 
earth stations--would make up the Incumbent Access tier and would 
receive protection from harmful interference consistent with the 
proposed rules. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service would be divided 
into Priority Access and GAA tiers of service, each of which would be 
required to operate on a non-interference basis with the Incumbent 
Access tier. GAA users would also be required to operate on a non-
interference basis with respect to Priority Access Licensees. We also 
proposed that any party that meets basic eligibility requirements under 
the Communications Act be eligible to hold a PAL or, when authorized, 
operate a CBSD on a GAA basis in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. 
In addition, we proposed to apply the three-tier authorization model 
across the entire 3.5 GHz Band. We sought comment on these proposals 
and encouraged commenters to consider the costs and benefits of any 
alternative proposals.
    We received a varied record on this topic, with many commenters 
supporting the immediate implementation of the three-tier approach and 
others arguing for a ``transitional'' approach. Numerous commenters 
supported the use of a three-tier framework. This group included BLiNQ, 
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, Federated Wireless, Google, Interdigital, 
Motorola Mobility, PISC, White Space Alliance, the Wireless Innovation 
Forum, and WISPA. In a joint filing, PISC, the White Space Alliance, 
and the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance contend that immediate adoption of a 
three-tier framework would benefit the economy by enabling intensive 
use of the band, promoting additional broadband development in rural 
areas, and lowering the barriers to entry for a diverse range of users.
    Federated Wireless asserts that delaying implementation of the 
three-tiered authorization model--even temporarily--would reduce 
spectral and economic efficiency and introduce uncertainty into the 
band, reducing network deployments. Federated also contends that SAS-
based sharing between GAA and Priority Access users is conceptually no 
different than sharing between Priority Access and Incumbent Users. 
Therefore, according to Federated Wireless, the perceived risk of GAA 
interference should not pose an impediment to three-tier sharing or the 
development of a full functional SAS capable of managing three-tiers of 
users.
    Google agrees that the three-tier framework would meet the 
Commission's goals more effectively than the two-tier or 
``transitional'' approaches advocated by other commenters. Google also 
argues that the SAS can effectively manage three-tiers of service 
without any negative effects on Priority Access networks and that some 
features of the SAS could help promote efficient use of the band by 
Priority Access Licensees. Google contends that moving immediately to a 
three-tier sharing framework for the entire 3.5 GHz Band will promote 
investment and the deployment of innovative broadband technologies in 
the band. Google recently demonstrated a prototype SAS, which it 
asserts is capable of managing three tiers of authorized users in the 
3.5 GHz Band.
    Other commenters, including 4G Americas, Alcatel-Lucent, AT&T, 
CTIA, Ericsson, Mobile Future, Qualcomm, PCIA, and Verizon argue for a 
``transitional'' band plan that would divide the 3.5 GHz Band between 
two-tier and three-tier authorization models, at least initially, or 
phase in GAA use only after an SAS is tested and proven. While these 
commenters differ on the specific bandplan that should be adopted, they 
generally argue that the SAS, as proposed, is a complex system that 
will require extensive testing and development prior to deployment. 
They believe that the inclusion of GAA use in the band increases this 
complexity significantly. They therefore argue in favor of more 
traditional exclusive licensing in a portion of the band before the 
eventual transition to a three-tier framework.
    Verizon believes that moving to a three-tier framework is 
ultimately desirable, but that the Commission should designate a 
portion of the band for short-term deployment of existing technologies 
for a fixed period of time. Verizon proposes that the band should 
initially be divided into three segments: (1) The ``transitional band'' 
for Priority Access and Incumbent Users only; (2) the ``experimental'' 
band for the Commission's three-tiered sharing approach; and (3) a 
portion of the band for GAA and Incumbent Use only. According to 
Verizon, the two-tier model is a proven technology and designating a 
portion of the band for this use would promote near term investment and 
deployment of LTE networks while allowing industry to develop 
technology to support the three-tier framework in the ``experimental'' 
portion of the band. Verizon argues that its proposed framework would 
ultimately lead to a fully developed unified band without sacrificing 
short-term investment.
    AT&T argues that the Commission should initially divide the band 
into licensed and unlicensed segments, with a significant amount of 
spectrum reserved for both types of users. In its view, licensed users 
should be afforded longer license terms with a renewal expectation and 
reasonable performance requirements to provide licensees with the 
regulatory certainty necessary to encourage investment. During the 
``transition'' period, AT&T argues that users should not be permitted 
to use channels assigned to licensed users on an opportunistic basis, 
though such use could be allowed after the ``transition'' window.
    Some network equipment and technology providers, including Nokia 
Solutions and Networks (NSN) and Qualcomm, continue to argue for the 
merits of a two-tier Licensed Shared Access (LSA) framework, whereby, 
in portions of the band assigned to Priority Access users, no GAA use 
would be allowed. They contend that two-tier sharing technology has 
already been proven to be effective in other markets and that adoption 
of a two-tier model would allow for rapid Priority Access development 
in the band. The proposals are consistent with the two-tier sharing 
model advocated by Verizon, AT&T, and others for the exclusively 
licensed portion of the band during the ``transition'' period.
    As described in detail in Section III(J), the record divides over 
whether to include the 3650-3700 MHz band in the proposed Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service authorization framework. Many commenters 
support the proposal to create a 150 megahertz contiguous block of 
spectrum for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Others oppose 
changing the existing framework for the 3650-3700 MHz band. Still 
others suggest that if we decide to include 3650-3700 MHz in the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service we must do so in a manner that 
sufficiently protects existing investment in the band. These commenters 
propose that we adopt additional protections for 3650-3700 MHz band 
incumbents in order to mitigate any impact on existing operations.
    Discussion. After thorough review of the record, we generally adopt 
the three-tier authorization model proposed in the NPRM and FNPRM for 
the 3550-3650 MHz band. We conclude that moving immediately to a three-
tier authorization model, rather than adopting a ``transitional'' 
approach to the band, is technologically feasible and will promote 
innovation and investment in

[[Page 36172]]

the band. We also conclude that the 3650-3700 MHz band should be 
included in the Part 96 authorization regime, subject to the conditions 
set forth in Sections 90.1307, 90.1311, 90.1338 and 96.21, but that the 
3650-3700 MHz band should be reserved for GAA users and Grandfathered 
Wireless Broadband Licensees at this time. As we explain in detail in 
Section III(J) below, we find that including the 3650-3700 MHz band for 
these uses and subject to these conditions will further the development 
of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service while respecting the 
investments that current licensees have made in the band.
    We agree with numerous commenters that immediately adopting the 
three-tier access model for the 3550-3650 MHz band will best serve the 
public interest, encourage innovation, and spur investment in the band. 
Indeed, as Federated Wireless notes, ``[m]ovement away from the three 
tier model. . .will reduce spectral and economic efficiencies, and 
temporarily adopting two sets of rules for the band will introduce 
regime uncertainty, reducing deployments.'' Even commenters advocating 
``transition'' plans agree that a three-tier access model would be 
advantageous as soon as it becomes technically feasible. We believe 
that a three-tier framework is technically feasible in the near term, 
while adopting an ``interim'' plan could create more challenges to any 
eventual transition to a three-tier model. We also observe that we 
cannot predict with certainty what the demand for spectrum will be for 
use of the spectrum by PALs at any given location and over time. A 
three-tiered approach will better ensure that use of the spectrum can 
adapt to market and user demands. Therefore, the public interest will 
best be served by launching the Citizens Broadband Radio Service with 
the three-tier model in place from the outset.
    While we appreciate the creative ``transition plans'' put forth by 
various commenters, we are not convinced that this approach is 
necessary or desirable. We disagree with commenters that argue that the 
three-tier framework entails untested and unproven sharing elements 
that will require significant testing and development--beyond that 
which would be required for two-tier sharing--prior to commercial 
deployment. Rather, we agree with the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, 
Federated Wireless, Google, PISC, Spectrum Bridge, the White Space 
Alliance, WISPA, and other commenters who have argued that the 
development of an SAS capable of managing three-tiers of authorized 
users will not be an impediment to rapidly deploying service across 
three tiers of service in the band. Indeed, several current TVWS 
database providers support the Commission's proposal and believe that, 
while the SAS will be a more complex system than the TVWS databases, 
the technology already exists to effectively manage the three tiers of 
users in the band. Notably, as mentioned above, Google claims that it 
has already developed a prototype SAS capable of managing three tiers 
of users in the band to the specifications proposed by the FNPRM.
    We believe that the technological development of an SAS capable of 
managing a ``transitional'' bandplan would not be significantly less 
burdensome than the development of a fully functional SAS. Even a two-
tier or ``transitional'' approach would require Commission review and 
approval of some form of SAS to manage interactions between Incumbent 
Users and a variety of Priority Access Licensees prior to initial 
commercial deployment. Using the ``proven'' technologies available for 
two-tier sharing would entail some period of testing, development, and 
review prior to the issuance of PALs in the context of our proposed 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. To ensure that a three-tier 
authorization model is developed, a two-tier sharing system would 
likely need to be designed from the outset to later accommodate a third 
tier after the transition period. Therefore, we adopt the three-tier 
approach for the entire 3550-3650 MHz band to encourage the development 
of fully functional SASs without delay. While we acknowledge that the 
development and approval of a fully functional SAS may take some time, 
as described in Sections III(H)(1) and III(H)(3)(b), we are convinced 
that the technology to implement the three-tier authorization framework 
exists or is in late-stage development and that the public interest 
benefits of moving directly to this model significantly outweigh any 
possible risk of delay. These benefits include the promotion of wide-
scale investment and deployment based on assured availability to both 
PAL and GAA users, as well as the critical need to provide for the most 
efficient use of the spectrum by providing users with the simultaneous 
option of bidding at auction for priority PAL use in areas where they 
need and are willing to pay for it, while obtaining shared use on a GAA 
basis in all other scenarios.
    We are also unconvinced by arguments that a portion of the band 
must be, at least temporarily, set aside for more traditional licenses 
to encourage investment in the band. We address the specific elements 
of these licensing proposals in more detail below. For now, we note 
that implementation of the ``transition'' plans advocated by AT&T, 
Verizon, Ericsson, CTIA, and others could effectively prevent the 
three-tier authorization model from ever taking hold in the 
``transitional'' portion of the band. The combination of fixed channel 
assignments for PALs and indefinite license renewals could permanently 
prevent GAA use of certain portions of the band, particularly in 
regions of high commercial interest, even after the ``transition'' 
period concludes. These proposals could also preclude investment from a 
newer generation of Priority Access Licensees in the future. Indeed, 
any plan that rests upon the assumption that a licensee will be able to 
renew a license for a fixed channel assignment in perpetuity can hardly 
be called ``transitional.'' In addition, the record includes 
substantial evidence from commenters that are interested in investing 
in a three-tier band and, as such, we do not believe that it is in the 
public interest to delay or compromise its implementation. Moreover, 
our framework depends on providing potential PAL bidders with 
simultaneous economic choices of bidding for higher priority PAL 
licenses in areas where such priority is critical to their needs and 
relying on shared GAA use where it is not.
    However, while we decline to subdivide the 3550-3650 MHz band, 
nothing in the rules we adopt should be read to preclude industry 
agreement on a common bandplan, so long as the bandplan complies with 
the rules, including the band-wide operability requirements described 
in Section III(F)(2)(c). We acknowledge that SAS Administrators, 
potential licensees, and other industry stakeholders will need to 
develop various implementation details to facilitate development of the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. As described elsewhere in this Report 
and Order, we believe that many of these issues can be addressed during 
the SAS Approval Process and through the efforts of a multi-stakeholder 
group. For example, a bandplan similar to the one shown in Figure 1 
could promote efficient use of the band and simplify coordination 
between SAS Administrators. If industry stakeholders do not develop 
such a convention, the Commission may revisit this issue in the future.

[[Page 36173]]

2. Frequency Assignment
a. Apportionment Between Priority Access and GAA Tiers
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed to adopt rules governing 
frequency assignments that would balance the needs of Priority Access 
Licensees and GAA users. To foster a robust GAA ecosystem, a meaningful 
amount of the 3.5 GHz Band must be reserved for GAA use in any given 
geographic area. To that end, we proposed to reserve for GAA use a 
minimum of 50 percent of the 3.5 GHz Band in any given census tract--
after accounting for any frequencies used by Incumbent Access tier 
operators in the area--with the remainder to be assigned as PALs. We 
sought comment on this proposed apportionment of spectrum between the 
GAA and Priority Access tiers.
    Some commenters, including NSN and PCIA contend that the proposed 
GAA floor is too high. NSN argues that the proposed 50 percent floor 
will not provide sufficient spectrum to encourage potential Priority 
Access Licensees to invest in the band. T-Mobile argues that a minimum 
of 40 megahertz of spectrum should be reserved for Priority Access 
Licensees in each license area as well as 50 percent of any additional 
available spectrum. Verizon asks that the Commission confirm that the 
50 percent GAA floor will not remain static if Priority Access Licenses 
have been assigned in a given area and Incumbent Users later make use 
of a portion of the spectrum. According to Verizon, in such cases, 
Priority Access Licensees should be assigned channels before GAA users.
    Others, including WISPA, the Wi-Fi Alliance, UTC, the American 
Petroleum Institute, Motorola Mobility, and Shared Spectrum Company 
support reserving at least 50 percent of available frequencies in any 
given area for GAA use. Motorola Solutions supports the proportional 
assignment approach proposed by the Commission but proposes that 60 
percent of available frequencies be reserved for GAA use. Others 
support the proposed GAA floor but contend that users should have at 
least a fixed minimum amount of the band available instead of utilizing 
a proportional approach. Notably, PISC and Microsoft ask that the 
Commission reserve the greater of 50 megahertz or 50 percent of 
available spectrum for GAA use.
    Discussion. We continue to believe that ensuring that a stable and 
significant quantity of spectrum is available for both Priority Access 
Licensees and GAA will foster innovation, encourage efficient use of 
the band, and create an environment conducive to a wide array of 
potential users and uses. However, we modify the proposed approach to 
better serve the public interest in this band. We recognize that the 
proportional frequency assignment method proposed in the FNPRM could 
create uncertainty in the marketplace, particularly in areas where the 
band may be partially used by Incumbent Users. Therefore, we conclude 
that a maximum of 70 megahertz may be reserved for PALs in any given 
license area at any time and the remainder of the available frequencies 
should be made available for GAA use.
    This approach will benefit Priority Access Licensees and GAA users 
alike. Priority Access Licensees will have more predictable access to 
spectrum. GAA users will potentially have access to all 150 megahertz 
in the band in areas where there are no PALs issued or in use and up to 
80 megahertz where all PALs are in use. We note, however, that both PAL 
and GAA spectrum access will necessarily be constrained by the need to 
protect Incumbent Users throughout the band. We believe that moving 
from proportional frequency reservations to fixed frequency 
reservations--coupled with opportunistic access to spectrum for GAA 
users across 150 megahertz--will increase band access, stability, and 
predictability for all Citizens Broadband Radio Service users.
    We agree with those commenters who contend that a percentage-based 
reservation for GAA use in any given area could cause confusion and 
lead to uncertainty regarding the amount of available spectrum in any 
given area. As Verizon points out, under the FNPRM proposal, if the 
amount of available spectrum in a given area were to be reduced due to 
Incumbent Access use, Priority Access Licensees could lose access to 
capacity that they had been assigned through auction. While the need to 
protect Incumbent Users makes it impossible to completely avoid this 
risk, moving to a non-proportional Priority Access reservation model 
should minimize it substantially.
    While we agree with PISC and Microsoft that GAA users should have 
access to a significant amount of spectrum, we do not agree that 50 
megahertz of the band should always be reserved for GAA use. The 
presence of Incumbent Users could affect the amount of spectrum 
available for both GAA and PAL users. Circumstances may occur where 
incumbent use of the band leaves less than 50 megahertz available for 
GAA (or PAL) use in a given location. Nevertheless, we believe that the 
policies we adopt in this order, including the ability to access 
``unused'' channels assigned to Priority Access Licensees, will ensure 
that substantial spectrum capacity is available in all geographic areas 
for GAA use.
    With regard to the amount of spectrum available for GAA and 
Priority Access use, we believe that reserving a maximum of 70 
megahertz--i.e., seven channels--for Priority Access Licensees in any 
given license area appropriately balances the needs of these two types 
of access. Seven PAL channels represent an increase from the five PAL 
channels that would have been available under the baseline FNPRM 
proposal (i.e., 3550-3650 MHz) while providing a greater degree of 
certainty for potential licensees. This increase in Priority Access 
spectrum availability will likely encourage more licensees to enter the 
band in any given area or allow more licensees to pursue higher 
bandwidth applications (through channel aggregation). Considered 
alongside the inclusion of the 3650-3700 MHz band, the bandplan and 
frequency assignment model we adopt herein would generally provide all 
users with more and greater spectrum availability than they would have 
had under our proposal in the FNPRM. Where the band is not utilized by 
Incumbent Access users or Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees, 
GAA users will have access to a minimum of 80 megahertz, more than the 
proportional 50 percent of the band proposed in the FNPRM. Thus, both 
Priority Access Licensees and GAA users will benefit from our revised 
approach to the assignment of frequencies in the band.
b. Opportunistic Access to Priority Access Licenses
    Background. In the NPRM and FNPRM we proposed to allow GAA users 
access to frequencies not yet assigned to PALs--or where assigned 
bandwidth is not in actual use by Priority Access Licensees--on an 
opportunistic basis. We sought comment on whether to allow 
opportunistic access to channels assigned to Priority Access Licensees 
and, if so, how to determine whether such channels are actually ``in 
use.''
    Commenters offered varied opinions on whether opportunistic use of 
Priority Access channels should be permitted and proposed a variety of 
ways to determine whether such channels are actually ``in use.'' 
Commenters including the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, Federated, 
Interdigital, Microsoft, PISC, Shared Spectrum Company, White Space 
Alliance, Wi-Fi Alliance, and WISPA support the

[[Page 36174]]

proposal to allow opportunistic access to Priority Access channels by 
GAA users. Some others, like Ericsson, contend that opportunistic GAA 
use should not be permitted after network facilities have been deployed 
by Priority Access Licensees in a given channel and license area. CTIA 
contends that further study is needed before the Commission determines 
that it is feasible to allow opportunistic access to licensed spectrum.
    Other commenters support opportunistic access, with certain 
caveats. AT&T argues that GAA use of channels assigned to Priority 
Access Licensees should only be permitted if, at the end of a license 
term, there is spectrum or geography not in actual use by the Priority 
Access Licensee. According to AT&T, the Commission should utilize 3GPP 
standards for TD-LTE channel occupancy to determine channel usage. 
Verizon contends that the definition of ``use'' should not be limited 
to actual operations. For example, Priority Access Licensees should be 
permitted to use all or some of a given license area as a guard band to 
protect its network from interference. T-Mobile asserts that GAA users 
should only be permitted to use channels assigned to PALs until the 
licensee notifies an SAS that such channels are in operation. WISPA 
proposes a technical definition of use based on the specific number of 
data ``packets'' received by any CBSD within a five minute period.
    TIA contends that the Commission's proposal would effectively make 
GAA rights in the band superior to Priority Access rights by allowing 
GAA users to access channels assigned to Priority Access Licensees 
without allowing Priority Access Licensees to do the same. The Wi-Fi 
Alliance counters that this is not the case since GAA users will always 
be prohibited from using channels assigned to Priority Access Licensees 
when they are in actual use and, as such, Priority Access rights will 
always be superior to GAA tier rights under the Commission's proposed 
framework.
    Discussion. We find that permitting opportunistic access to unused 
Priority Access channels would maximize the flexibility and utility of 
the 3.5 GHz Band for the widest range of potential users. By allowing 
GAA users to access bandwidth that is not used by Priority Access 
Licensees, we can ensure that the band will be in consistent and 
productive use. We believe the record demonstrates the benefits of 
allowing GAA users some degree of opportunistic access to ``unused'' 
Priority Access channels.
    We disagree with AT&T's contention that GAA use of PAL channels 
should only be allowed if the licensee is not using a portion of its 
assigned spectrum or geography at the end of its license term. This 
proposed model is incompatible with the three-tier authorization 
framework adopted herein and would undermine the Commission's 
objectives for more efficient spectrum use in this band. Under AT&T's 
model, channels assigned to PALs would effectively lie fallow until the 
Priority Access Licensee chooses to deploy its network in a given area, 
precluding opportunistic use of the spectrum and limiting the scope of 
potential GAA deployments. Thus, AT&T's suggested policy could 
encourage spectrum warehousing and disincentivize efficient use of the 
band. We believe that it is in the public interest to ensure that the 
3.5 GHz Band is made widely available to Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users--regardless of their operational tier--and that Priority 
Access Licensees should not be permitted to exclude other authorized 
users unless and until their networks are in use.
c. Frequency Assignment by SAS
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed that, in place of fixed 
channel assignments, the SAS would assign bandwidth within given 
geographic areas to Priority Access Licensees and GAA users. Under this 
proposal, the SAS would ensure that Priority Access Licensees have 
access to 10 megahertz channels and that GAA users would have access to 
the remaining portions of the band. However, the exact frequencies 
defining any given authorization, whether Priority Access or GAA, would 
not be fixed. For example, a licensee might have Priority Access rights 
for a single PAL, but the specific channel location assigned to that 
user would be assigned by the SAS and could be reassigned from time to 
time (e.g., from 3550-3560 MHz to 3630-3640 MHz). Individual GAA users 
would be assigned available bandwidth of a size and frequency range 
determined by the SAS. The SAS would assign and maintain appropriate 
frequency assignments and ensure that lower tier users do not interfere 
with higher tier users. To the extent that some level of regional or 
national consistency of assignment facilitates the provision of 
service, SAS providers would be free to agree upon a common assignment 
convention. However, such a convention was not specified in the 
proposed rules, in order to allow the greatest degree of operational 
flexibility. We sought comment on these proposals.
    The record reflects a sharp division between those who favor the 
assignment of frequencies by the SAS and those who prefer static 
frequency assignments. Commenters including PISC, White Space Alliance, 
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, Federated Wireless, Interdigital, Google, 
Shared Spectrum Company, Spectrum Bridge, and the Wireless Innovation 
Forum support the Commission's proposal to allow the SAS to dynamically 
assign frequencies in the band for both Priority Access Licensees and 
GAA Users. Google asserts that SAS-directed spectrum sharing will 
ensure that Citizens Broadband Radio Service users will have access to 
the best available channel in any given spectral environment and that 
dynamic frequency assignment is a necessary component of any sharing 
regime that requires secondary users to change their operations in 
response to higher tier users. Similarly, PISC states that frequency 
assignment through the SAS will confer a number of public interest 
benefits, including: (1) Better accommodation of Incumbent Access 
Users; (2) more intensive and productive use of the band; and (3) 
improved coexistence of small cell and higher power uses. Federated 
Wireless contends that static frequency assignments for PALs: (1) Are 
inconsistent with the efficient, SAS-driven spectrum assignment model 
the Commission proposes; (2) would threaten interoperability in the 
band; and (3) are unnecessary for incumbent protection.
    Other commenters, including AT&T, CTIA, Ericsson, 4G Americas, HKT 
Limited, NSN, and UK Broadband oppose the Commission's proposal and 
argue that Priority Access Licensees should be given static frequency 
assignments. Many of these commenters contend that static frequency 
assignments are the simplest and most effective way to license PALs to 
wireless broadband providers. AT&T and T-Mobile argue that dynamic 
frequency assignment would undermine carriers' essential network 
management functions, frustrate their ability to plan network 
deployments, and discourage investment in the band. T-Mobile asserts 
that current network technology does not support dynamic frequency 
assignment.
    Google disagrees and states that SAS management of frequency 
assignments is wholly compatible with LTE system architecture. Indeed, 
Google asserts that dynamism in frequency assignment would provide 
greater certainty to Priority Access Licensees since the loss of any 
specific channel in a specific license area would not necessarily 
result

[[Page 36175]]

in the loss of Priority Access functionality. Google also stresses that 
reassignment should only be used to avoid situations where PALs might 
otherwise lose access to assigned PAL frequencies.
    Seeking to balance concerns on both sides of the issue, Verizon 
notes that SAS-based frequency assignment has potential benefits and 
drawbacks. As a result, Verizon contends that additional information on 
incumbent frequency use is needed to perform a complete and accurate 
cost-benefit analysis of the Commission's proposals.
    Discussion. After review of the record, we conclude that 
frequencies in the 3.5 GHz Band will be assigned by an SAS. This 
approach is consistent with the Revised Framework and the proposals set 
forth in the FNPRM. We believe that flexible band management is 
essential to effective spectrum sharing between the three tiers of 
authorized users in the band. However, we also acknowledge commenters' 
concerns about frequency predictability and stability. To address these 
concerns, we adopt provisions to ensure that Priority Access channel 
assignments remain as stable and consistent as possible for licensees 
holding multiple channels within the same license area or in contiguous 
license areas.
    We agree with commenters who assert that SAS-controlled frequency 
assignment is an essential component of the three-tiered authorization 
framework adopted in this Report and Order. Notably, automated 
frequency assignment is necessary to ensure consistent spectrum access 
for Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and to ensure protection of 
Incumbent Users. Under the framework described in Section III(B)(1), 
Incumbent Access users have superior spectrum rights at all times and 
in all areas over Priority Access Licensees and GAA Users. As such, all 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users must be capable of discontinuing 
operation or changing frequencies at the direction of the SAS to 
protect Incumbent Users. If PAL assignments were entirely static, as 
AT&T and others propose, Priority Access Licensees would have no choice 
but to discontinue operations when an Incumbent User begins operating 
on its assigned channel in a given license area. Indeed, as PISC notes, 
the need to protect Incumbent Users coupled with static channel 
assignments could require Priority Access Users to shut down 
indefinitely or even permanently. For example, assume that a Priority 
Access Licensee is given a fixed channel assignment of 3550-3560 MHz in 
a designated License Area. If an Incumbent User begins using those 
frequencies, the Priority Access Licensee would lose access to the 
channel. Without the ability to reassign channels dynamically, the 
Priority Access Licensee would lose the use of a channel it had 
acquired at auction for the duration of the Incumbent User's 
operations. Thus, static channel assignments for Priority Access 
Licensees would lead to unpredictable spectrum availability, 
undermining the very stability that commenters claim is needed to 
encourage investment in the band. However, with automated frequency 
assignment, Priority Access Licensees could be relocated to 
unencumbered channels and allowed to continue providing service.
    We also find that SAS-based frequency assignments will increase the 
flexibility and utility of the 3.5 GHz Band. We agree with PISC's 
assertion that automated frequency assignment will allow more users to 
access spectrum in a given geography, leading to more productive and 
intense spectrum use by both Priority Access Licensees and GAA users. 
Coupled with the requirement that CBSDs be capable of operating across 
the entire 3.5 GHz Band, SAS-controlled assignment will ensure that 
individual users are provided with flexible, stable access to the band 
and that Citizens Broadband Radio Service users as a whole are able to 
access as much spectrum as possible at any given time and place.
    We are not convinced that frequency assignment by the SAS is 
incompatible with wireless broadband network planning as T-Mobile, 
AT&T, and CTIA claim. We realize that operators traditionally have 
planned their networks with certain static assumptions about frequency 
assignments, reflecting the exclusive-use licenses they hold in other 
bands. However, we do not agree that static assignments are always 
necessary to plan and operate a network--particularly a network with 
``islands'' of small cell clusters--or that utilizing a flexibly 
assigned band would disrupt network deployments. To the contrary, as 
explained above, we believe that automated assignment will benefit 
wireless broadband providers by providing an additional measure of 
resiliency and flexibility.
    We believe that our SAS rules will ensure a stable spectral 
environment for Priority Access Licensees and GAA users alike while 
providing the flexibility needed to accommodate and protect Incumbent 
Access users. To address the concerns raised by AT&T, Verizon, and 
others, the SAS will be responsible for ensuring that Priority Access 
Licensees are provided with consistent channel authorizations across 
contiguous geographic areas and contiguous channels within the same 
geographic area where feasible. We address these rules in greater 
detail in Sections III(H)(2)(c) and III(c)(2)(a).
    Contrary to some of the arguments made in the record, SAS-based 
frequency assignment is compatible with international harmonization to 
achieve ecosystem scale and permit global roaming. In considering this 
issue, we believe it is necessary to distinguish air interface 
compatibility--the primary focus of international standards efforts, 
including those within 3GPP--from channel assignment. Indeed, 
irrespective of the method of channel assignment, we expect that any 
standardized device that uses the new 3.5 GHz Band would be able to 
tune across the band (and, in fact, we mandate such capability with a 
band-wide operability requirement). Automated channel assignment by an 
SAS will simply involve instructions to these devices to use a specific 
channel, at a specific place and time, within this tuning range. As 
noted above, the rules contain provisions to promote stability of the 
spectral environment. Therefore, based on the record before us, it is 
our predictive judgment that SAS-mandated channel changes, guided by 
the requirement to preserve consistency and contiguity for PAL spectrum 
assignments where feasible, will generally occur relatively 
infrequently rather than on a millisecond-by-millisecond basis as some 
commenters fear.
    This mode of automated frequency assignment is consistent with most 
prevalent networking standards. Indeed, modern networks typically have 
control features that allow for automated or managed channel selection. 
Finally, we note that unlike many other countries that have fully 
reallocated the 3.5 GHz Band for commercial broadband uses, we must 
accommodate a spectral environment that includes, and will continue to 
include, extensive use of the band by military radar systems. Many of 
the policies we adopt in this Report and Order are intended to address 
this unique situation and ensure that the band is made available for 
commercial use while protecting important incumbent operations. As 
such, industry standards may need to evolve to accommodate some of the 
policies we adopt herein. We believe that standardization should be 
addressed, at least in part, during the SAS approval process and may be 
informed by the work of a multi-stakeholder group as

[[Page 36176]]

described in Sections III(K) and III(H)(3)(b).

C. Priority Access Tier

1. Eligibility
    Background. Based on comments received in response to our original 
NPRM and Licensing PN, we proposed in the FNPRM to make eligibility for 
PALs open to any prospective licensee who meets basic FCC 
qualifications, rather than to a more limited group of ``mission 
critical'' users. The record we received in this proceeding generally 
supports expanding eligibility to the Priority Access tier to a broader 
class of users than we proposed in the NPRM.
    Discussion. The Commission has broad authority to prescribe 
``citizenship, character, and financial, technical, and other 
qualifications'' for its licensees (47 U.S.C. 308(b)). Based on the 
record in this proceeding, and for the reasons we have previously 
outlined in a number of other wireless broadband services, we determine 
that it is in the public interest to allow any entity that is eligible 
to hold an FCC license to also be eligible to apply for, and hold, a 
PAL. All applicants for PALs must demonstrate their qualification to 
hold an authorization and demonstrate how a grant of authorization 
would serve the public interest (See 47 U.S.C. 303, 307, 309, 310). 
Qualifications include those under Section 310 of the Act regarding 
foreign ownership (See 47 U.S.C. 310(b)) as well as the bar on 
participation in spectrum auctions with respect to any person ``who has 
been, for reasons of national security, barred by any agency of the 
Federal Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an 
auction, or receiving a grant (47 U.S.C. 1404; 47 CFR 
1.2105(a)(2)(xii)).''
    For the same reason that we have determined to expand the size of 
the tier, we conclude that expanded eligibility for access to the 
Priority Access tier will promote more intensive use of the 3.5 GHz 
Band. The increasing growth in demand for wireless broadband service 
has led to increasing demands for spectrum to accommodate that growth. 
As T-Mobile explains, many entities besides mission critical users seek 
access to the type of ``quality assured'' spectrum that PALs provide. 
The Consumer Electronics Association notes that ``[c]ommercial 
operations benefit from reliable, prioritized access to spectrum and a 
predictable quality of service, which will support investment and 
innovation in the 3.5 GHz Band.'' Google states that ``[o]pening the 
Priority Access tier will encourage deployment of systems that require 
reliable access to spectrum to deliver higher quality service.'' 
Accordingly, subject to the qualification rules discussed above, any 
entity, is eligible to be a Priority Access Licensee.
2. PAL Configuration
a. Frequencies
    Background. We proposed to authorize PALs as 10 megahertz unpaired 
channels. With this proposal we intended to balance several objectives. 
First, as we have concluded in other services suitable for wireless 
broadband deployment, 10 megahertz channels are well suited for high 
data rate technologies both in terms of deployment and scalability. 
Second, 10 megahertz channels divide evenly into either the 100 
megahertz (10 channels) or 150 megahertz of spectrum (15 channels) that 
would be available in either our main proposal or the supplemental 
proposal to include 3650-3700 MHz. Third, 10 megahertz channels will 
allow us to license multiple Priority Access users in each geographic 
area, particularly where protection of incumbents limits the amount of 
spectrum available for commercial use. Fourth, 10 megahertz licenses 
would provide useful ``building blocks'' for licensees that might wish 
to aggregate larger amounts of spectrum in a given area. We sought 
comment on the appropriate bandwidth for PALs.
    Discussion. Based on the general consensus in the record, we adopt 
our proposal to authorize PALs to operate over 10 megahertz unpaired 
channels. Ten megahertz channels provide a flexible, scalable, and 
practically deployable bandwidth for high data rate technologies, 
permitting multiple Priority Access Licensees to operate in the same 
geographic area. We agree with T-Mobile, that 10 megahertz blocks 
``strike the appropriate balance between permitting multiple entities 
access to licensed 3.5 GHz Band spectrum and ensuring that the blocks 
are large enough to support customer traffic.'' Further, some 
commenters see beneficial consistency with the 3GPP Bands 42 and 43 
channelization scheme. Such alignment should encourage investment in 
and development of new equipment for this innovation band.
    Although a few commenters advocated for larger or smaller channels, 
the record generally supports our proposal to utilize 10 megahertz 
channels for PALs with the ability to aggregate multiple channels. 
Spectrum Bridge, for example, notes that 10 MHz channels are compatible 
with broadband technology and operations. NSN and T-Mobile also point 
out that 10 MHz licenses would harmonize with the worldwide use of 
existing global 3GPP Bands 42 and 43 for Long Term Evolution Time 
Division Duplex use. As NSN further explains, ``[b]and class 
harmonization helps achieve economies of scale, enables global roaming, 
reduces equipment design complexity and improves spectrum efficiency.''
    As discussed in Section III(C)(2)(a), all channels will be assigned 
by the SAS. The exact frequencies of specific assigned channels, 
however, may be changed by the SAS, if necessary. To the extent 
feasible, we will require the SAS to assign multiple channels held by 
the same Priority Access Licensee to contiguous channels in the same 
license area. The SAS may temporarily reassign individual PALs to non-
contiguous channels only to the extent necessary to protect Incumbent 
Users from harmful interference or if necessary to perform its required 
functions. However, while a Priority Access Licensee may initially 
request a particular channel or frequency range, any particular request 
will not be guaranteed. Nevertheless, SAS administrators would be 
required to maintain consistent and contiguous frequency assignments 
for licensees with multiple PALs in the same or adjacent license areas 
whenever feasible. Thus, our rules aim to create a flexible, responsive 
spectral environment while retaining much of the stability of 
traditional static channel assignments.
b. Area
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed to authorize PALs at the 
census tract level and to permit geographic aggregation across license 
areas. As we explained, census tracts offer a variety of benefits, 
including geographic sizes varying by population density, nesting into 
other political subdivisions including city lines, and aligning with 
other natural features that track population density. Under our 
proposal, PAL applicants could target specific geographic areas in 
which they need additional coverage and avoid applying for areas that 
they do not intend to serve. Our proposal reflected the unique 
technical characteristics of small cells to promote a high degree of 
spectral and spatial reuse while facilitating flexible, targeted 
deployment of CBSDs.
    We received a diverse record in response to our proposal to use 
census tracts as a licensing area. Some commenters agree with our 
proposal. Others argue that census tracts are inappropriate because the 
borders of census tracts frequently divide streets and their relatively 
small size would

[[Page 36177]]

make license administration and co-channel coordination between 
Priority Access Licensees more difficult. Other commenters suggest that 
even smaller geographic areas, such as census block groups would allow 
for granular and demand-focused assignments. Still others proposed 
larger, more traditional license areas such as Economic Areas (EAs), 
Cellular Market Areas (CMAs), or counties. Google suggests license 
boundaries be based on proposed network parameters and actual contours, 
as determined and enforced by the SAS, rather than fixed geographic 
areas. Google further maintains that small license areas which ``track 
the radiofrequency characteristics of proposed deployments or rely on a 
pixel-based approach, will maximize use of the licensed spectrum in the 
3.55 GHz band.''
    Discussion. We adopt census tracts as the appropriate geographic 
license size for PALs. Among our goals in this proceeding is to 
establish the geographic component of PALs in a way that allows 
flexible and targeted network deployments, promoting intensive and 
efficient use of the spectrum, but also allowing easy aggregation to 
accommodate a larger network footprint. We find that licensing PALs at 
the census tract level will serve the public interest and provide a 
middle ground between commenters who sought license areas larger than 
census tracts and those who supported even smaller license areas.
    Census tracts will provide a number of other benefits. Currently, 
there are over 74,000 census tracts in the United States targeted to an 
optimum population of 4,000. Census tracts vary in size depending on 
the population density of the region, with tracts as small as one 
square mile or less in dense urban areas and up to 85,000 square miles 
in sparsely populated rural regions. Census tracts generally nest into 
counties and other political subdivisions. In turn, they nest into the 
standardized license areas commonly used by the Commission (e.g., CMAs, 
EAs, and Partial Economic Areas). Census tracts also generally align 
with the borders of political boundaries (e.g., city lines) and often 
to natural features, which may affect population density (e.g., 
rivers). Census tracts, therefore, may naturally mirror key 
considerations in targeted deployment by service providers, such as 
tracking existing customers, plant, and permits or rights-of-way. In 
addition, the inclusion of census tracts in census geospatial databases 
may ease the incorporation of geographic and demographic data into an 
SAS.
    Census tract-level licensing also aligns well with small cell 
deployment. Due to their low power and small size, small cells can 
provide broadband coverage and capacity in targeted geographic areas. 
This applies whether small cells are used to offer independent 
broadband service, supplemental coverage for a macrocell network, or 
private network functions. PAL authorization in a highly localized 
fashion, i.e., at the census tract level, will promote the use of the 
band for clusters of small cells.
    In our view, other proposals in the record have limitations. Like 
Spectrum Bridge, we believe that geographic license areas significantly 
smaller than census tracts will ``significantly increase the complexity 
and data management requirements [in the band], with diminishing and no 
obvious improvement in spectral efficiency.'' Regarding Google's 
proposal to assign licenses according to interference protection 
requirements rather than by fixed geographic areas, we believe that 
such a proposal adds unnecessary uncertainty and complexity to the 
licensing process and would complicate the competitive bidding process 
by creating irregular ``lots'' for auction. Google subsequently 
proposed a ``pixel-based'' approach to Priority Access licensing but we 
believe the enormous volume of licenses that would result would be 
challenging to administer. We agree with WISPA that proposals to assign 
licenses based on point/radius methodology will result in license areas 
that do not conform to natural boundaries and will ``complicate[] 
mutual exclusivity determinations.''
    As noted above, some commenters argue that to encourage investment 
in this shared band, we should license PALs in larger geographic areas 
such as those used in other licensed mobile bands. These commenters 
argue that introducing a new license scheme in the band will create 
uncertainty and delay deployment in the band. We disagree. As noted 
above, the mandate of Section 309(j) strongly supports our goal, 
particularly in ``prescrib[ing] area designations (47 U.S.C. 
309(j)(4)(c)),'' of providing economic opportunity to a wide variety of 
applicants. That mandate is particularly compelling in light of the 
opportunities for participation with much lower capital investment 
requirements associated with smaller service areas, as we have 
previously recognized in other services in trying to address the 
substantial challenges faced by new entrants. The larger, traditional 
license areas favored by some commenters are inconsistent with our 
desire to promote innovative, low power uses in this band, such as 
small cells, which align well with small, targeted geographic areas 
such as census tracts. Further, traditional licensing areas will not 
allow users of the band to acquire PALs only for those specific 
geographic areas they intend to serve. Divesting large, unwanted swaths 
through secondary markets transactions could impose significant 
transactions costs. On the other hand, should users of the band desire 
to provide service within traditional geographic license areas, they 
can aggregate multiple contiguous census tracts, which as discussed 
above, nest into the standardized license areas commonly used by the 
Commission.
    We continue to believe that census tracts are the appropriate 
middle ground among the competing proposals developed in the record and 
provide an equitable means of achieving the Commission's public 
interest goals consistent with our statutory mandates. As WISPA stated, 
``[t]he range of views suggests that, while not perfect, census tracts 
probably strike the appropriate balance with regard to size and are 
therefore the best alternative.'' Census tracts are sufficiently 
granular to promote intensive use of the band and are large enough, 
either on their own or in aggregate, to support a variety of use cases, 
including small cell base stations and backhaul. As Cantor Telecom 
states, ``census tracts may offer certain benefits such as geographic 
sizes varying by population densities which would allow PAL applicants 
to target specific areas that they intend to serve.'' Moreover, by 
defining license areas in a granular fashion and allowing geographic 
aggregation, operators should be able to acquire enough PALs to cover 
their desired network footprint without having to over-acquire 
licenses. Accordingly, each PAL shall consist of a single census tract 
as defined, initially, in the 2010 census.
c. Term
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed that PALs would have a one 
year, non-renewable term. PALs would automatically terminate after one 
year and would not be renewed. We reasoned that a one-year term, while 
shorter than the 10- or 15-year terms typically associated with 
geographic area-licensed wireless services, would be appropriate for 
this band. First, licensees would be permitted to aggregate up to 5 
consecutive 1-year terms to replicate the predictability of a longer-
term license while providing the flexibility inherent in shorter-term 
spectrum authorizations. Second, the use of a shorter, non-renewable 
license

[[Page 36178]]

term could simplify the administration of the Priority Access tier by 
obviating the need for renewal, discontinuance, and performance 
requirements typically associated with longer-term licenses. Third, 
shorter terms would allow for a wider variety of innovative uses and 
encourage efficient use of spectrum resources. Fourth, short term 
licenses could promote greater fungibility and liquidity in the 
secondary market. Finally, allowing applications for multiple years of 
PALs would provide Priority Access Licensees with the certainty they 
may need to make capital investment in PALs. We sought comment on the 
appropriate duration of PALs and our aggregation proposal and invited 
commenters to suggest other proposals.
    Commenters differed on the appropriate term for PALs. Some 
commenters supported one-year terms for PALs with the option to 
aggregate multiple years. Others argued for license terms shorter than 
one year, while Microsoft agreed with the one-year proposal but argued 
for a prohibition on term aggregation. Alternatively, numerous 
commenters including Ericsson, NSN, and Qualcomm supported a more 
traditional licensing model with longer license terms. These commenters 
argue that short, one-year licenses will not provide operators with 
sufficient certainty to invest the necessary resources in the band. 
Instead, commenters argue, longer, more traditional license terms will 
make the spectrum more attractive for investment. AT&T for example 
states that ``a one-year, non-renewable license is insufficient 
assurance to spark investment in the 3.5 GHz band [and may] raise the 
possibility of stranded investment.''
    Commenters also differed on the appropriate temporal aggregation 
limit for PALs. For example, WISPA suggests a four-year aggregation 
cap, Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation suggest a three-
year cap, Motorola Solutions suggests only two years, and Microsoft 
suggests we not permit term aggregation (effectively a one-year 
availability in the licensing window). AT&T, by contrast, suggests that 
licensees be permitted to retain their authorizations indefinitely for 
areas in which they have deployed equipment and provided service within 
one year.
    Discussion. Based on the record in this proceeding, and in the 
context of our particular regulatory scheme for this band, we adopt a 
longer license term than originally proposed: three-year rather than 
one-year terms. At the end of its three-year license term, a PAL will 
automatically terminate and may not be renewed. However, solely during 
the first application window, we will permit an applicant to apply for 
up to two consecutive three-year terms for any given PAL available 
during such first application window, for a total of six years. During 
subsequent regular application windows, only the next three-year 
license term will be made available for any given PAL. If sufficient 
interest is expressed by prospective Priority Access Licensees, we will 
also open interim filing windows for unassigned PALs, in which case any 
newly auctioned PAL term will expire at the end of the three-year 
period associated with previously auctioned PALs, so that all PALs will 
be made available for bidding in the next regular window. This practice 
will avoid staggered PAL terms.
    Among our goals in this proceeding is to promote more efficient 
wireless network architectures and innovative approaches to spectrum 
management. To this end, we identified the 3.5 GHz Band as ``an ideal 
`innovation band,' well suited to exploring the next generation of 
shared spectrum technologies, to drive greater productivity and 
efficiency in spectrum use.'' In our view, the flexibility inherent in 
shorter license terms should allow for a wider variety of innovative 
uses in the band and encourage efficient use of scare spectrum 
resources. Commenters in this proceeding, however, hold widely varying 
views on the appropriate license terms for PALs. While some commenters 
support our initial proposal for one-year terms, many others argue that 
longer license terms will best spur investment in this repurposed band.
    We believe that three-year non-renewable license terms--with the 
ability to aggregate up to six years up-front--strike a balance between 
some commenters' desire for flexibility with other commenters' need for 
certainty. This belief is consistent with our goal of creating greater 
opportunities for new and innovative uses to secure the priority 
benefits associated with PAL licenses governed by the mandates of 
Section 309(j) described above. As recognized by OTI/PK, shorter, non-
renewable licenses ``will promote deployments by a wide range of 
service providers.'' Further, OTI/PK reasons that the cost of such 
short duration licenses covering small geographic areas ``will 
dramatically lower the barriers to entry for innovation and competition 
in the band.'' At the same time, we acknowledge that a license term 
longer than one year ``will foster more robust deployment and 
strengthen innovation.'' We believe our rule appropriately addresses 
the competing public interest concerns expressed in the record.
    We believe that, as part of the overall set of rules established 
for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, time-limited PAL terms will 
promote investment by traditional and non-traditional providers of 
wireless broadband service. We are not persuaded by arguments put forth 
by AT&T, T-Mobile, and others that non-renewable PALs will diminish 
investment in the band. Several considerations jointly and severally 
weigh in this determination. In our view, these considerations 
applicable to the 3.5 GHz Band do not support traditional 
justifications for renewal expectancies appropriate in exclusively 
licensed bands.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Such justifications include: (1) Rewarding proven 
performance over much longer license terms; (2) encouraging 
investment; or (3) avoiding haphazard restructuring of the industry. 
See generally Central Florida Enterprises, Inc. v. FCC, 683 F.3d 
503, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, we expect that Citizens Broadband Radio Service users will 
have similar incentives to invest under the GAA rules as unlicensed 
users in other bands. Ample experience with tens of millions of 
unlicensed wireless devices deployed under our non-exclusive Part 15 
rules demonstrates that significant investment can occur under a non-
exclusive use authorization. Moreover, unlike the traditional exclusive 
licensing regime in which the Commission has established renewal 
expectancies, even a PAL licensee who does not obtain PAL rights for 
the succeeding three-year term retains the ability to use the same 
equipment in the same area as a GAA licensee. The investment is thus 
not stranded. In this context, PALs simply provide additional economic 
incentives, over and above GAA authorizations, for those users seeking 
greater interference protection in specific locations for a specific 
three-year period.
    Second, return-on-investment determinations for PALs in the 3.5 GHz 
Band likely involve a lower cost hurdle than in other bands permitting 
higher-power transmissions. The economics and upgrade cycles for the 
(predominant) small cell use case, applied in the context of census 
tract license areas over three-year license terms, may resemble those 
for enterprise and carrier Wi-Fi deployments rather than traditional 
macro cell deployments common to other bands.
    Third, where a prospective user of the band does require a PAL as a 
predicate to investment, our rules do permit the user to bid for and 
acquire, as a

[[Page 36179]]

condition to its investment, at the time of the initial PAL auctions, 
two successive three-year licenses. A Priority Access Licensee would 
also have subsequent opportunities to participate in auctions assigning 
PALs for subsequent three-year terms, or secondary market transactions. 
Moreover, the non-fixed frequency assignment model and band-wide 
equipment operability rule we adopt herein increase the 
substitutability of PALs in a given area. This model also substantially 
reduces the risk to a Priority Access Licensee of not winning a 
comparable license in a subsequent auction. Additionally, it is 
possible that a Priority Access Licensee with a proven business case 
that depends on access to Priority Access tier channels could value a 
subsequent PAL in the same license area more highly than a new entrant 
in that area, further increasing the incumbent's odds of winning a new 
PAL.\10\ In a service in which we have determined to permit shared 
(albeit prioritized) uses of the same technology, it seems more 
appropriate to tie prioritized use to the ongoing desire to pay for it 
at auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We recognize that a new entrant using new technologies or 
business practices may outbid an incumbent Priority Access Licensee. 
Such an instance is precisely when it makes economic sense for a new 
licensee to replace the old. Moreover, we believe that combining 
term-limited PALs with the kind of renewal expectancy traditionally 
awarded to commercial wireless licenses (with longer terms and 
higher capital costs) would not be consistent with our statutory 
responsibility to promote ``efficient and intensive use of the 
electromagnetic spectrum.'' 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, industry structure may adapt in ways that obviate any 
remaining perceived risks associated with term-limited licensing in 
this band. For example, ``neutral host'' business models common to the 
distributed antenna systems (DAS) industry may also apply to small cell 
networks operating in the 3.5 GHz Band. A venue network operator (e.g., 
an enterprise, facilities owner, or their agent) could install small 
cell equipment and provide service directly or pursuant to agreements 
with several different wireless carriers. In this situation, this venue 
operator may be the lowest-cost provider of service, as it brings to 
the table some of the key inputs (mounting points, backhaul, etc.) and 
the ability to coordinate network sharing inside its facility (which 
further reduces costs). A venue operator inhabiting the underlying real 
estate will therefore likely be a party to any provision of small cell 
service in the area. As a consequence, it has incentives to invest in 
network infrastructure regardless of who holds the local PALs at any 
given time.
    For similar reasons, we believe our rules prescribing three-year, 
non-renewable license terms for PALs, coupled with the absence of a 
renewal expectancy, will operate in combination with our rules 
permitting opportunistic GAA use and the relatively inexpensive 
deployment costs in this band to ensure that winning bidders for PAL 
licenses at auction will have sufficient incentive to deliver service 
so as to avoid the need for prescribing any further performance 
requirements. Bidders who purchase PALs at auction will likely have an 
interest in putting the spectrum into productive use.
3. Spectrum Aggregation Limits
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed to allow licensees to hold up 
to three out of an anticipated five PALs in one census tract at one 
time (i.e., 30 megahertz in one census tract at any time). We indicated 
that, given the unique circumstances of this band, a specific 
aggregation limit applicable to all PAL licensees would promote access 
to the band.
    Several commenters advocate for the adoption of a spectrum 
aggregation limit on the number of PALs that can be held in each 
license area. WISPA and Cantor Telecom support the proposed limit of 30 
megahertz of PALs in each license area, with caveats. Motorola Mobility 
suggests that the actual cap should be the larger of either the 30 
megahertz fixed limit or a percentage of Priority Access spectrum, such 
as 55 percent. PISC, Sony Electronics, and Motorola Solutions contend 
that a 20 megahertz limit on PALs would be more appropriate to allow 
future entrants and new competitors to enter the marketplace.
    Verizon Wireless and AT&T oppose any cap on Priority Access channel 
aggregation. Verizon argues that adopting a spectrum cap will harm 
consumers by impeding the development and deployment of innovative 
services in the 3.5 GHz Band, particularly given that providers require 
large contiguous blocks of spectrum to deliver broadband service. AT&T 
also claims that the Commission has not identified any public interest 
harm associated with allowing licensees to aggregate as much spectrum 
as they require.
    Discussion. In this Report and Order, we adopt an aggregation 
limit, as proposed, but increase the limit to allow licensees to hold 
no more than four PALs in one census tract at one time (i.e., 40 
megahertz out of 70 megahertz allocated to PALs in one census tract at 
any time). We find that, on balance, the potential public interest 
benefits of adopting a limitation on the aggregation of PALs outweigh 
the potential public interest harms of such limits.\11\ In particular, 
we conclude that a limit of 40 out of the maximum of 70 megahertz of 
PALs that may be available in each license area will facilitate 
competition, innovation, and the efficient use of the 3.5 GHz Band, 
ensuring that it is assigned in a manner that serves the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ While we adopt a band-specific limit on the aggregation of 
PALs, we do not find that PALs are suitable and available for the 
provision of mobile telephony/broadband services in the same manner 
as other spectrum bands that currently are included in the 
Commission's spectrum screen as applied to secondary market 
transactions. See Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings 
Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 
Through Incentive Auctions, WT Docket No. 12-269, GN Docket No. 12-
268, Report and Order, 79 FR 39977 (July 11, 2014) (``Mobile 
Spectrum Holdings Report and Order''). We make this finding based on 
the combination of the unique characteristics of this band--multiple 
tiers of many users including Federal incumbents, sophisticated 
rules for sharing that include dynamic access for PALs, the short 
license terms and very small license areas for PALs, and the range 
of technologies and heterogeneous business models that may operate 
in this environment. Accordingly, we do not include 3.5 GHz spectrum 
in the spectrum screen, and we will not evaluate secondary market 
acquisitions of this spectrum relative to existing holdings of other 
spectrum bands included in the screen.
    \12\ Section 309(j)(3) of the Communications Act provides that, 
in designing systems of competitive bidding, the Commission must 
``include safeguards to protect the public interest in the use of 
the spectrum,'' and must seek to promote various objectives, 
including ``promoting economic opportunity and competition and 
ensuring that new and innovative technologies are readily accessible 
to the American people by avoiding excessive concentration of 
licenses and by disseminating licenses among a wide variety of 
applicants,'' and promoting the ``efficient and intensive use'' of 
spectrum. 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We evaluate the potential benefits and costs of a spectrum 
aggregation limit in the context of the licensing framework that we 
adopt for the 3.5 GHz Band, which would make available up to 80 
megahertz of GAA spectrum when PALs are assigned and accordingly, up to 
70 megahertz of PAL spectrum. In considering whether to adopt a mobile 
spectrum holdings limit for the licensing of a particular band through 
competitive bidding, as well as what type of limit to apply, the 
Commission assesses how such a limit would likely affect the quality of 
communications services or result in the provision of new or additional 
services to consumers. In its consideration, the Commission evaluates 
whether the public interest could potentially be negatively affected if 
multiple licensees would not have access to sufficient spectrum to be 
able to compete

[[Page 36180]]

robustly.\13\ The framework adopted in this Report and Order is 
designed to facilitate spectrum sharing and innovation in an 
environment with many tiers of users, including commercial and private 
users with heterogeneous business models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This evaluation is based on several factors, including, but 
not limited to, the total amount of spectrum to be assigned, the 
extent to which competitors have opportunities to gain access to 
alternative bands that would serve the same purpose as the spectrum 
licenses at issue, the characteristics of the spectrum to be 
assigned, the timing of when the spectrum could be used, and the 
specific rights being granted to licensees of the spectrum. See 
Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A spectrum aggregation limit of 40 megahertz will ensure 
availability of PAL spectrum to at least two users in those geographic 
areas where there is the greatest likelihood of high demand for such 
spectrum. We recognize that in geographic areas where PALs are issued, 
multiple users may wish to try out different business models or 
technologies in this unique and highly innovative marketplace. And 
while the census tracts used to license PALs are small by comparison to 
most commercial wireless license areas in other bands, multiple small 
cell users may want to pursue different business models in census 
tracts covering densely populated areas or areas with significant 
commercial activity. Allowing one licensee to acquire all seven PALs 
would limit choices to users interested in applications that would 
benefit from PAL access. Given the many potential scenarios and the 
nature of demand for PALs, as described, we believe the spectrum 
aggregation limit is appropriate, as it will likely foster competition 
and innovation in both PAL and GAA uses.
    This spectrum aggregation limit provides a minimum degree of 
diversity among commercial and private users that likely will be 
operating in this band. Such diversity is important to encourage 
innovation in technologies and business models that include access to 
shared spectrum in a multi-user environment. The 3.5 GHz Band will 
provide a very significant opportunity for the development of 
innovative approaches to spectrum sharing. We believe that some of the 
resulting business models and technologies developed in the 3.5 GHz 
Band may well lead to positive spillovers in the development of other 
spectrum bands in the future.
    We anticipate that the potential costs of such a spectrum 
aggregation limit will be low. We disagree with AT&T and Verizon 
Wireless that such a limitation will impede the development of 
innovative services to consumers. On the contrary, as explained above, 
we believe this spectrum aggregation limit will promote competition and 
innovation by ensuring at least two parties have access to PALs in 
those areas where sophisticated approaches to sharing are most needed 
and most likely to develop. In addition, we note that, in Census tracts 
where seven PALs are issued, one entity would have access to up to 40 
megahertz of PAL spectrum, as well as up to 80 megahertz of GAA 
spectrum--or 120 megahertz out of the total of 150 megahertz of 
spectrum available in the 3.5 GHz Band. Under these circumstances, we 
find it unlikely that this spectrum aggregation limit would curtail 
potential business models and use cases in the band. We also disagree 
with those commenters who suggest a smaller aggregation limit, such as 
20 megahertz as opposed to 40 megahertz, due primarily to the nascent 
state of the marketplace and the need in these circumstances to balance 
the foregoing goals against the potential benefits of developing 
innovative services with larger contiguous blocks. For all the reasons 
discussed, the 40 megahertz limit strikes the appropriate balance 
between ensuring a diversity of users and allowing for applications 
that require larger blocks of spectrum.
4. Competitive Bidding Procedures
    Under the licensing scheme we adopt, PALs will be assigned by 
competitive bidding. The geographic area licensing approach we adopt 
for PALs will permit the filing and acceptance of mutually exclusive 
applications, which we are required to resolve through competitive 
bidding. Thus, as detailed below, we adopt rules to govern the use of a 
competitive bidding process for assigning PALs in the 3550-3650 MHz 
band.
    We will conduct any auction of PALs in the 3550-3650 MHz band in 
conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in part 
1, subpart Q of the Commission's rules (47 CFR part 1, subpart Q), and 
substantially consistent with the competitive bidding procedures that 
have been employed in previous auctions, except as otherwise provided 
in this Report and Order. Below, we explain that PALs will be assigned 
through competitive bidding only where we receive multiple competing 
applications in a geographic area that seek PALs that exceed the 
available supply. If PAL applicants for a specific geographic area do 
not seek PALs that exceed the available supply, we will not assign any 
PALs in that license area. Instead, we will cancel the auction with 
respect to that license area and the spectrum will remain available for 
GAA use under our license-by-rule framework until the next application 
filing window for PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band is opened either for 
unassigned PALs or otherwise in advance of the expiration of the prior 
three-year license term.
    We also discuss in this Section our decision not to offer bidding 
credits to small businesses or Critical Infrastructure Industry (CII) 
entities due to the unique characteristics and nature of the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service. In addition, we discuss our public notice 
process by which we will develop the auction design and procedures for 
an auction of PALs.
a. PAL Applications Subject to Competitive Bidding
    Background. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed a license-by-rule 
framework for assigning licenses in the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service, including the Priority Access tier. The Commission suggested 
that a license-by-rule licensing framework would allow rapid deployment 
of small cells by a wide range of users, including consumers, 
enterprises, and service providers, at low cost and with minimal 
barriers to entry. Commenters were divided on whether a license-by-rule 
regime was appropriate for PALs.
    Under the Revised Framework outlined in the Commission's Licensing 
PN, and in response to many comments, we proposed to open eligibility 
for PALs for flexible use, beyond only ``mission critical'' uses. We 
sought comment on ``approaches to spectrum assignment and auction that 
could be used to productively manage use of the Priority Access tier 
while allowing SAS authorized opportunistic use of the GAA tier as 
described in the NPRM.'' In proposing auctions to assign PALs ``where 
there are mutually exclusive applications pending,'' the Commission 
sought comment on its proposed auction and licensing mechanisms, 
including their economic and technical viability, and in particular on 
whether its approach ``[w]ould . . . properly incentivize targeted use 
of the Priority Access tier by a diverse group of users,'' as well as 
on alternative licensing and authorization mechanisms.
    In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed to open an application window 
for PALs annually, with each PAL authorized at the census tract level. 
This approach would permit the filing and acceptance of mutually 
exclusive applications for PALs and would require the Commission ``to 
resolve such applications through competitive bidding consistent with 
the mandate of

[[Page 36181]]

Section 309(j) of the Communications Act.'' The FNPRM proposed that 
``[c]onsistent with the Commission's approach in other spectrum 
auctions, mutual exclusivity would be triggered when more applications 
are submitted than can be accommodated geographically, temporally, and 
spectrally.''
    AT&T, PISC, Wireless Innovation Forum, and WISPA agree that if the 
Commission adopts its geographic area licenses for the Priority Access 
tier, it would have to resolve mutually exclusive applications through 
competitive bidding. Google argues that the Commission can avoid mutual 
exclusivity in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service band by limiting 
the number of PAL licenses available in the relevant geographic area, 
giving priority to spectrally efficient operators, and SAS-based 
interference avoidance could minimize mutually exclusive applications.
    A number of utilities oppose the Commission's proposal to adopt a 
licensing scheme that could result in mutually exclusive applications 
for PALs. Several utilities express concern that CII entities have not 
been successful at competing with commercial carriers for spectrum. 
UTC/EEI said that its members are concerned about the ``cost and 
difficulty of competing with commercial carriers for Priority Access 
Licenses.'' They also express concern about the uncertainty of PAL 
renewals year-to-year, potential interference to GAA operations, and 
interference with utilities' incumbent systems. ENTELEC suggested that 
the Commission utilize a lottery-based system should ``two or more 
applicants file applications on the same day and request the same PAL 
frequency block.''
    Discussion. The Communications Act, as amended, requires the 
Commission to use competitive bidding to assign licenses when 
``mutually exclusive applications are accepted for any initial 
license,'' subject to specified exemptions not applicable here (47 
U.S.C. 309(j)(1)-(2), (j)(6)(e)). Section 309(j)(1) provides the 
Commission with the obligation to conduct competitive bidding when all 
applicants to participate in bidding on particular licenses cannot be 
granted the subject licenses because at the time of application 
submission, the applicants seek the same license or different licenses 
that would interfere with each other (Benkelman Tel. Co. v. FCC, 110 
F.3d 601, 603 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2000)), or when the requests for 
interchangeable channels exceed the available supply. The Commission 
has such authority irrespective of whether each of the parties applying 
to bid for a license subsequently bids for the subject license (See 
Benkelman Tel. Co., 220 F.3d at 605-606).
    As an initial matter, we disagree with ENTELEC's proposal to 
utilize a simple lottery-based system to resolve mutually exclusive 
applications. This would violate the Commission's mandate under the 
Communications Act. Nor do we believe that the public interest will be 
served by avoiding mutual exclusivity in the manner advocated by 
Google.
    In awarding initial PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band, when multiple 
applicants select to bid on more licenses than are available in a 
geographic area, we find that mutual exclusivity exists (See Benkelman 
Tel. Co., 220 F.3d at 605-606). When the mutually exclusive 
applications are accepted the Commission will, consistent with its 
statutory authority, assign the licenses through competitive bidding. 
Consistent with previous spectrum auctions, mutual exclusivity will be 
determined based upon the Commission's acceptance of competing 
applications. Also consistent with our previous spectrum auctions, 
applicants to participate in an auction of PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band, 
will have an opportunity to select across some or all of the available 
license areas the lesser of the maximum number of PALs that may be 
available in a license area or the maximum number or PALs they are 
permitted to hold in a license area under our spectrum aggregation 
limit. Once mutual exclusivity has been established by competing 
accepted applications seeking to acquire more PALs than are available 
in a particular geographic area, the PALs in that area will be assigned 
by competitive bidding, without regard to the number of applicants that 
ultimately decide to bid or the actual number of PALs for which they 
place bids.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See DIRECTV, 110 F.3d at 827-28. Although our determination 
that mutual exclusivity exists within a particular geographic area 
will not be based on the number of applicants for PALs in that area, 
because we adopt an aggregation limit that allows licensees to hold 
no more than four PALs (i.e., 40 megahertz) in one census tract at 
one time, see supra Section III.C.2.a, this necessarily means that 
for mutual exclusivity to exist we will have accepted at least two 
applications for PALs in a given census tract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this approach, when there are two or more applicants for PALs 
in a given census tract for a specific auction, we will make available 
one less PAL than the total number of PALs in that tract for which all 
applicants have applied, up to a maximum of seven. Determining 
availability in this way is in the public interest because it promotes 
the underlying principle for this band that while GAA should be easy to 
access and sufficient for many applications in this service, PALs 
should be available for applications that require greater certainty as 
to interference protection because they would suffer in a congested use 
environment. We therefore conclude that we should make available one 
less PAL, up to a maximum of seven, than the total selected by two or 
more applicants to assure that our licensing scheme for PALs meets the 
needs of such potential users.
    Because of the ``generic'' nature of PAL frequency assignments, 
when total PAL applications exceed the PAL bandwidth available in a 
license area, PAL applications are mutually exclusive because granting 
one application would create conflict with another application. This 
will assure that there is mutual exclusivity between any two 
applications in the same license area and enable us to assign PALs by 
competitive bidding. As we explain further below, we conclude that 
assigning PAL licenses in the 3.5 GHz Band on a non-auctioned basis 
would not result in as efficient an assignment of the spectrum as 
licensing the spectrum for shared GAA use. However, by reducing the 
available PAL inventory when there are competing demands for less than 
the maximum number of PALs, interested applicants may bid for PALs to 
ensure access to exclusive usage rights. In contrast, when there is 
only one applicant for one or more PALs in a given census tract, we 
will neither proceed to an auction nor assign any PAL for that license 
area.
    This determination is consistent with Commission precedent. In 
establishing its competitive bidding rules in 1994, the Commission 
recognized that the Act does not permit the award of initial licenses 
through competitive bidding in the absence of mutually exclusive 
applications (See Competitive Bidding Second Report and Order, 59 FR 
22980, May 4, 1994). Thus, if the Commission receives only one 
application acceptable for filing with respect to a particular license, 
``mutual exclusivity would be lacking and the Commission would be 
prohibited from using competitive bidding to award the license.'' The 
Commission noted that to handle such situations it ``[g]enerally'' 
would intend to adopt procedures for conducting auctions that provided 
in such a situation for ``cancelling [of] the auction for this license 
and establishing a date for the filing of a long-form application [by 
the lone applicant], the acceptance of which would trigger the relevant 
procedures permitting petitions to

[[Page 36182]]

deny.'' However, it noted that the Commission ``may decide in the 
future to alter some or all of the procedures'' detailed therein, ``or 
to tailor them to specific service rules, after we have had an 
opportunity to assess their effectiveness.''
    Additionally, we conclude that, with respect to Priority Access 
licensing, where there is only a single applicant seeking PALs in a 
geographic area, and therefore no mutual exclusivity (and hence we have 
no auction authority), the best way to discharge our statutory mandate 
to ``encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public 
interest (47 U.S.C. 303(g))'' is to provide access to such spectrum via 
shared GAA use. If we do not accept competing applications seeking in 
total more PALs than the number of PALs available in a particular 
geographic area, we will not assign any PAL for that license area. 
Instead, we will cancel the auction with respect to that geographic 
area and allow the spectrum to remain accessible solely for shared GAA 
use under a license-by-rule framework until the next filing window for 
competitive bidding of PALs.
    While we could issue PALs for these areas on a non-auctioned basis, 
we conclude that doing so in this band would not result in as efficient 
an assignment of the spectrum as licensing the spectrum for shared GAA 
use. Given the fact of more than 74,000 census tracts throughout the 
country, we believe there is a substantial likelihood that in many of 
these areas, at least initially, there would not be applicants for more 
than seven PALs--thereby precluding mutual exclusivity for these 
initial licenses. Because it does not appear that the incidence of 
areas without mutually exclusive applications under the approach we 
describe above for the 3.5 GHz Band will be isolated events, we predict 
that licensing at most a handful of PAL licenses would likely have the 
widespread effect of substantially restricting extensive deployment of 
a wide range of innovative GAA uses in the 70 megahertz reserved for 
PALs.
    We do not believe that using a ``first come, first served 
giveaway'' (See Kay v. FCC, 393 F.3d 1339, 1344 (D.C. Cir. 2005) as a 
licensing mechanism in this scenario would ensure the most efficient 
and intensive use of the spectrum, or be consistent with the goals 
served by more extensive GAA use as demonstrated by the record. The 3.5 
GHz Band is designed to allow new, innovative operations access to 
flexible, fungible spectrum. The small cell deployment envisioned for 
the 3.5 GHz Band should enable tremendous spatial reuse and coexistence 
among users. The small license size will allow for targeting of network 
deployments, with GAA users able to coordinate actual use of the 
spectrum through the SAS. In areas where genuine local scarcity exists, 
interested applicants may apply for PALs to ensure access to exclusive 
usage rights. This reliance on economic incentives, and not performance 
requirements, will prevent spectrum warehousing and ensure continued 
innovation. By ensuring widespread GAA use of any spectrum for which we 
have not received mutually exclusive PAL applications, we ensure that 
the spectrum will be put to a use for which we have identified a clear 
public interest need, including by those who have filed PAL 
applications as well as others.
    At the same time, we note that the determination of mutual 
exclusivity of PAL applications is not a one-time event for this band. 
Because PALs are licensed for three-year, non-renewable terms, we will 
periodically open application windows for new PALs that take effect 
upon expiration of previously assigned PALs. Additionally, if 
sufficient interest is expressed by prospective PAL users, we will open 
interim filing windows to accept applications for unassigned PALs, 
i.e., PALs that could be made available for auction, before the 
expiration of an ongoing three-year PAL term. In the pre-auction public 
notice process by which the Commission first seeks comment on and 
subsequently announces the procedures for the first auction of PALs in 
the 3.5 GHz Band, we will consider the process by which we will 
determine whether there is sufficient interest by prospective Priority 
Access Licensees in participating in an interim auction of PALs prior 
to expiration of an ongoing three-year PAL term. These procedures are 
designed to ensure that we continue to provide opportunities to satisfy 
any further demand for higher priority PAL use as the 3.5 GHz Band 
service matures.
    In accordance with Section 309(j), we have established an auction 
process that promotes ``efficient and intensive use'' of this spectrum 
and the ``development and rapid deployment of new technologies, 
products, and services for the benefit of the public, including those 
residing in rural areas,'' that ``recover[s] for the public . . . a 
portion of the value of the public spectrum resource made available for 
commercial use, and achieves the other goals of the statute described 
above (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3), 309(j)(4)). Providing for both GAA and PAL 
operations allows the Commission to create a band ``well suited to 
exploring the next generation of shared spectrum technologies, to drive 
greater productivity and efficiency in spectrum use.
    Our licensing approach to address any absence of mutually exclusive 
applications is supported by the commenters urging greater reliance on 
shared use in the particular circumstances of this 3.5 GHz Band. We 
have employed shared use rather than exclusive licensing as a spectrum 
management approach in other services where appropriate, both licensed 
and unlicensed, even without any initial reliance on a competitive 
bidding mechanism for assignments from among mutually exclusive 
applicants. Accordingly, we exercise our established rulemaking 
authority to enable GAA uses of the entire 3.5 GHz Band in any census 
tract where we are unable to use our auction authority to issue PAL 
licenses from among mutually exclusive applicants.\15\ Nothing in the 
auction provisions of the Communications Act was intended to affect 
this broad spectrum management authority (See 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(6)(A), 
(B), (C), (E)), particularly where we conclude our licensing approach 
will best serve the public interest. We conclude that our decision best 
accords with the Communications Act, as amended, while still affording 
the flexibility needed for the three-tiered spectrum sharing framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 47 U.S.C. 307; 47 CFR 1.945. The Commission is also not 
precluded ``from establishing threshold standards to identify 
qualified applicants.'' Hispanic Information & Telecommunications 
Network, Inc. v. FCC, 865 F.2d 1289, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1989). See also 
United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192, 202, 205 
(1956).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules
    Background. For those mutually exclusive applications that will be 
subject to competitive bidding, the Commission proposed to employ its 
general competitive bidding rules to conduct an auction of PALs in the 
3.5 GHz Band. Commenters generally support the Commission's proposed 
use of its general competitive bidding rules. WISPA supports our 
proposal to adopt our general competitive bidding rules. AT&T cautions 
that the Commission's traditional auction framework ``may not be 
appropriate with respect to PALs.'' AT&T warns that the Commission's 
Section 1.2105(c) prohibited communications rule would be inappropriate 
due to the ``high-volume of auction activity on a regular basis.'' 
Other commenters express views on topics that are generally considered 
after

[[Page 36183]]

the adoption of service rules, during the pre-auction process for 
establishing procedures for conducting a PAL auction. For example, some 
parties state their positions on auction design and the use of package 
bidding for any auction of PALs, with some in favor and some opposed. 
Likewise, other commenters recommend that the Commission make certain 
changes to its auction procedures concerning payment and default 
issues.
    Discussion. Except as noted below, we adopt our proposal to conduct 
any auction of PALs in conformity with the general competitive bidding 
rules in part 1, subpart Q, including any modifications that the 
Commission may adopt for its Part 1 general competitive bidding rules 
in the future. We believe that the Commission's general competitive 
bidding rules are suitable to conduct auction of PALs. These rules have 
proven successful in previous spectrum auctions, and will enable the 
Commission to meet its goals for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
    We proposed to apply any future modifications made to the part 1 
general competitive bidding rules to an auction of PALs in the 3.5 GHz 
Band. We received no comment on this proposal. Specifically, we noted 
the Commission's proposal, in the Broadcast Incentive Auction 
proceeding, to revise the list of auction design options in Section 
1.2103 of the competitive bidding rules. The Commission has since 
adopted its proposed revisions in the Broadcast Incentive Auction 
Report & Order (80 FR 19661, April 13, 2015), which provide for the 
establishment of specific auction procedures governing bid collection, 
assignment of winning bids, and the determination of payment amounts in 
spectrum license auctions, and these provisions will be generally 
applicable as we consider procedures for future spectrum auctions, 
including auctions of PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band. The Commission also 
adopted its proposed amendments to Section 1.2104, which permit the 
Commission to establish stopping rules in order to terminate multiple 
round auctions within a reasonable time and in accordance with the 
goals, statutory requirements, and rules for the incentive auction, 
including the reserve price or prices. In the absence of comments 
establishing a record, we do not adopt any additional revisions to 
Sections 1.2103 or 1.2104. Our decision to conduct competitive bidding 
for PALs subject to the Commission's most current Part 1 rules, 
including any modifications that the Commission may adopt in the 
future, will ensure that the rules applied to auctions of licenses in 
the 3.5 GHz Band are up-to-date and will avoid uncertainty for 
prospective applicants if changes are made to the part 1 competitive 
bidding rules.
    We nonetheless recognize that the Commission could greatly benefit 
from a more fully developed record regarding limited rule revisions 
that may be necessary to accommodate payment, application and default 
issues that are unique to the service rules we adopt for the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service. These issues will therefore be considered in 
the context of the Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking discussed fully 
below.
    Finally, we decline to adopt AT&T's proposal to eliminate the 
Commission's Section 1.2105(c)'s prohibited communications rule in 
auctions for PALs in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. We disagree 
with AT&T's contention that the prohibition would impair secondary 
markets and reduce participation in the 3.5 GHz Band. The plain text of 
the rule makes clear that business discussions and negotiations that 
are unrelated to bids or bidding strategies or to post-auction market 
structure are not prohibited by the rule (47 CFR 1.2105(c)). The rule's 
prohibition has always been aimed at the specific content of an 
applicant's communication to a competing applicant regardless of the 
context or situation in which such content is communicated, and applies 
only during a limited window.
c. Bidding Process Options
    Competitive Bidding Design Options. We solicited comment on a 
number of issues regarding competitive bidding design options for PALs. 
Here too we received limited comment. WISPA proposes a two-step auction 
process. AT&T asked that the Commission clarify its PAL competitive 
bidding rules. Consistent with the Commission's practice in past 
spectrum license auctions, the rules we adopt allow subsequent 
determination of specific final auction procedures. The process will be 
initiated by the release of the Auction Comment PN, which will solicit 
public input on final auction procedures, and which will include 
specific proposals for auction components such as minimum opening bids. 
Thereafter, the Auction Procedures PN will specify final procedures, 
including dates, deadlines, and other final details of the applications 
and bidding processes. We believe the Commission's practice of 
finalizing auction procedures in the pre-auction process provides time 
for interested participants to both comment on the final procedures and 
to develop business plans in advance of the auction (47 U.S.C. 
309(j)(3)). Maintaining flexibility in the implementation of final 
procedures is a prudent approach to assuring that the PAL auction will 
fulfill the goals we have established by this Report and Order.
    Payment, Application and Default Rules. We solicited comment on our 
general competitive bidding rules regarding payments, including upfront 
payments, down and final payments, default and disqualification. We 
received a limited number of comments on these payment issues. 
Federated Wireless proposes a two-step payment process. WISPA asks that 
the Commission ``revise its payment rules to require payment for 
winning bids on an annual basis after the competitive bidding process 
is complete[ ].'' Open Technology Institute at the New America 
Foundation and Public Knowledge argue that payment should be ``due 
annually prior to the license start date and a license would terminate 
automatically if the payment is not made.'' We believe that it is in 
the public interest to develop a more complete record on payment, 
application and default issues.
    Bidding Credits. We solicited comment on the use of bidding credits 
in the 3.5 GHz Band. In the FNPRM, we explained that in authorizing the 
Commission to use competitive bidding, Congress mandated that the 
Commission ``ensure that small businesses, rural telephone companies, 
and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women are given 
the opportunity to participate in the provision of spectrum-based 
services (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(4)(D)).'' We further discussed that one of 
the principal means by which the Commission furthers these statutory 
goals is the award of bidding credits to small businesses.
    For the 3.5 GHz Band, the Commission specifically asked whether the 
flexible and dynamic auction and licensing mechanisms, shorter license 
term, and size of the license area would limit the barriers to 
participate in PAL auctions. Six CII entities filed comments, 
requesting that the Commission provide bidding credits ``for entities 
that would use the spectrum for `mission critical' communications 
systems, such as utilities.'' API also suggests that the Commission 
could ``provide bidding credits to current licensees who demonstrate 
they are using their licenses in the public interest.'' WISPA objects 
to CII-specific bidding credits, arguing that ``[b]idding credits add a 
layer of complexity that would make

[[Page 36184]]

conducting competitive bidding for potentially thousands of census 
blocks much more difficult, especially considering that the Commission 
has proposed one-year license terms.'' Mobile Future opposes 
``restrictive spectrum set-asides and preferential rules including 
bidding credits.'' We also solicited comment regarding bidding credits 
for serving a qualifying tribal land. We received no comment regarding 
tribal land bidding credits.
    We conclude that given the unique characteristics of the service, 
bidding credits are not necessary to ensure the participation by small 
businesses in competitive bidding for PALs. We also conclude that the 
unique characteristics of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service are 
sufficient to promote greater use of the spectrum over tribal lands, 
making bidding credits unnecessary for tribal lands. As we noted in the 
FNPRM, ``the Commission takes into account both the nature of the 
service and the nature of the parties most likely to be interested in 
using the spectrum.'' The Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensing 
scheme is designed to encourage participation from a wide variety of 
users and a broad range of operations. The GAA tier already allows low 
cost access to the 3.5 GHz Band, both in the at least 80 megahertz of 
spectrum in which there is no PAL use, and in the remaining portion of 
the band on an opportunistic basis. While mutually exclusive 
applications for PALs in up to 70 megahertz of the band are subject to 
competitive bidding, the short term of the license and small geographic 
area should work to keep costs affordable to acquire PALs. Because the 
nature of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service already gives designated 
entities the opportunity to access 3.5 GHz spectrum, we will not offer 
small business nor tribal land bidding credits in auctions of PALs. For 
the same reason, we decline to adopt bidding credits for CII entities.
    Commission Notices. In the FNPRM, we proposed to follow our 
established practice of issuing a public notice upon the conclusion of 
a PAL auction declaring the bidding closed and identifying the winning 
bidders. We received no comment on this proposal, and accordingly, we 
will follow this process for notifying auction participants and the 
public of the auction results.
    As noted above, after adoption of all of the necessary service 
rules for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, consistent with the 
Commission's longstanding approach, the Commission will initiate a 
public notice process to solicit public input on certain details of 
auction design and the auction procedures. This public notice will 
address auction-specific matters such as the competitive bidding design 
and mechanisms, minimum opening bids and/or reserve prices, and payment 
procedures. In advance of the auction, the Commission will issue 
another public notice to announce the auction procedures and provide 
detailed instructions for potential auction participants. Because we 
expect the first auction to raise new and novel considerations with 
respect to the auction procedures, we will vote the public notices for 
the initial auction at the Commission level.
    As discussed above, procedures regarding minimum opening bids and 
upfront payments will be announced via the public notice process. In 
determining these amounts, we expect we will have to balance our twin 
objectives of satisfying applicant demand for PALs and the possibility 
of shared GAA use where no PALs are issued. We recognize that this 
balance may vary in different geographic areas. In addition, given the 
very high volume of licenses that will be available in an auction of 
PALs, it may be necessary to implement measures that will allow the 
auction to close within a reasonable time. Therefore, we will consider 
establishing other auction procedures that will encourage targeted 
bidding on specific PAL licenses. To further that objective, we may 
consider various procedures, including, among others, establishing an 
upfront payment process that requires qualified bidders to make upfront 
payments on a license-by-license basis, i.e. for a PAL in a specific 
license area, rather than for general bidding eligibility on any one of 
a set number of PALs. If bidding eligibility is nontransferable to 
other PALs, this would limit a bidder's ability to change the 
geographic area of the PALs for which it bids during the auction. We 
may also consider whether such license-specific upfront payments should 
also serve as an applicant's opening bid for that PAL, constituting a 
binding commitment to purchase the PAL at that price.

D. General Authorized Access

    The GAA-tier is intended to provide a low-cost entry point into the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service for a wide array of users. GAA users 
will have no expectation of interference protection from Incumbent 
Users and other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. Further, GAA 
users must comply with the instructions of the SAS and avoid causing 
harmful interference to Priority Access Licensees and Incumbent Access 
tier users. We believe that GAA availability will promote competition, 
encourage flexible network deployments, and facilitate the efficient 
use of available spectrum. The same technical rules will apply to 
devices operated in both the Priority Access and GAA tiers of service 
to maximize flexible and efficient use of the band. Therefore, as 
discussed below and consistent with the proposals set forth in the NPRM 
and FNPRM, we adopt a license-by-rule authorization framework under 
Section 307 of the Communications Act for GAA users (See 47 U.S.C. 
307(e)(1)).
1. Authorization Methodology
    Background. We proposed to establish the Citizen's Broadband Radio 
Service (including the GAA tier) by rule under Section 307(e) of the 
Communications Act (See 47 U.S.C. 307(e)). We reasoned that a license-
by-rule licensing framework would allow for rapid deployment of small 
cells by a wide range of users, including consumers, enterprises, and 
service providers, at low cost and with minimal barriers to entry. As 
we explained, much wireless broadband use occurs indoors or in other 
enclosed facilities. Typically, the owners or users of such facilities 
already have access to the siting permissions, backhaul facilities, 
electrical power, and other key non-spectrum inputs for the provision 
of service. Moreover, small cell operation in the 3.5 GHz Band would 
generally tend to contain service within such facilities, allowing for 
a high degree of spectrum reuse. Therefore, authorizing these end users 
to have direct access to the 3.5 GHz Band in the physical locations 
that they otherwise are able to access would seem to facilitate 
expeditious and low-cost provision of service. Accordingly, we 
concluded that a license-by-rule framework was very compatible with and 
conducive toward these aims.
    A number of commenters endorsed the license-by-rule approach. The 
Utility Groups, for example, agree that the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service should be licensed by rule. The Utility Groups note that a 
license-by-rule model for this band is consistent with the Commission's 
decision to license the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service by rule 
because both services facilitate the accelerated deployment of mission 
critical services. In addition, UTC notes that the license-by-rule 
model promotes economies of scale, minimizes administrative burdens, 
and provides a unified licensing model in the band. WISPA argues that a 
license-by-rule approach coupled with SAS requirements ``represents an 
evolution

[[Page 36185]]

of ad hoc unlicensed systems where spectrum coordination often occurs 
after deployment, an inefficient and outdated approach for avoiding 
interference.'' The WiMAX Forum states that a license-by-rule approach 
``would streamline deployment as compared to the `light licensing' 
scenario of the current 3650-3700 MHz band.''
    Other commenting parties express a preference for an unlicensed 
(Part 15) framework, rather than the FNPRM's proposed license-by-rule 
framework. AT&T specifically opposes license-by-rule authorizations and 
asserts that the Commission's statutory authority under Section 307(e) 
is narrower than the Commission claims. AT&T argues that the Commission 
should authorize GAA users under Part 15 instead. Microsoft likewise 
argues that an unlicensed regime would facilitate the rapid deployment 
of new technologies in the band ``because of the relatively low 
regulatory barriers to entry and because the technical rules governing 
Part 2 and 15 devices have proven effective in protecting incumbent 
users from interference.'' TIA, by contrast, argues that license-by-
rule and unlicensed approaches are too unpredictable to support the 
Commission's service expectations, as envisioned by the National 
Broadband Plan.
    Discussion. After careful consideration of the record in this 
proceeding, we adopt a licensed-by-rule framework for the GAA tier of 
the new Citizens Broadband Radio Service, pursuant to Section 307(e) of 
the Communications Act, as amended, and subject to applicable technical 
rules. Section 307(e) states in part that, ``[n]otwithstanding any 
license requirement established in this Act, if the Commission 
determines that such authorization serves the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity, the Commission may by rule authorize the 
operation of radio stations without individual licenses in the 
following radio services: (A) citizens band radio service; . . ..'' (47 
U.S.C. 307(e)(1)). Section 307(e) further states that, ``[f]or purposes 
of this subSection, the terms `citizens band radio service' . . . shall 
have the meanings given them by the Commission by rule (47 U.S.C. 
307(e)(3)).''
    We conclude that a license-by-rule framework is the appropriate 
methodology for authorizing users in the 3.5 GHz Band consistent with 
the tiers of service proposed herein. This proposed framework will 
facilitate the rapid deployment of compliant small cell devices while 
minimizing administrative costs and burdens on the public, licensees, 
and the Commission.
    We disagree with AT&T's assertion that the Commission does not have 
authority to license GAA users by rule under Section 307(e) of the 
Communications Act (See 47 U.S.C. 307(e)). As noted above, the Act 
expressly delegates to the Commission the discretion to define the 
scope of the term ``citizens band radio service.'' The Commission has 
repeatedly exercised that authority to license new services by rule 
under Section 307.\16\ Indeed, the Commission has licensed an array of 
beneficial services by rule by defining the Citizens Band Radio 
Services to include the Family Radio Service, the Low Power Radio 
Service, the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service, the Wireless 
Medical Telemetry Service, and the Dedicated Short-Range Communications 
Service On-Board Units.\17\ Accordingly, we establish a new Citizen's 
Broadband Radio Service under Part 96 of the Commission's Rules, and 
define the GAA tier as a Citizens Band Radio Service pursuant to the 
Commission's authority under Sections 307(e)(1) and (e)(3) of the Act 
(47 U.S.C. 307(e)(1) and (e)(3)). We find that the creation of a 
wireless Citizens Broadband Radio Service under the license-by-rule 
framework of Section 307 will serve the public interest, convenience, 
and necessity and is consistent with Commission precedents creating new 
services with flexible assignments for any number of users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 22, 24, 27, 90 and 95 
of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 10-4, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 76 FR 26983 (May 10, 2011); Amendment of Parts 1 and 95 
of the Commission's Rules to Eliminate Individual Station Licenses 
in the Remote Control (R/C) Radio Service and the Citizens Band (CB) 
Radio Service, PR Docket No. 82-799, Report and Order, 48 FR 24884 ] 
25 (1983).
    \17\ See 47 CFR 95.401(a)-(g). While the plain language of 
Section 309(e)(3) provides for such authority, we also note that GAA 
use of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service fits well within the 
category of licenses that are ``granted to virtually any person who 
files an application,'' that are non-exclusive, and for which the 
high cost of licensing so many eligible users is not justified in 
light of the public interest benefits. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-765, 
at 36 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the license-by-rule framework we adopt today, GAA users may 
use only certified, Commission-approved CBSDs and must register with 
the SAS. Consistent with our new rules governing CBSDs, devices 
operating on a GAA basis must provide the SAS with all information 
required by the rules--including operator identification, device 
identification, and geo-location information--upon initial registration 
and as required by the SAS. GAA users must also comply with the 
instructions of the SAS and must avoid causing harmful interference to 
Priority Access Licensees and Incumbent Access tier users. Similar to 
unlicensed operations, GAA users have no expectation of interference 
protection from Incumbent Users and other Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users (See 47 CFR 15.5).
    We decline to adopt an unlicensed regime for this band as suggested 
by certain commenters in the proceeding. Instead, we adopt a primary 
fixed and land mobile allocation across the entire band. A co-primary 
allocation for the entire 3.5 GHz Band will ensure that GAA operations 
are prioritized over existing secondary users in the band. Moreover, 
this authorization framework will serve the public interest, aiding 
enforcement and promoting a more stable and predictable spectral 
environment through affirmative authorization of CBSDs by the SAS. 
Further, authorizing GAA as a licensed radio service will facilitate 
its integration into the broader part 96 framework, including SAS-
governed frequency assignment, and simplify administration and 
oversight of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
2. Contained Access Facilities
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed to allow Contained Access 
Users, such as hospitals, public safety organizations, and local 
governments to request up to 20 megahertz of reserved frequencies from 
the GAA pool for indoor use within their facilities. These frequencies 
would be used only for private internal radio services and could not be 
made available to the general public. Other GAA users would not be 
permitted to utilize the reserved frequencies within designated CAFs. 
We also proposed that Contained Access Users must accept interference 
from GAA transmissions originating outside the CAF and undertake 
reasonable efforts to safeguard against harmful interference from those 
transmissions. Potential Contained Access Users would be required to 
receive approval from the Commission to be eligible to utilize reserved 
frequencies. We sought comment on these proposals.
    Some commenters, including Verizon, Mobile Future, PISC, Wi-Fi 
Alliance, and others oppose the Commission's proposal to set aside 
frequencies for CAF use. Verizon contends that the Commission should 
not ``earmark'' spectrum for a particular class of users. WiMAX Forum 
argues that the Commission's CAF proposal is incompatible with 
SmartGrid technology.
    PISC opposes the Commission's CAF proposal and notes that it could 
have the effect of limiting or eliminating GAA availability in some 
areas. PISC argues

[[Page 36186]]

that, if the Commission wishes to provide exclusive access spectrum to 
critical access facilities, it should assign them finely tailored PALs. 
PISC also argues that, if the Commission does adopt its CAF proposal, 
eligible users should be narrowly tailored to include only ``public 
safety agencies, hospitals, local governments and possibly public 
utilities for only indoor and internal, noncommercial communication in 
support of core public service functions.''
    Other commenters, including Exelon and Interdigital, support the 
proposal. Still others support CAF use in principle with some key 
changes. Microsoft argues that prospective CAF users should be required 
to demonstrate a clear need for exclusive use of frequencies within 
their facilities and qualified applicants should be assigned 
frequencies from the Priority Access spectrum pool. WISPA argues that 
CAF frequencies should be taken from Priority Access channels and not 
GAA frequencies. Motorola Solutions contends that CAFs should be 
permitted for campuses that include outdoor areas and that CAF 
authorizations should be made available on a temporary basis at 
emergency incident scenes. The American Petroleum Institute, UTC, and 
other utility companies also argue that CAFs should include outdoor 
areas.
    Federated Wireless supports the Commission's CAF proposal but urges 
the Commission to expand access to the CAF designation and incorporate 
additional commercial uses into its rules. Specifically, Federated 
suggests that the class of eligible users should be expanded beyond the 
``critical users'' that the Commission proposed. Federated argues that 
the CAF should be defined as any ``any contiguous boundary that 
encompasses both indoor and outdoor locations'' and should include 
additional conditions such as a minimum size requirement. Federated 
suggests 500 square meters. Federated believes that instead of being 
limited to 20 megahertz, a CAF rule should apply to all GAA 
frequencies. Several commenters also opined on the types of entities 
that should be eligible to be CAF users. For instance, the American 
Petroleum Institute, UTC, and others contend that the definition of CAF 
should be clearly defined to include critical infrastructure entities. 
WISPA argues that qualified users should be limited to hospitals, 
utilities, public safety organizations, and local governments.
    Discussion. After review of the record, we decline to adopt the CAF 
proposal. The final rules only allow fixed CBSDs--as opposed to the 
fixed and portable CBSDs proposed in the FNPRM. Thus, there will be 
limited opportunities for Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to 
deploy and utilize CBSDs in indoor areas without the permission of 
facility owners, even without CAFs available. In these circumstances, 
we conclude that the need for additional protection is outweighed by 
the additional costs and burdens of implementing this special priority 
within GAA use. We remain optimistic that the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service can be used support a wide variety of indoor operations, 
including private networks. We will monitor the development of the band 
and we may take action if we believe that such vital use cases are not 
being supported.

E. Regulatory Status

    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed to allow Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users to select whether to provide service on a common 
carrier or non-common carrier basis, regardless of whether they operate 
in the Priority Access tier, GAA tier, or both. Users that elect to 
offer services on a common carrier basis would be required to comply 
with all of the Commission's rules applicable to common carriers. This 
is consistent with our approach in other licensed services. We sought 
comment on this proposal.
    Verizon supports the Commission's proposal. WISPA argues that 
Priority Access Licensees should be permitted to select whether to 
provide service on a common carrier or non-common carrier basis on 
their license applications. However, WISPA contends that GAA users 
should not be permitted to select common carrier status since GAA users 
are not required to file an application and the Commission does not 
have an established process to accept and track submissions by GAA 
users.
    Discussion. After review of the record, we adopt our proposal to 
allow GAA users and Priority Access Licensees to select whether they 
will provide service on a common carrier or non-common carrier basis. 
We agree with Verizon that ``[a]n entity's decision to operate as 
either a Priority Licensee or as a GAA user should not affect how it is 
regulated or the services it can provide.'' Moreover, this approach is 
consistent with Commission precedent in other bands.
    We do not agree with WISPA's contention that GAA users should not 
be permitted to provide common carrier services. We believe that it is 
in the public interest for Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to be 
able to utilize the same equipment interchangeably--in both Priority 
Access and GAA tiers--to provide the same service. Not allowing GAA 
users to provide common carrier service would undercut this 
interchangeability. We believe that any administrative effort needed to 
establish an application process for GAA users wishing to provide 
common carrier services will be far outweighed by the public interest 
benefits of allowing licensees to offer these services.

F. Technical Rules

    We effectuate technical rules for the 3.5 GHz Band that will allow 
for a wide range of usage scenarios, while also encouraging spectral 
efficiency and orderly co-existence with other users of the radio 
spectrum. Our technical rules are the same for devices operating on a 
Priority Access or GAA basis to allow Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users to effectively access both tiers using the same equipment. We 
also observe that the public interest requires us to balance 
opportunities for greater engineering efficiency against other goals. 
For example, we understand that in many cases it may be most efficient 
to define interference protection with respect to aggregations of 
signals received by a protected receiver. At the same time, this type 
of approach raises questions of equity and complexity. While we have 
endeavored to accommodate as much technical flexibility and use-case 
diversity as possible in the initial rules (in some respects, more than 
other ``flexible use'' radio services), we necessarily have had to 
simplify in ways that we believe will accelerate use of the band. We 
recognize that innovation requires iteration. We expect that as the 
band develops, we will occasionally revisit the rules in ways that 
increase the technical flexibility--and therefore the economic 
productivity--of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
1. General Radio Requirements
a. Digital Modulation
    In the FNPRM we proposed that systems operating in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service use digital modulation techniques and sought 
comment on this proposed rule. There was no objection to this proposed 
rule. Digital modulation technology has become an embedded and 
essential component of today's wireless broadband devices. Therefore, 
we adopt the requirement that CBSDs use digital modulation techniques.
b. Emissions and Interference Limits
    Background. In the FNPRM, we sought comment on specific out-of-band 
emission (OOBE) power levels for CBSDs and End User Devices. We

[[Page 36187]]

proposed applying the long-standing OOBE attenuation requirement of 43 
+ 10 log (P) dB (equivalent to -13 dBm/MHz), to all emissions from 
CBSDs and End User Devices outside of any channel assigned by the SAS. 
We also proposed a 30 megahertz transition gap above 3650 MHz and below 
3550 MHz with an OOBE limit of no more than -40 dBm/MHz for emissions 
above 3680 MHz and below 3520 MHz.
    We sought comment on whether the proposed transition gap is in the 
range of existing filter technology and whether the gap could be 
smaller. We also noted in the FNPRM that there has been considerable 
technological advancement in transmitter and receiver technologies 
deployed in the mobile broadband industry over recent years, such that 
more stringent out-of-band emission limits may be practical without 
undue burden to manufacturers and operators.
    In the FNPRM, we noted that a more stringent OOBE limit would 
enable closer proximity of neighboring service operations while still 
protecting the operations of earth stations in the C-Band and DoD 
systems. We sought comment as to whether the OOBE limit at greater 
offsets than 30 megahertz above or below the band edge should be more 
stringent, such as to a level below -50 dBm/MHz, and whether the in-
band emission limits outside of any channel assignment should be more 
stringent (i.e., at a lower power spectral density) than -13 dBm/MHz.
    The record reflects divergent views regarding appropriate OOBE 
limits. Some commenters support the proposed OOBE attenuation 
requirement of 43 + 10 log (P) dB (-13 dBm/MHz) adjacent to and outside 
the band, as well as a 70 + 10 log (P) dB (-40 dBm/MHz) OOBE level 30 
megahertz outside of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service operating 
band. Motorola Mobility supports the overall proposed OOBE limits and 
argues that 10 and 20 megahertz LTE channels should not encounter any 
problems in meeting such limits. Motorola Mobility urges the Commission 
to refrain from adopting any limit more stringent than proposed in the 
FNPRM (e.g., -50 dBm/MHz).
    On the other hand, NSN and AT&T state that the Commission should 
harmonize its OOBE rules with the existing 3GPP standard. NSN points 
out that the use of -40 dBm/MHz at a frequency offset of 30 megahertz 
would not comply with 3GPP TS 36.101 Out-of-Band Emission limits of -25 
dBm/MHz for 10 megahertz channels beyond a 10 megahertz frequency 
offset for End User Devices. According to NSN, this would imply that 
Band 42 and Band 43 user equipment would not be able to operate under 
the emission limits proposed by the Commission. Qualcomm states that 
while NSN's proposal to reuse 3GPP Band 42 and 43 plans is not 
unreasonable, the better path forward would be to define a new 3GPP 
band class for the 3.5 GHz Band because doing so would offer more 
flexibility for purposes of setting OOBE limits. AT&T states that the 
Commission's proposed OOBE rules differ considerably from those for 
other bands used for mobile broadband service. AT&T argues that the 
Commission's proposed OOBE limits are too extreme because, unlike AWS-
4, receivers and transmitters in the 3.5 GHz Band will not be in 
extremely close proximity to one another.
    BLiNQ Networks filed a 3.5 GHz Band co-existence study with a 
proposal to allow higher conducted CBSD transmit power and limit 
adjacent channel leakage by defining a power ratio relative to the 
authorized carrier power. BLiNQ proposes to limit adjacent channel 
power to -30 dBm/MHz beyond 2.5 times the channel bandwidth offset and 
proposes to limit out-of-band emissions outside the 3.5 GHz Band to -40 
dBm/MHz beyond 40 megahertz offset and to -50 dBm/MHz beyond 60 
megahertz offset. BLiNQ presents calculations, for base station radios 
(i.e., CBSDs), of protections distances to C-band earth stations for 
various combinations of propagation path models and OOBE levels, 
resulting in large variations in computed protection distances and poor 
spectrum utilization for worst case assumptions. Importantly, BLiNQ, 
and others, conclude that limiting OOBE is more critical to protecting 
incumbent services, than minimum geographic distance separation to 
limit receiver (low noise block downconverter, or LNB) saturation.
    Google argues that OOBE rules should not adopt a one-size-fits-all 
limit to protect adjacent services from harmful interference. Instead, 
Google states that the rules should recognize that device performance 
may result in lower emissions than the -13 dBm/MHz standard and enable 
SASs to take improved performance into account when determining which 
spectrum is available for a device in a given operating environment. 
NTIA lab measurements of emission spectra for several commercial 
devices that operate within the 3.5 GHz Band demonstrate emission 
performance and OOBE power levels significantly below the levels 
proposed in the FNPRM, and with transition bandwidths narrower than 30 
megahertz to achieve OOBE levels below -40 dBm/MHz
    On the other hand, SIA advocates for significant separation 
distances and OOBE limits to prevent harmful adjacent band 
interference. SIA observes that the Commission's ``choice of `band 
edges' and the frequency ranges in which it proposes to impose a 
stricter OOBE limit (beyond 3550 MHz and 3650 MHz) do not make a great 
deal of sense if the goal is to protect adjacent band FSS earth station 
receivers operating at 3600 MHz and above.'' However, SIA agrees with 
the Commission's observation that ``a more stringent limit would enable 
closer proximity of neighboring service operations.'' SIA presents an 
engineering study by RKF Engineering, including an analysis of the 
required line-of-sight separation distances between a CBSD and an FSS 
earth station as a function of OOBE limit (-13, -40, and -50 dBm/MHz) 
and the earth station off-axis angle. The study shows separation 
distances of tens of kilometers required to control aggregate 
interference with an OOBE limit of -13 dBm/MHz, while the required 
separation distances with a tighter OOBE limit of -50 dBm/MHz are 
between 100 m and 1 km, depending on the off-axis angle to the FSS 
earth station.
    Discussion. After review of the record, we adopt emissions and 
interference limits that will further the Commission's goals and 
promote effective coexistence of different users in the band. 
Specifically, we adopt the following:
     -13 dBm/MHz from 0 to 10 megahertz from the SAS assigned 
channel edge
     -25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz from the SAS assigned 
channel edge down to 3530 MHz and up to 3720 MHz
     -40 dBm/MHz below 3530 MHz and above 3720 MHz

We recognize that these emission limits are more stringent than what we 
proposed in the FNPRM. However, we also observe that these limits are a 
logical extension of multiple proposals in the record, which reflects 
more stringent requirements at greater offsets from the band, and are 
consistent with the capabilities of the equipment and services likely 
to be deployed in this band. Some commenters suggest that the 
Commission should harmonize with the existing 3GPP standards. Industry 
standards typically cover many radio options and variations (e.g., many 
bandwidths, base station types, user equipment types, modulation 
types), resulting in many different OOBE power level specifications. We 
believe that the

[[Page 36188]]

Commission's rules can simultaneously be supportive of such flexible 
and evolving standards, while also being technology neutral, and not 
overly prescriptive.
    We agree with Google that the approach to interference limits and 
service protection should recognize that device performance may exceed 
industry standards and baseline regulations. However, the baseline 
standards and rules must be balanced and sufficiently stringent to 
ensure that spectrum sharing between diverse radio services and license 
types will work. They should also address a wide range of technologies, 
standards, and radio types (e.g., end user devices, access points, 
small cells, base stations, etc.) without being excessively complicated 
or stifling innovation. BLiNQ proposes an adjacent channel leakage 
ratio (ACLR) for first and second adjacent channels. However, BLiNQ's 
proposal appears to only address base station radios and not end-user 
devices. We recognize that end-user device radios may have different 
adjacent channel performance requirements as compared to base station 
requirements in industry standards (e.g., 30-33 dB ACLR for end user 
equipment versus 45 dB ACLR for base stations). However, because we are 
adopting conducted power limits for end-user devices that are similar 
to the rules for CBSD conducted power limits, we can adopt one set of 
OOBE rules to cover both CBSDs and End User Devices thereby avoiding 
adding more complexity to the emission rules.
    Additionally, we must consider the OOBE limits in context of our 
decision to include the 3650-3700 MHz band as part of the 3.5 GHz Band. 
The existing part 90 rules for that band segment specify a -13 dBm/MHz 
OOBE limit above 3700 MHz, while the proposed OOBE limits in the FNPRM 
above 3700 MHz were -40 dBm/MHz.
    As an initial matter, we note that adopting a -13 dBm/MHz OOBE 
limit for the first 10 megahertz beyond the SAS assigned channel edge 
is reasonably supported by industry standards and existing 
technologies, it is consistent with the limits for other Commission 
regulated services, and it is non-controversial among commenters. 
Similarly, based on the NTIA measurements, the 3GPP emission mask for 
user devices and base stations, and the WiMAX spectrum emission mask 
for 10 megahertz bandwidth equipment, we find that an emission limit of 
-25 dBm/MHz at frequency offsets beyond 10 megahertz from the SAS 
assigned channel edge up to 3530 MHz and 3720 MHz is also reasonably 
supported by industry standards and existing technologies. We 
acknowledge that this is more stringent than the proposed limit which 
did not have such an intermediate limit. However, based on our review 
of the record, existing standards, and the NTIA measurements, we 
believe that adopting this limit will allow for greater spectrum 
efficiency through shorter coupling distances and reduced interference 
potential while not having a significant impact on equipment cost.
    We also address the size of the transition gap. While some 
commenters supported the proposed 30 megahertz transition gap from the 
upper edge of an authorized CBSD channel to an out-of-band emission 
limit of -40 dBm/MHz, there would be a significant impact on the 
required separation distance between CBSDs operating just below 3700 
MHz, and C-Band earth station receivers operating between 3700-3730 
MHz, where the higher (-13 dBm/MHz) OOBE limit applied.
    We disagree with AT&T that our proposed OOBE limit is too 
stringent. NTIA measurements show that the OOBE of commercial products 
can be lower than -40 dBm/MHz at offsets higher than 20 megahertz. 
Based on these measurements, we adopt a 20 megahertz transition gap 
instead of our proposed 30 megahertz transition gap. This more 
stringent requirement appears to be practically realizable with 
existing state-of-the-art products at little or no added cost and will 
provide superior protection to FSS and DoD systems as compared to our 
original proposal. We therefore adopt -40 dBm/MHz as the OOBE limit for 
End User Devices and CBSDs, at frequencies above 3720 MHz and below 
3530 MHz. Motorola Mobility argues that larger aggregated channels 
above 20 megahertz up to 40 megahertz in bandwidth may not be possible 
because a 30 megahertz transition gap would be too narrow to meet the -
40 dBm/MHz limit outside of the 3.5 GHz Band. We are not convinced that 
OOBE limits should be raised or the transition gap should be wider, at 
the expense of less spectral efficiency and increased risk of 
interference to incumbent systems.
    Finally, we encourage industry to establish improved emission 
standards and reception performance for both the protection of 
incumbent and future radio services. Improved performance in these 
areas, could allow for denser deployment of CBSDs closer to Incumbent 
Users, and more efficient use of the 3.5 GHz Band.
c. Received Signal Strength Limits
    Background. In the FNPRM, we indicated that the SAS should have a 
baseline threshold for the maximum permitted aggregate signal level 
from all CBSDs at the borders of PALs. We stated that Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users should ensure that the aggregate signal 
level from their CBSDs as well as the aggregate transmissions from 
their associated End User Devices at the edge of their authorized 
service boundaries remain at levels that would not harm other CBSDs in 
the same or adjacent service areas. For small cell networks, industry 
standards and studies have shown, so long as interference rise over 
noise (IoT) remains at or below 20 dB and 55 dB for picocells and 
femtocells, respectively, performance is not impaired. Based on the 
industry studies, and taking into account reasonable distance between 
authorized user operations, we proposed a maximum aggregate signal 
level threshold of -80 dBm with reference to a 0 dBi antenna in any 10 
megahertz bandwidth, at a height of 1.5 meters above the ground level, 
anywhere along the boundary of a PAL license area. Furthermore, we 
proposed a minimum adjacent channel and in-band blocking interference 
threshold not to exceed -30 dBm/10 megahertz with greater than 99% 
probability. We also proposed to allow neighboring PALs to coordinate 
and mutually agree on higher or lower signal level thresholds. We 
sought comment on these proposals.
    Commenters offered a range of positions on what would constitute an 
acceptable signal level at the boundary of each service area. Notably, 
WISPA and Federated Wireless support the Commission's proposal to 
establish a signal strength limit along the borders of individual 
license areas. Motorola Solutions agrees and states that a -80 dBm 
limit would be an acceptable initial starting level. Some commenters 
believe using 3GPP standards for Band 42 and 43 and a reference 
sensitivity limit of -96 dBm over a 10 megahertz channel bandwidth 
would be appropriate. Commenters including AT&T, Motorola Solutions, 
and WISPA agree that, regardless of the maximum signal level set at the 
border, individual licensees should be allowed to agree on alternate 
signal levels appropriate to their network configurations.
    Verizon argues that rather than using a one-size-fits-all 
specification, a multilevel interference framework with different 
regimes (areas, channel sets) for managing the allowed frequency reuse 
density to achieve different IoT targets would advance the Commission's 
objectives. Google contends that a fixed maximum signal level of -80 
dBm along license area boundaries does not reflect actual

[[Page 36189]]

network deployment parameters and could lead to inefficient use of the 
band. It argues that it would be more efficient for the SAS to assign a 
PAL's boundaries based on the actual characteristics of a licensee's 
proposed network equipment, CBSD locations, and the physical 
characteristics of the area where that network will operate. Similarly, 
Wireless Innovation Forum contends that the appropriate signal 
threshold should be network dependent and that a general received 
signal strength limit should be determined by PAL and GAA service 
providers. It contends that a multi-stakeholder working group is the 
proper forum for determining the appropriate maximum signal threshold 
along license area borders.
    With regard to adjacent reception limits, Pierre de Vries, Senior 
Fellow and Co-Director of the Spectrum Policy Initiative at the Silicon 
Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, argues that 
such limits will facilitate productive coexistence among Priority 
Access Licensees, whereby dynamic frequency assignment requires an 
explicit statement of the interference rights and responsibilities of 
receivers. NSN states that systems likely to operate in this band 
should follow the technical specifications of standards bodies such as 
3GPP, and the Commission should not specify minimum receiver standards. 
Motorola Mobility states that receiver limits should be set by 
standards organizations and the adoption of any guidance by the 
Commission should be voluntary. Motorola Mobility also argues that, if 
the Commission concludes that a mandated receiver requirement is 
necessary, it should not be more stringent than 3GPP in-band blocking 
specifications and the Commission should define separate requirements 
for in-band and out-of-band blocking. Pierre De Vries states that -30 
dBm per 10 megahertz is reasonable and conservative, and cites drive 
test field data that suggests that -30 dBm per 10 megahertz, 99th 
percentile, could be lowered by 5 dB or more, leading to more 
operational flexibility for licensees. Furthermore, Motorola Solutions 
believes that -30 dBm per 10 megahertz is too burdensome and implies 
more adjacent channel selectivity than is feasible in typical broadband 
system designs, and would limit CBSD system (weak signal) coverage in 
areas with strong adjacent channel signals. Motorola Solutions 
recommends an interference requirement no higher than -40 dBm per 10 
megahertz if a general fixed interference power spectral density level 
is enforced by rule for adjacent and alternate channels.
    Discussion. After a thorough review of the record, we believe that 
establishing a baseline maximum signal level along license area 
boundaries will help foster effective coexistence in the 3.5 GHz Band. 
We also find that licensees should be permitted to agree to lower or 
higher acceptable maximum signal levels appropriate to their particular 
network configurations. We believe that the aggregate -80 dBm per 10 
megahertz signal threshold at the service boundaries proposed in the 
FNPRM is wholly appropriate for the dense cell deployments and 
relatively small license areas that we expect in this band. Therefore, 
we adopt our proposal for aggregate received signal level at a PAL 
license boundary to be at or below an average (rms) power level of -80 
dBm when integrated over a 10 MHz reference bandwidth with the 
measurement antenna placed at a height of 1.5 meters above ground 
level. We also recognize that the PAL licensees may agree to an 
alternative limit besides -80 dBm at their service boundaries and 
communicate it to an SAS. Moreover, these signal level requirements 
will not apply to adjacent license areas held by the same Priority 
Access Licensee. We recognize that ensuring compliance with this limit 
at the boundary is likely challenging on a real-time basis and there 
are legitimate questions relative to how to develop appropriate 
predictive models. We also recognize that the use of an aggregate 
metric could be challenging in a multi-user environment. We encourage 
any multi-stakeholder group formed to address technical issues raised 
by this proceeding to consider how this limit should be applied. As an 
initial matter, we will apply the limit through measurements at the 
license area boundary at times of peak activity.
    Furthermore, we believe that efficient use of the band by both 
Priority Access Licensees and GAA users requires not only the 
specification of emission limits but also the protection limits that 
should be afforded to PAL receivers, without mandating receiver 
performance specifications. We agree with Pierre de Vries that a 
baseline reception limit lower than -30 dBm per 10 megahertz is 
appropriate and will lead to more operational flexibility to licensees. 
We also agree with Motorola Solutions' recommendation of a threshold no 
higher than -40 dBm per 10 megahertz. Therefore, we adopt the rule that 
Priority Access Licensees must accept adjacent channel and in-band 
blocking from other Priority Access or GAA radios in the band, up to a 
power spectral density level not to exceed -40 dBm per 10 megahertz 
with greater than 99% probability.
    We also acknowledge that licensees may have a legitimate need for 
flexibility in their network deployments, which may not all fit into 
the dense small cell category and therefore may tolerate lower or 
higher levels of interference. It is our policy to encourage technical 
flexibility wherever possible and it is clear from the record that 
several commenters desire such flexibility here. By leveraging the 
capabilities of the SAS, licensees will hopefully be able to reach 
agreement on maximum signal thresholds that will maximize the utility 
of the band, promote spectral reuse, and facilitate efficient network 
planning. As such, we find that holders of geographically and 
spectrally adjacent licenses may mutually consent to different 
thresholds than the mandatory baseline. Such agreements must be 
communicated to an SAS Administrator. The SAS Administrator shall 
enforce these agreements to the extent that such agreements do not 
conflict with its other responsibilities under the rules or cause 
impermissible interference to other Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users of the same or higher tier.
2. CBSD Requirements
a. CBSD Categories and Power Requirements
    Background. In the FNPRM, we defined CBSD categories based on 
multiple use cases. We proposed a baseline maximum conducted power of 
24dBm per 10MHz (Power Spectral Density of 14dBm/MHz) and, maximum EIRP 
of 30dBm for CBSDs. We noted that this proposal was consistent with the 
values commonly assumed in various studies for small cell base 
stations. We also proposed higher power limits for rural CBSDs. 
Specifically, we proposed that rural CBSDs have flexibility to transmit 
a maximum conducted power of 30dBm per 10 megahertz (Power Spectral 
Density of 20dBm/MHz) and EIRP of 47dBm. For purposes of this rule 
part, we proposed that a rural area be defined as a county (or 
equivalent) with a population density of 100 persons per square mile or 
less, based upon the most recently available Census data. The FNPRM 
also proposed a third category of CBSD deployment for fixed point-to-
point (PTP) CBSDs with maximum conducted power not to exceed 30dBm per 
10 MHz (Power Spectral Density of 20dBm/MHz) and EIRP of 53dBm. We also 
indicated that the maximum operational

[[Page 36190]]

EIRP of individual base stations might be reduced by the SAS to prevent 
interference and promote efficient network operation.
    Commenters diverged greatly with regard to the maximum allowable 
power for devices operating in the band, with many supporting variable 
power limits for different use cases. For instance, AT&T, Google, 
Motorola Solutions, and NSN support a 36dBm maximum EIRP for baseline 
CBSDs. CTIA also argues that the power levels proposed in the FNPRM are 
too low for effective small cell deployment. Verizon advocates up to 
46dBm EIRP for baseline CBSDs. Alcatel-Lucent argues for 30dBm maximum 
power for indoor CBSDs and greater than 30dBm for outdoor CBSDs. 
Alcatel-Lucent also contends that for outdoor cells, allowing greater 
than the proposed 30dBm (1W) limit could foster rapid deployment in the 
3.5 GHz Band.
    Sony supports the Commission's proposed maximum power of 30dBm. 
Shure contends that 20dBm EIRP would be sufficient to characterize 
devices with low interference potential.
    NTIA states that 30 dBm per 10 MHz channel maximum EIRP would be 
appropriate for CBSD deployment during the first phase of the proposed 
commercial-federal sharing proposal described in Section III (G) (1). 
In subsequent phases, NTIA indicates that higher power CBSDs could be 
permitted provided that relevant CBSD parameters required to protect 
radar operations at higher power levels are determined through the SAS 
and ESC approval and authorization process.
    For rural CBSD deployments, Qualcomm and Motorola Solutions support 
maximum EIRP of 47dBm and believe the FCC should allow the band to be 
used at higher power levels for cellular deployments away from the 
coast. Along the same lines, Verizon asserts that 58dBm EIRP would be 
appropriate for non-baseline use cases.
    WISPA supports higher power operations in rural areas and argues 
that the Commission should define ``rural area'' in the same manner 
that the Rural Utilities Service defines it for its Community Connect 
program. This definition deems an area ``rural'' if it '' is not 
located within: (i) A city, town, or incorporated area that has a 
population of greater than 20,000 inhabitants; or (ii) An urbanized 
area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town that has a population of 
greater than 50,000 inhabitants.''
    We also received transmit power recommendations from parties who 
would like to utilize the 3.5 GHz Band for point-to-point and point-to-
multipoint services. BLiNQ provided a range of EIRP limits and argued 
that by adopting intermediate power limits between the baseline 30dBm 
EIRP limit and the 53dBm EIRP point-to-point limit, the Commission can 
enable innovative use cases, including non-line-of-sight (NLOS) point-
to-multipoint backhaul. For fixed PTP systems, AT&T and Motorola 
Solutions both advocate for a 53 dBm EIRP allowable power limit.
    Discussion. We believe that it is vitally important to establish 
flexible, yet simple, rules that would allow for a wide variety of 
innovative services to be deployed in the 3.5 GHz Band and we are 
encouraged that many commenters share this view. Ensuring that the band 
is available for multiple use cases should encourage rapid network 
deployment, promote the development of a robust device ecosystem, and 
help to ensure the long-term viability of the band. It is also 
important that we provide interference protection to Incumbent Users 
and Priority Access Licensees. To advance these goals, we define two 
categories of CBSDs. Category A and Category B CBSDs will be defined 
mainly by their maximum conducted power and deployment conditions. Both 
CBSD categories will be available for GAA and Priority Access use (with 
certain caveats, described below). This commonality of technical rules 
throughout the Citizens Broadband Radio Service will ensure that 
equipment can switch between GAA and PA authorizations over time 
without changing network coverage footprint.
    Category A represents a lower-power use (small cells being the 
paradigmatic example) that we expect will be widely prevalent in the 
3.5 GHz Band. Category A CBSDs will be limited to a maximum conducted 
transmit power of 24 dBm and a maximum EIRP of 30 dBm in 10 megahertz, 
but will be required to operate in accordance with instructions from 
the SAS, which for interference prevention reasons, may authorize a 
lower power level (see Sections 96.41 and subpart F of the rules). 
These parameters are consistent with the baseline small cell use case 
proposed in the FNPRM and with NTIA's phased federal-commercial sharing 
plan. We believe that the lower power limit for Category A CBSDs will 
facilitate coordination with existing federal operations--particularly 
before an ESC is developed and made commercially available--while 
allowing Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to deploy a variety of 
small cell applications.
    In addition, to facilitate coordination with neighboring Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users, and to avoid potential interference into 
the incumbent services, Category A CBSDs shall not be deployed or 
operated outdoors with antennas exceeding 6 meters Height above Average 
Terrain. We believe that the majority of Category A devices will likely 
be deployed indoors or at street level. As discussed in greater detail 
below, Category B devices may be used for outdoor uses in other 
configurations such as non-line-of-sight backhaul.
    Category A CBSDs must also provide certain essential information 
about their configuration, location, and operation (e.g., EIRP) when 
registering with an SAS. However, due to their relatively small 
footprint, information about antenna configuration (other than EIRP) 
need not be transmitted to the SAS. Assuming a relatively large number 
of Category A CBSDs, this will simplify frequency coordination in the 
band. Category A CBSDs do not have to be professionally installed. 
However, as described in Section III(F)(2)(b), geo-location data must 
be provided by a professional installer if this information cannot be 
automatically reported by the CBSD. Once registered with an approved 
SAS, Category A CBSDs may operate throughout the entire 3550-3700 MHz 
range, provided they respect protections for Incumbent Users.
    Category B CBSDs will be authorized to operate at higher power than 
Category A, providing greater flexibility and ensuring ongoing 
compatibility with existing 3650-3700 MHz operations. In non-rural 
areas, the conducted power limit is the same as Category A (24 dBm), 
but the EIRP limit is 40 dBm. In rural areas, the conducted power limit 
is increased to 30dBm per 10 MHz and EIRP to 47 dBm EIRP per 10 MHz. As 
implied by the difference between low conducted and higher radiated 
power limits, Category B CBSDs can make use of more directional, 
higher-gain antennas to achieve increased range. Compared to an 
approach that merely specifies a higher EIRP, our rule should promote 
efficient use of the spectrum and facilitate greater coexistence with 
neighboring CBSDs. The higher rural power limits reflect challenges for 
deploying wireless coverage in rural areas as well as decreased 
contention for spectrum resources due to lower population density in 
those areas.
    In order to realize these efficiencies, we require Category B CBSDs 
to provide the SAS with additional information about antenna 
configuration, including the antenna gain, beamwidth, azimuth, downtilt 
angle, and antenna height above ground level. Such information can help 
SASs more accurately estimate

[[Page 36191]]

the signal transmissions from such high power nodes and avoid harmful 
interference. In addition, as described in Section III(F)(2)(b), 
Category B CBSDs will be limited to outdoor deployments and--due to 
their higher maximum transmit power--they are required to be installed 
professionally. Crucially, as discussed below in Section III(G)(1), 
Category B operations in the 3550-3650 MHz band segment will only be 
permitted pursuant to authorization of an appropriately calibrated ESC, 
and consistent with system parameters required to protect federal 
incumbent operations.
    We believe that this approach addresses many of the concerns raised 
by commenters that support higher power operations in the band. 
Commenters supporting higher power CBSDs typically express interest in 
using such devices for outdoor backhaul, coverage, or capacity for 
managed networks. While we acknowledge that some commenters, including 
Alcatel-Lucent, AT&T, BLiNQ, CTIA, and Verizon requested higher maximum 
power levels for outdoor operations than we adopt in this Report and 
Order, we believe that the Category B criteria we adopt will allow a 
wide range of network deployments, including point-to-point and point-
to-multipoint transmissions, while maximizing coexistence between and 
within different tiers of user. Thus, we are not adopting specific 
rules for point-to-point deployments as we proposed. Moreover, these 
criteria are consistent with permissible power levels and deployment 
characteristics in the 3650-3700 MHz band and should allow current 
3650-3700 MHz licensees to continue to provide service within their 
existing network footprints.
    Finally, we agree with WISPA's proposed definition of ``rural 
area.'' Accordingly, for purposes of the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service, ``rural area'' will be defined as any census tract which is 
not located within, or overlapping: (i) A city, town, or incorporated 
area that has a population of greater than 20,000 inhabitants; or (ii) 
an urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town that has a 
population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants. We direct WTB to 
promulgate a machine-readable list of census tracts that meet the 
``rural area'' definition.
    The table below summarizes the main technical and operational 
characteristics of Category A and Category B CBSDs:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum
                                        conducted     Maximum EIRP       Maximum                             Operations in 3550-    Operations in 3650-
           CBSD category              power (dBm/10   (dBm/10 MHz)    conducted PSD    CBSD installations          3650 MHz               3700 MHz
                                          MHz)                          (dBm/MHz)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category A.........................              24              30              14  --Indoor.............  Everywhere Outside     Everywhere Outside
                                                                                     --Outdoor max 6m HAAT   DoD Protection Zone.   FSS and DoD
                                                                                                                                    Protection Zone.
Category B (Non-Rural).............              24              40              14  --Outdoor only.......  Outside DoD            Everywhere Outside
                                                                                     --Professional          Protection Zone &      FSS Protection Zone
                                                                                      Installation.          requires ESC           and DoD Protection
                                                                                                             approval.              Zone.
Category B (Rural).................              30              47              20  --Outdoor only.......  Outside DoD            Everywhere Outside
                                                                                     --Professional          Protection Zone &      FSS Protection Zone
                                                                                      Installation.          requires ESC           and DoD Protection
                                                                                                             approval.              Zone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are cognizant that the determination of power limits must 
reflect consideration of several different public interest objectives 
with respect to the new Citizens Broadband Radio Service. On the one 
hand, higher limits may provide more technical flexibility for users of 
the band to increase coverage with sparser network topologies, 
potentially reducing deployment costs. On the other hand, lower power 
limits may lead to greater spatial reuse of the band, reduced 
coexistence challenges, and increased aggregate network capacity. In 
establishing the power limits herein, we strive to strike a practical 
balance of these different considerations based on the existing record. 
Nonetheless, we remain open to the possibility that we may allow higher 
power limits for Category B non-rural use at a future point in time, 
either through our usual waiver process or through modification of our 
initial rules. In making this consideration, we will place 
consideration on the extent to which demonstrable advances in 
technology, such as advanced SAS coordination capabilities or use of 
contention-based protocols in CBSDs (or both), would mitigate concerns 
about spectrum congestion in urban areas. For example, it might be 
possible that instead of the bright-line urban/rural distinction 
implemented in these initial rules, industry stakeholders (perhaps 
working through a multi-stakeholder forum) could agree on a 
``congestion metric'' and associated methodology for SASs to reduce 
CBSD power levels in high-demand areas. We intend to continue an 
informal dialog with stakeholders on this topic and welcome the 
submission of additional technical analysis or reports of technological 
developments that can inform us going forward.
b. Geo-location and Reporting Capability
    Background. In the FNPRM, we stated that for the SAS to accurately 
predict and evaluate potential interference and channel availability, 
it must receive and store accurate location information for all CBSDs. 
We proposed that all CBSDs must accurately report the location 
coordinates (referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, NAD83) of 
each of their antennas to within 50 meters (horizontal) and 
3 meters (vertical). The proposed horizontal geo-location 
requirement is consistent with a similar requirement in the TVWS rules 
(See 47 CFR 15.711(b)). Such geographic coordinates shall be reported 
to SAS at the time of first activation from a power-off condition. We 
also propose that CBSDs report their location to the SAS within 60 
seconds of a change in location exceeding the accuracy requirement. 
This capability is used by a SAS to determine frequency availability 
and maximum power limits for CBSDs.
    AT&T asserts that the geo-location requirements proposed in the 
FNPRM are not feasible. AT&T suggests that the Commission require that 
CBSDs report their location but defer on specific location accuracy 
requirements until the SAS is developed and agreed upon by a multi-
stakeholder group. T-Mobile also requests that the Commission re-
evaluate the proposals for 50 meters horizontal, 3 meters vertical location accuracy, and CBSDs to report their

[[Page 36192]]

location to the SAS within 60 seconds of a change in location 
particularly as they pertain to PALs.
    In its comments, Google also questioned 3 meters 
vertical accuracy and stated that such accuracy is not technologically 
reasonable today and need to be revisited. Google also submitted an ex 
parte filing arguing that ``consumer devices should be able to report 
their location to a SAS either through an automated capability or 
through the services of a trusted installer.'' Google contends that 
this approach is consistent with Commission precedent in the TVWS 
proceeding.
    Google agrees that the Commission's rules should require 
communication with the SAS whenever a controlling access point device 
(CBSD) moves more than 50 meters. AT&T contends that the proposed 60-
second reporting requirement may not provide sufficient time for a CBSD 
to obtain an accurate location fix, particularly indoors. On the other 
hand, SIA claims that a 60-second interval for geo-location reporting 
is too long and notes that a shorter interval may be necessary to 
enforce incumbent protection criteria.
    Discussion. After thorough review of the record, we adopt the 
location accuracy requirements set forth in the FNPRM. We will allow 
location information to be captured and reported to SAS as part of a 
CBSD's initial registration either via automated geolocation 
technologies or by a professional installer. This approach allows for 
deployment in the band to proceed as new automated new technologies 
evolve to achieve the capability to automatically and accurately meet 
our geolocation requirements in different environments.
    Accurate CBSD location is essential for coordinating interactions 
between and among users in the band and for protecting Incumbent Users 
from harmful interference. Indeed, NTIA noted that CBSDs should 
transmit geo-location information to the SAS and SASs should use that 
information to determine permissible operational parameters. Without 
accurate location data, SASs will be unable to effectively determine 
where and at what power levels CBSDs should be authorized or 
effectively discontinue their operations to protect Incumbent Users. To 
this end, we also note that our rules require authentication of CBSDs 
with an SAS and require that SAS Administrators maintain the accuracy 
of stored data, including CBSD records. The latter requirement places a 
duty on SAS Administrators to take reasonable steps to validate newly 
entered data and to purge obsolete data. We believe that, in some 
conditions (e.g., outdoors with clear line of site to GPS), automated 
reporting of geolocation to our location accuracy requirements is 
achievable. Other conditions, particularly indoors, may prove to be 
more challenging.
    We will therefore permit professional installers to report accurate 
CBSD location information in lieu of automated reporting measures. Any 
subsequent CBSD movement must be reported by a professional installer 
as well. Since CBSDs will be fixed installations, the professional 
installation option should allow for network deployment in the near 
term while automatic geo-location technologies are tested and developed 
that meet our accuracy requirements.
    Given the importance of accurate reporting by professional 
installers, we strongly encourage the SAS and user community, through 
multi-stakeholder fora or industry associations, to develop programs 
for accrediting professional installers who receive training in the 
relevant Part 96 rules and associated technical best practices. We note 
that industry-led professional accreditation processes have proven 
successful in other similar situations. In fact, Section 154(f)(4)(D) 
of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to ``to endorse 
certification of individuals to perform transmitter installation, 
operation, maintenance, and repair duties in the private land mobile 
services and fixed services (as defined by the Commission by rule) if 
such certification programs are conducted by organizations or 
committees which are representative of the users in those services and 
which consist of individuals who are not officers or employees of the 
Federal Government (47 U.S.C. 154(f)(4)(D)).'' Following the amendment 
of the Act to include this Section, the Commission eliminated the 
licensing requirement and strongly encouraged organizations or 
committees representative of users in the Private Land Mobile Radio and 
Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Services to establish a national 
industry certification program or programs for technicians but left the 
development of and details concerning such a program to the private 
sector.
c. Band-wide Operability
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed to require that CBSDs have 
the ability to operate across all frequencies from 3550-3700MHz. We 
noted that this proposal would ensure that all CBSDs and End User 
Devices certified to operate in the band would be capable of utilizing 
any frequencies assigned by the SAS. We sought comment on this 
proposal.
    Many commenters also support band-wide device operability because 
it would open a wider range spectrum for commercial use and give 
flexibility to the SAS to tune within the band to select the best 
available frequency. Some commenters, including existing 3650-3700 MHz 
band licensees, express concerns about extending the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service framework into the 3650-3700 MHz band. As described in 
detail in Section III(J), these commenters claim that compelling 
existing licensees to change or replace existing equipment to comply 
with the part 96 licensing framework would undermine the substantial 
investments that licensees have made in the band. Specifically, UTC 
contends that compliance with band-wide operability requirements will 
necessitate equipment upgrades and changes which will impose 
significant additional costs on existing licensees.
    Commenters also express mixed opinions as to whether CBSDs and End 
User Devices should be required to be capable of operating in the 3.5 
GHz Band on a two-way, stand-alone basis. CTIA, T-Mobile, and Verizon 
support rules that would allow Citizens Broadband Radio Service users 
to utilize either one-way or two-way technology in the 3.5 GHz Band. 
These commenters contend that the Commission should adopt 
technologically agnostic rules that would not require or restrict 
particular technologies in the 3.5 GHz Band. CTIA contends that the 
Commission should adopt rules that are independent of the type of air 
interface technology deployed in the band. Specifically, CTIA argues 
that there is no reason for the Commission to prohibit technologies, 
such as LTE-Unlicensed (LTE-U), that rely on bonded channels in 
licensed bands. Verizon states that it intends to deploy equipment and 
devices that are capable of bi-directional operation in the 3.5 GHz 
Band but urges the Commission to avoid any mandate that would restrict 
how the spectrum is used.
    A number of commenters, including Federated Wireless, Google, NCTA, 
Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge have expressed concern 
that that the use of LTE-U/Licensed Assisted Access (LAA) technology in 
the 3.5 GHz Band could negatively affect competition and innovation in 
the band. NCTA contends that LAA's reliance on licensed spectrum would 
raise barriers to access for new entrants and give carriers with 
existing licensed spectrum an advantage in the band. As such, NCTA 
argues that the Commission

[[Page 36193]]

should prohibit tying access to GAA frequencies to the use of a control 
channel in a licensed band. Google and Federated wireless argue that 
devices should be capable of operating across the entirety of the 3.5 
GHz Band in a stand-alone manner, without relying on any other band. 
Public Knowledge and the Open Technology Institute agree and contend 
that all equipment operated in the 3.5 GHz Band should be capable of 
operating on a standalone basis and that no standard incorporating 3.5 
GHz frequencies should require access to exclusively licensed 
frequencies to function. They also urge the Commission to require any 
technology standard adopted for use in the 3.5 GHz Band to be licensed 
on fair and reasonable (FRAND) terms identical to those adopted by the 
IEEE and that the Commission adopt a spectrum etiquette rule, similar 
to the requirement for a contention-based protocols in the 3650-3700 
MHz band.
    Discussion. After review of the record, we conclude that all CBSDs 
must be capable of two-way transmissions on any frequency from 3550-
3700 MHz as instructed by the SAS. Ensuring that all devices in the 
band are able to operate on any assigned frequency will promote 
innovation and flexibility in the band. Indeed, this rule is necessary 
to make full use of the frequency assignment capabilities of the SAS 
described in Section III(H)(2)(c). Band-wide operability will also help 
to establish a consistent certification process for the entire band. We 
also clarify that this rule requires all CBSDs and End User Devices in 
the band to be capable of two-way operations across the entire band. It 
does not require adherence to, or interoperability with, a particular 
transmission technology or air interface.
    We agree with commenters that argue that devices in the 3.5 GHz 
Band should be capable of two-way operation. We believe that this rule 
is crucial to promote competitive access to the band, encourage 
innovation, foster the development of a diverse equipment ecosystem, 
and ensure that the band is made available for a wide variety of 
innovative uses by an array of potential users, including standalone 
private networks that do not have recourse to mobile networks in other 
bands for signaling and control. However, we also conclude that CBSDs 
and End User Devices using the 3.5 GHz Band should not be required to 
operate in a two-way mode. We believe that adopting this flexible rule, 
which allows licensees to elect whether to make use of a device's two-
way functionality, will provide public interest benefits for the 3.5 
GHz Band. This rule is consistent with the Commission's longstanding 
policies promoting technological neutrality and competition in emerging 
bands. We believe that the 3.5 GHz Band could potentially engender a 
wide diversity of network deployments, including by some non-
traditional entrants that do not operate mobile networks in other 
spectrum. To this end, we will observe the development of technology 
standards for this band, with an eye toward ensuring they include, 
rather than preclude, a wide variety of uses and users.
    In addition, as described in greater detail in Section III(J), we 
exempt existing Part 90 equipment used by Grandfathered Wireless 
Broadband Licensees from the band-wide operability requirement and 
provide such licensees with a reasonable transition period during which 
their existing operations will be protected. After the transition 
period, such equipment will continue to be exempt from the band-wide 
operability requirement but must otherwise comply with the rules 
applicable to CBSDs, including SAS registration. These rules address 
some of the concerns raised by 3650-3700 MHz band licensees and their 
representatives regarding the threat to existing investment posed by a 
band-wide operability requirement. This rule will facilitate the 
development of a robust device ecosystem and promote new investment in 
the band, and protect investments made by existing 3650-3700 MHz band 
licensees.
d. Registration Requirements
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed that a CBSD must register and 
receive authorization from an approved SAS prior to its initial service 
transmission. We also proposed to define a CBSD as ``Fixed or Portable 
Base stations, or networks of such base stations. . .'' We therefore 
intended that registration could occur directly between a CBSD and an 
SAS or between a network of CBSDs (In the latter instance, an 
intermediary network management element/proxy would be required). 
Specifically, we proposed that a CBSD must provide the SAS its 
geographic location, antenna height above ground level, requested 
authorization status whether it is Priority Access or General 
Authorized Access, unique FCC identification number, user contact 
information, and unique serial number. We also proposed that the CBSDs 
update the SAS if any of the original registration parameters changes. 
CBSDs would be permitted to operate only if authorized by the SAS and 
if they follow frequency assignments and power limitations set by an 
SAS. We sought comment on these proposals.
    Many commenters generally agree with the concept of CBSDs 
registering with the SAS. Microsoft suggests that there should be 
limits on the information the SAS collects and the time it maintains 
records for CBSDs. Sony also recommends that to better manage 
coexistence among PAL licensees and GAA users, each SAS should store 
the actual operational information of CBSDs and End User Devices 
registered with it. Some commenters expressed concern about the SAS 
having information on detailed operational parameters of mobile 
networks as well maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive 
information. Motorola Solutions also asserts that, similar to the TVWS 
rules, if a CBSD cannot successfully query an SAS within a designated 
period of time it should cease its operation in the band.
    Discussion. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service framework depends 
on SAS authorization of commercial use and protection of incumbents. In 
order to perform this function, it is essential for the CBSD to provide 
the SAS with necessary information about its operations prior to 
transmission. We therefore require that as part of registration, the 
CBSD should provide the SAS with a number of operational parameters, 
including geographic location, antenna height above ground level 
(meters), CBSD operational category (Category A/Category B), requested 
authorization status, unique FCC identification number, user contact 
information, air interface technology, unique serial number, and 
additional information on its deployment profile (e.g., indoor/outdoor 
operation). All information provided by the CBSD to the SAS must be 
true, complete, correct, and made in good faith, and failure to provide 
such information will void the user's authority to operate the CBSD.
    We adopt additional registration requirements for Category B CBSDs. 
Pursuant to Section 96.45, Category B CBSDs must register all 
information required under Section 96.39 as well as antenna gain, 
antenna beamwidth, antenna azimuth for sector site, and antenna height 
above ground level. These additional requirements could provide the SAS 
with information necessary to perform effective propagation and 
interference mitigation analyses on these higher power devices. This 
will help ensure the effective coexistence of all tiers of user 
operating in the band. If any of the required registration information 
changes, the CBSD shall update the SAS within 60 seconds of such 
change.

[[Page 36194]]

    We encourage multi-stakeholder groups to consider the issues raised 
by the registration rules described in this Section, including 
acceptable contact intervals between CBSDs and SASs, and to suggest 
appropriate operational parameters. We also acknowledge concerns raised 
by commenters about the security of information that will be retained 
by the SAS and the desire to keep certain sensitive information 
confidential. These issues are addressed in detail in Section 
III(H)(2)(a).
e. Interference Reporting
    Background. It was suggested in the FNPRM that, to help an SAS tune 
or update its predictive propagation models and detect realistic 
interference issues once CBSDs are deployed, the CBSDs should be able 
to provide signal strength and interference level measurements. This 
capability is already widely used to facilitate interference and radio 
resource management within cellular networks. It could be used in the 
3.5 GHz Band to help promote coexistence between different users.
    The record generally supports the proposal to incorporate 
interference reporting into CBSDs. However, some commenters contend 
that the details of such measurement/reporting should be specified by 
industry forums.
    Discussion. We require that CBSDs be able to measure and report on 
their local interference levels and issues as set forth in the proposed 
rules. We encourage industry to develop detailed metrics regarding 
issues like received signal strength, packet error rate, and technology 
specific parameters of signal and interference metrics. These metrics 
could be developed by an industry multi-stakeholder group. Such 
guidance could be incorporated in the SAS Approval process described in 
Section IIIH)(3)(b) or incorporated independently by authorized SAS 
Administrators, subject to Commission review. This requirement is 
separate from sensing requirements associated with ESC, discussed in 
Section III(I).
f. Security
    Background. The FNPRM emphasized the importance of data security 
and end-to-end security for communications among CBSDs, End User 
Devices, and the SAS. To that end, we proposed a security requirement 
for all communications between authorized SASs and CBSDs. We also 
proposed to adopt comprehensive procedures to test and certify CBSDs 
and associated End User Devices for operation in this band and to 
require the SAS to disconnect any device whose proper operation has 
been compromised. As described in Section III(H)(2)(d), we also 
proposed to require that the SAS employ protocols and procedures to 
ensure that all communications and interactions between the SAS and 
CBSDs are accurate and secure and that unauthorized parties cannot 
access or alter the SAS or the list of frequencies sent to a CBSD.
    The record strongly supports the inclusion of robust security 
protocols for CBSDs and for communications between CBSDs and SASs. The 
record regarding secure communications between CBSDs and SASs is 
described in detail in Section III(H)(2)(d).
    Discussion. Data security is fundamental to the successful 
implementation of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. To this end, as 
described in Section III(H)(2)(d), we codify the requirement for secure 
communications between authorized SASs and CBSDs. We also adopt 
comprehensive procedures to test and certify CBSDs and associated End 
User Devices for operation in this band. Notably, all CBSDs and End 
User Devices must contain security features sufficient to protect 
against modification of software and firmware by any unauthorized 
parties. Applications for certification of CBSDs and End User Devices 
must include an operational description of the technologies and 
measures that are incorporated in the device to comply with the 
security requirements indicated in Section 96.39. In addition, CBSDs 
and End User Devices should be able to protect the communication data 
that are exchanged between these elements. SAS Administrators and CBSD 
operators who, in good faith, implement duly approved/certified SAS or 
CBSD security capabilities will be presumed, for enforcement purposes, 
to be compliant with the rules pertaining to those capabilities. Any 
subsequently identified security vulnerabilities will need to be 
resolved on a going-forward basis. We are mindful, however, of the 
limitations inherent in mandating any particular security technology or 
protocol through regulation. We encourage the industry to develop best 
practices for end-to-end security that can be validated in the 
equipment and SAS certification processes.
3. End User Device Requirements
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed that End User Devices must be 
authorized and controlled by an SAS-authorized CBSD. These devices may 
not be used as intermediate service access links or to provide service 
to other End User Devices. We also proposed that the End User Device 
transmit at an EIRP not to exceed 23dBm per 10MHz. End User Devices 
would operate only if they could positively receive and decode an 
authorization signal transmitted by a CBSD, including the frequency 
channels and power limits for their operation. This requirement would 
effectively prevent End User Devices from unauthorized operation in the 
3.5 GHz Band and ensure that such devices operate only according to the 
instructions transmitted from the SAS to the CBSD. As discussed above, 
we proposed that all CBSDs along with all End User Devices must contain 
security features sufficient to protect against modification of 
software by unauthorized parties.
    Some commenters support the idea of user devices transmitting power 
levels based on the latest 3GPP standards and believe that making this 
adjustment will promote global harmonization. NSN and Motorola Mobility 
recommend user device transmit power to be at maximum 25dBm (23dBm +2/-
3). On the other hand, WISPA argues that the user device power level 
should agree with the three different power levels for CBSDs defined in 
the FNPRM. WISPA's view is that, the Commission should set the maximum 
conducted power to be 30dBm/10 MHz with maximum EIRP of 47dBm/10 MHz 
for end user devices in rural areas. In WISPA's view a lower EIRP limit 
would neutralize any benefits intended by the higher maximum power 
level proposed for CBSDs in rural area.
    Discussion. Based on industry standard power levels for end user 
devices and comments received we maintain the proposed maximum EIRP of 
23dBm per 10 megahertz for end user equipment. We also conclude that 
End User Devices must only operate if they can receive and decode an 
authorization signal sent by a CBSD, including the frequencies and 
power limits for their operation. We agree with WISPA and BLiNQ that 
End User Devices should operate under power control of an associated 
CBSD. This requirement is necessary to ensure that interference levels 
can be effectively managed in the band to protect Incumbent Access and 
Priority Access Licensees from harmful interference.
    We do not agree with WISPA's assertion that End User Devices should 
be permitted to operate at power levels equal to CBSDs. Adopting such a 
rule would effectively authorize the deployment of innumerable higher 
power fixed and mobile devices in the band not subject to direct SAS 
authorization. As stated previously, SAS-enabled coordination is 
essential to

[[Page 36195]]

the success of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service and is necessary to 
ensure a stable and secure spectral environment for Incumbent Access 
users. As such, we find that devices that need to operate at a higher 
EIRP than 23dBm will be considered to be CBSDs and subject to all CBSD 
requirements, including SAS registration.
    As described above, all End User Devices and CBSDs must also 
include necessary security features to protect against modification of 
software and firmware by any unauthorized parties. Applications for 
certification of CBSDs and End User Devices must include an operational 
description of the technologies and methods that are incorporated in 
the device to comply with the security requirements of this proceeding.
4. Other Technical Issues
    In the FNPRM, we proposed to apply our Part 1 RF Safety and Part 2 
Equipment Authorization rules to CBSDs. The record did not raise 
objections, so we adopt these proposals. We also emphasize that our 
equipment authorization process is essential to ensuring that CBSDs and 
End User Devices implement the various technical requirements in Part 
96 that are essential to the overall integrity of the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service framework.

G. Incumbent Protections

1. Federal Incumbent Protection
a. Multi-Phase Approach
    Background. As we detailed in Section II(B), the 3.5 GHz Band is 
currently used by a number of federal agencies for radiolocation 
operations. Federal operations in the band include high-powered DoD 
radar systems using ground-based and shipboard platforms. In its Fast 
Track Report, NTIA concluded that geographic separation and frequency 
offsets could be used to minimize interference between commercial 
networks and radar systems operating in the 3.5 GHz Band. However, 
NTIA's analysis at the time indicated that it would be necessary to put 
in place exclusion zones around the coast to prevent incumbent 
operations and broadband wireless systems from causing interference to 
one another. NTIA concluded that effective exclusion zone distances 
around ground-based radar systems would extend approximately one to 60 
kilometers, coupled with frequency offsets of 40 or 50 megahertz. 
Exclusion zones around certain high-power shipborne Naval radars would 
require over-land separation distances of several hundred kilometers.
    In the FNPRM, we proposed to adopt the geographic Exclusion Zones 
described in the Fast Track Report as a starting point for further 
updates and analysis. In the FNPRM, we noted that preliminary studies 
had been performed on the potential effects of small cells on radar 
operations, with additional studies planned, that could lead to a 
reduction in Exclusion Zones in the near future. We also noted that the 
rules proposed in the FNPRM contemplate additional uses other than 
small cells, with varying maximum transmit power levels and antenna 
gains, which must factor into the consideration of Exclusion Zones. We 
unambiguously stated that we would continue our dialogue with NTIA and 
other federal agencies regarding reduction of the Exclusion Zones and 
noted that various in-progress technical studies could yield 
information that would allow us to provide greater access to commercial 
users in the band. We asked commenters to submit data and studies that 
could help with the analysis.
    We also stated that we would explore the topic of dynamic 
coordinated access within the Exclusion Zones in future phases of this 
proceeding. We sought comment on allowing Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service operations within Exclusion Zones and encouraged commenters to 
submit technical analyses to support their positions.
    Commenters overwhelmingly support reducing or eliminating the 
Exclusion Zones presented in the Fast Track Report and proposed as a 
starting point in the FNPRM. Qualcomm claims that Exclusion Zones based 
on actual small cell use cases could be less than 10 kilometers along 
the coastlines. Other commenters contend that, regardless of their 
size, exclusion zones should be reclassified as ``coordination zones'' 
to allow licensees to establish coordination agreements with incumbent 
users.
    Some commenters propose that the Commission permit CBSDs to operate 
closer to the coastline when no federal radar systems are in use in the 
area. Google and Federated Wireless contend that the Commission should 
adopt an engineering-based protection standard rather than relying on 
static exclusion zones. In addition, several commenters contend that 
sensing technologies could play a role in enabling dynamic access to 
the 3.5 GHz Band. Notably, Google, Federated Wireless, and Virginia 
Tech submitted a joint filing that argues that a network of ``dedicated 
listening devices'' could eliminate the need for permanent fixed 
exclusion zones entirely.
    On January 12, 2015, CTIA and several of its member companies filed 
an ex parte presentation advocating an approach to the protection of 
federal incumbents that would incorporate sensing technologies to 
promote dynamic access to spectrum in the 3.5 GHz Band. In CTIA's 
proposed approach, federal incumbents would be able to choose between 
an ``informing'' (i.e., incumbent notification driven) or non-informing 
(i.e., sensor-based) solution--to be developed and managed by private 
industry--for protection of their radar systems. CTIA also proposes 
technical solutions based on LTE network deployments.
    The NTIA Letter recommends, among other things: (1) Changes to the 
regulatory framework of the spectrum sharing model described in the 3.5 
GHz FNPRM; (2) a phased implementation and approval process for the SAS 
and ESC; and (3) protection of commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz 
Band from federal radar systems. NTIA also supplements the technical 
information presented in the Fast Track Report and provides an 
explanation of its recent technical work on these issues.
    The phased approach described by NTIA relies on an SAS and ESC 
approved by the Commission to protect federal incumbent operations. 
NTIA asserts that these approval processes could take place 
simultaneously or separately.
    In the first phase, as recommended by NTIA, geographic exclusion 
zones would be established along the coastlines and around designated 
ground-based radar locations. CBSDs with an EIRP up to 30 dBm as 
measured in a 10 megahertz bandwidth would be authorized to operate 
outside of the Exclusion Zones during this phase but higher power 
operations would not be permitted. Approved SASs would manage Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users outside of the Exclusion Zones during 
this phase. Phase two would begin after an ESC that meets all of the 
requirements set forth by the Commission is approved and synchronized 
with at least one approved SAS. With the SAS and ESC in place, the 
Exclusion Zones for the coastal areas and the ground-based radars would 
be converted to Protection Zones. ESC deployment near the borders of 
protection zones (i.e., not nationwide) would protect radars from 
interference. NTIA indicates that the rules may authorize CBSDs at 
higher EIRP levels than 30 dBm provided that the relevant system 
parameters required to protect DoD operations at these higher levels 
are determined through the ESC approval process. NTIA also indicates

[[Page 36196]]

that the phased approach could be used to protect the three protected 
federal radiolocation facilities in the 3650-3700 MHz band.
    In addition to the coastal exclusion zones, NTIA identifies a need 
to protect short-duration, non-emergency use of shipborne radars during 
scheduled visits to ports along inland waterways. NTIA suggests that, 
given the advance notice associated with these types of events, 
shipborne radars could be protected by temporarily extending the 
Exclusion (or Protection) Zones to include these port areas. NTIA 
offers to work with the FCC and DoD to develop the necessary procedures 
to adequately protect these types of temporary shipborne radar 
operations.
    NTIA also states that a limited number of facilities used by DoD 
and its contractors for the development and testing of shipborne radars 
in the 3.5 GHz Band must be protected from harmful interference. NTIA 
suggests that Exclusion Zones be established around these sites using 
the same methodology used to establish the coastal Exclusion Zones but 
notes that site-specific characteristics may be employed to reduce the 
impact of these Zones on the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. NTIA 
indicates that additional time will be needed to calculate these zones 
and offers to work with DoD and the Commission to develop appropriate 
protection criteria.
    Discussion. Federal use of the radio spectrum is generally governed 
by NTIA while non-federal use is governed by the Commission (See 47 
U.S.C. 305(a), 902(b)(2)(A)). As such, we adopt the phased approach to 
federal Incumbent User protection generally described in NTIA's letter. 
We believe this approach properly balances the need to protect current 
and future federal operations in the band with the need to make the 
band available for commercial use in the near future. During phase one, 
a large portion of the country will be available for Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service use as soon as a commercial SAS is approved and made 
commercially available. During phase two, much of the rest of the 
country--including major coastal cities--will be made available for 
commercial use when no federal incumbent use is detected in a given 
area by the ESC. This approach addresses the concerns of commenters and 
federal users in an equitable manner and provides a clear path toward 
dynamic sharing of spectrum in the band.
    We will establish Exclusion Zones along the coast and around 
designated ground-based radar facilities, consistent with NTIA's 
recommendations. These Exclusion Zones are the product of further 
analysis by NTIA engineers to reevaluate the Exclusion Zone distances 
with technical assistance from Commission staff and DoD experts. The 
zones are 77 percent smaller than the Exclusion Zones described in the 
Fast Track Report and more accurately reflect the types of devices and 
network deployments that are likely to be used in the 3.5 GHz Band. In 
addition, Exclusion Zones around ground-based radar sites have been 
reduced to a 3 km contour around the borders of protected locations 
from the 50-60 km Exclusion Zones recommended by the Fast Track Report.
    During the first phase, no Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
operations will be permitted in the 3550-3650 MHz band within the 
Exclusion Zones. Outside of the Exclusion Zones, Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service Licensees will be permitted to deploy and utilize 
Category A CBSDs in the 3550-3650 MHz band, consistent with the 
Commission's rules. Phase one deployments may begin once an SAS is 
approved and made available for commercial use as set forth in Section 
III(H)(3)(b).
    Phase two will begin when an ESC is developed, approved, and 
deployed as described in Section III(I). The ESC will consist of a 
network of sensors--infrastructure-based, device-based, or a 
combination of both--that will detect federal radars operating in and 
around the 3.5 GHz Band and relay information regarding those 
transmissions to the SAS in order to protect incumbent federal users. 
Sensors must be deployed in or near Exclusion Zones and near federal 
ground-radar facilities to detect federal spectrum use. Approved SASs 
will process the information communicated by the ESC and instruct 
associated CBSDs to cease operations or move to unencumbered 
frequencies in geographic areas where federal use has been detected. 
The ESC will be managed and operated by one or more commercial entities 
and will not require day-to-day input or oversight from DoD or NTIA.
    As a consequence of ESC deployment in phase two, the Exclusion 
Zones will be converted to Protection Zones. Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service operations in the 3550-3650 MHz band will be permitted within 
Protection Zones, including major coastal cities, except when the ESC 
reports federal use in the area. Availability of an ESC will also allow 
use of Category B CBSDs in the 3550-3650 MHz band portion, provided 
that the relevant system parameters required to protect federal 
Incumbent User operations at these higher levels are determined and 
implemented through the ESC approval process. DoD may also add 
additional radar sites in the future through the usual NTIA spectrum 
assignment processes, and the Commission will provide appropriate 
notice of any such additions and make the necessary ministerial 
amendments to its Table of Allocations (47 CFR 2.106, note US433). Once 
assigned, these new sites will be accorded the same protections as 
other radar sites in the band.
    This two-phase approach will also apply to the protection of the 
existing federal sites operating in the 3650-3700 MHz band and listed 
in 47 CFR 90.1331. During phase one, these sites will be protected from 
commercial operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band consistent with the 
static protection contours set forth in 47 CFR 2.106, US 109. During 
phase 2, these sites will be protected by the ESC in the same manner as 
federal sites in the 3550-3650 MHz band.
    After the ESC and SAS are approved, spectrum availability will be 
determined and conveyed automatically, promoting efficient use of the 
band and ensuring that federal Incumbent Users are protected. We 
believe that this approach is superior to the ``coordination zone'' 
approach proposed by Verizon, Ericsson, and T-Mobile since it relies on 
technology to automatically provide information on federal frequency 
use to an SAS for the benefit of all of its associated CBSDs. This 
approach will be more efficient and will advance our goals for the band 
more effectively than requiring individual licensees and federal 
Incumbent Users to attempt to reach ad hoc coordination agreements and 
implement the terms of such agreements. It will avoid burdening 
military operators with significant new spectrum coordination 
obligations and will protect operational security.
    It should also be noted that operators may skip phase one entirely 
if they develop an ESC simultaneously with the SAS. However, while the 
approval processes for these systems will be similar, they may be 
developed separately. If an SAS is approved and made commercially 
available before an ESC is available, the rules governing phase one 
deployments will apply until an ESC is approved and connected to an 
approved SAS.
    We acknowledge that there are several inland radar testing 
facilities that will require protection. We will work with NTIA and DoD 
to determine appropriate phase one protection criteria for these sites 
based on the engineering methodology used to determine the revised 
coastal Exclusion Zones and

[[Page 36197]]

taking into account any site-specific factors that may serve to 
minimize the impact of these Zones on Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users. During phase two, these sites will be protected by the ESC 
consistent with the procedures described in this Section and Sections 
96.15 and 96.67 of the rules. We will release a Public Notice detailing 
these protection criteria.
    We will implement a coordination procedure to protect temporary 
federal naval radars--including visits to non-homeports--from 
interference. Under this procedure, federal Incumbent Users will 
provide the Commission with notice of the location and scope of 
temporary operations before such operations commence. This requirement 
will ensure that federal Incumbent Users may receive protection when 
they (infrequently) visit locations not covered by the coastal 
Exclusion Zones. We will work with NTIA and DoD to develop appropriate 
coordination procedures.
    We also require SAS Administrators to implement protocols to 
respond to directions from the President of the United States or 
another designated federal entity to manually discontinue operations of 
its associated CBSDs in a given area pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 606. SAS 
Administrators must also implement protocols to manually discontinue 
operations of their associated CBSDs in response to enforcement actions 
taken by the Commission. These requirements are consistent with the 
Commission's enforcement responsibilities and its statutory obligation 
to comply with Presidential orders to suspend or amend the rules and 
regulations governing designated transmitters during times of war or 
national emergency (47 U.S.C. 606(c)).
b. Protection of CBSDs from Radar Interference
    Background. In the Fast Track Report, NTIA considered interference 
to and from commercial systems in establishing the exclusion zones. The 
distances used to establish the Exclusion Zones were based on the 
protection of commercial systems from federal radar systems and were 
considerably larger than the distances deemed necessary to protect 
federal radars from commercial systems. The analysis performed by NTIA 
in the Fast Track Report considered small-signal interference (e.g., 
degradation of receiver noise floor, reduction of data throughput 
rates, increases in block error rates) and high-power interference 
effects to commercial receivers. These effects include permanent 
electrical damage that may occur to receiver components (often referred 
to as receiver ``burnout''), as well as temporary performance 
degradation such as receiver overload and receiver saturation.
    In the FNPRM, we stated that Citizens Broadband Radio Service users 
should take reasonable measures to protect their CBSDs from high-power 
radar interference effects. We also sought comment on whether and to 
what degree CBSDs should be protected--geographically or otherwise--
from radar interference.
    Commenters overwhelmingly assert that the Commission should only 
consider protection of federal radar systems from commercial devices in 
devising protection criteria for incumbent systems. Notably, the 
Wireless Innovation Forum contends that modern small cell devices can 
successfully operate in the presence of interference that is several 
orders of magnitude stronger than the -6 dB I/N considered in the NTIA 
Fast Track Report. In addition, some commenters claim that commercial 
devices, particularly LTE devices, can provide viable service in close 
proximity to radar transmitters. One set of lab tests showed that LTE 
and Wi-Fi devices could operate as close as 0.6 km from incumbent 
radars under favorable conditions and as close as 20.7 km under worst-
case scenarios.
    NTIA states that Citizens Broadband Radio Service users should be 
required to accept harmful interference from federal radar operations 
and take all practical measures to design their systems to overcome or 
avoid the interference in the event that it occurs. NTIA recommends 
that all Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensees be required to 
accept harmful interference from the federal radar operations in and 
near the 3.5 GHz Band and design their systems to overcome such 
interference effects. NTIA also agrees with the FCC that Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users should take reasonable measures to 
protect themselves from high-power radar interference since such 
interference can cause damage to CBSD receivers under certain 
conditions. NTIA offers to work with the FCC and the DoD to analyze 
where high-power interference effects to CBSD receivers could 
potentially occur based on current and future radar operations.
    Discussion. After review of the record, we agree with commenters 
that argue that Exclusion and Protection Zones should only account for 
the protection of federal radar systems from harmful interference and 
not protection of CBSDs from federal radar transmissions. Analyses 
submitted on the record indicate that CBSDs can operate in close 
proximity to active radar sites, even on a co-channel basis, without 
interrupting commercial transmissions. We note that NTIA's latest 
analysis effort, performed in conjunction with Commission and DoD, to 
reduce the Exclusion Zones did not consider the potential interference 
impact to CBSDs from federal radar systems. We encourage device 
manufacturers to design equipment that overcomes or avoids harmful 
interference from federal radar systems.
    Consistent with NTIA's recommendation, Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users will be required to accept interference--including 
potentially harmful interference--from federal radar systems as a 
condition of their authorization. We require Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users to acknowledge that they understand and accept the risk 
of interference from federal radar systems. This requirement is 
consistent with the approach we adopted in the recent AWS-3 proceeding 
and will apply to all Citizens Broadband Radio Service users regardless 
of their area of operation or their status as a Priority Access 
Licensee or GAA user (See 79 FR 47106, August 12, 2014). Such 
acknowledgements may be made through the SAS upon registering a CBSD. 
SAS Administrators must develop policies and procedures to ensure that 
such acknowledgements are properly recorded and maintained.
    We will also continue to work with NTIA and DoD to study the 
effects of federal radars on CBSDs, including the effects of high-
powered radar interference. As new devices are developed and made 
available for use in the 3.5 GHz Band, we hope to gain a better 
understanding of the effects of radar signals on device performance. We 
hope that this work can proceed collaboratively with SAS Administrators 
and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users going forward.
2. Protection of Incumbent FSS Earth Stations
a. FSS Earth Stations in the 3.5 GHz Band
    Background. As noted in this proceeding, the Commission has 
licensed primary FSS earth stations to receive on frequencies in the 
3600-3650 MHz band (Extended C-Band). Currently, FSS earth station 
facilities in 35 cities are authorized to receive in the 3625-3650 MHz 
sub-band, and Airbus DS SatCom Government, Inc. operates two gateway 
earth stations (located northeast of Los Angeles and New York City) 
that provide feeder links for

[[Page 36198]]

Inmarsat's L-band mobile-satellite service system.
    The NPRM and FNPRM sought comment on appropriate interference 
protection and mitigation strategies for incumbent FSS earth stations. 
We asked about the use of advanced analytic approaches to modeling 
interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service devices into FSS 
earth stations. We also asked whether the SAS could effectively 
implement such a model, ensuring FSS earth stations are protected while 
maximizing the areas available for Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
operations. We sought comment on what SAS functionalities would need to 
be required by rule and what functionalities could be specified through 
other means (e.g., industry standards). For example, we asked whether 
field strength, power-flux density, or some other technical metric, 
measured in relation to the earth station's technical configuration 
(look angle, antenna characteristics, etc.), could provide FSS earth 
stations with adequate protections while maximizing the available 
geographic area and bandwidth for Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users. We also asked about mitigation techniques, such as the use of 
filters to reduce or eliminate harmful interference.
    Commenters offered a variety of perspectives on these questions in 
the record. A number of technical reports and analyses have been 
provided using different assumptions about geographic protection zones 
that may be required to protect earth stations, both in-band and in the 
adjacent C-Band. Filings in response to the NPRM included submissions 
from media companies, Comsearch and Alion Science, SIA, Google, and 
others.
    We received a number of responses concerning the need for 
protection zones around FSS earth stations. SIA states that protection 
zones must be established to prevent both in-band and adjacent-band 
interference to FSS earth stations. SIA claims that these zones must be 
based on ITU interference criteria and take into account the aggregate 
effect of multiple Citizens Broadband Radio Service devices. According 
to SIA, the size of the zones will depend on the technical parameters 
of Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations--in particular, power 
density levels and OOBE limits--and these parameters are still in 
dispute. NPR contends that preventing adjacent-band interference 
requires a combination of appropriate emission mask limits from devices 
in the band and geographic separation based on a conservative estimate 
of path-loss between such devices and an FSS earth station. WISPA 
argues that the Commission should avoid the arbitrary circular zones 
that currently overprotect FSS earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz 
band. According to WISPA, the SAS should also be informed on an annual 
basis that the earth stations are in actual use. CTIA references 
earlier Qualcomm comments that argued that exclusion zones could be 
reduced to less than 10 miles. The Wireless Innovation Forum disagrees 
with the use of fixed geographic exclusion zones for FSS spectrum. 
Rather, the Forum argues that a roadmap for better receivers is 
appropriate for FSS earth stations. The Wireless Innovation Forum also 
contends that the roadmap proposal should be addressed by a multi-
stakeholder group.
    Several parties argue that the geographic protection zones around 
FSS earth stations may be adjusted through coordination. Both NSN and 
Motorola Solutions assert that Priority Access Licensees should be 
permitted to negotiate with individual FSS earth station licensees for 
smaller protection zones. SIA disagrees, stating ``[I]t is not clear 
how or even whether such an option would work as a practical matter 
when it comes to large numbers of mobile Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service devices, or how such agreements would be incorporated into an 
SAS.'' Other commenters argue that coordination zones would increase 
the utility of the spectrum. For example, T-Mobile asserts that 
coordination zones maximize the potential use of spectrum. ICONECTIV 
states that coordination zones could allow more efficient sharing of 
this spectrum with commercial users. WISPA agrees that operation inside 
FSS protection zones should be permitted upon agreement between CBSD 
licensees and FSS licensees. SIA asserts that significant work remains 
to be done to develop and validate SAS-based coordination functionality 
and that existing technology would not be capable of making such 
determinations. Google presented an ex parte demonstration of a system 
it claims is capable of performing the SAS functions of Priority Access 
and GAA authorization, protecting Priority Access, FSS users, and 
federal radar operation from PA and GAA users.
    Several parties opine on appropriate methods for FSS earth station 
protection. SIA provides an engineering analysis using non-rural and 
point-to-point transmit power. SIA also supports the use of I/N 
criteria listed in ITU Recommendations for the protection of FSS earth 
stations. From these I/N criteria, SIA claims that a received power 
limit at the FSS earth station can be calculated, taking into account 
the FSS earth station and Citizens Broadband Radio Service system 
characteristics and deployment scenarios. SIA asserts that whether this 
received power limit is exceeded should be determined using an 
aggregate Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) calculation. SIA uses I/
N criteria set forth in Recommendations ITU-R S.1432 and ITU-R SF.1006 
for interference from non-primary (including adjacent band) sources and 
interference from co-primary sources into FSS earth stations for its 
analysis. SIA recommends the following aggregate interference criteria 
for in-band FSS earth stations:

 Long Term I/N = -13 dB, not to be exceeded for more than 20% 
of the time
 Short Term I/N = -1.3 dB, not to be exceeded for more than 
0.001667% of the time

SIA also contends that the aggregate power emitted by CBSDs at an FSS 
earth station receiver will be a function of multiple factors: (i) The 
EIRP density of each CBSD transmitter in the direction of the FSS earth 
station receiver (which in turn depends on the CBSD's maximum EIRP 
density and its antenna pattern and orientation); (ii) the FSS earth 
station's receive gain in the direction of each CBSD transmitter (which 
depends on the FSS receiver's antenna pattern and orientation); (iii) 
the distance between the FSS earth station receiver and each CBSD 
transmitter; and (iv) the intervening terrain between each CBSD 
transmitter and the FSS earth station receiver. SIA notes that, since 
the FSS earth stations do not transmit, the Commission cannot rely on 
sensing by CBSDs to help the SAS protect these stations from harmful 
interference.
    Google claims that, by allowing devices with better OOBE 
performance to take advantage of smaller protection zones around FSS 
earth stations, the Commission would create a market incentive for 
innovation that would be self-adjusting to actual band usage and 
conditions. Google asserts that the methodology for determining 
interference to C-Band downlinks from in-band operation described in 
the 3.65 GHz Report and Order can be used to compute both adjacent 
channel interference and out-of-band emissions to FSS operations above 
3.7 GHz.
    Google also claims that SIA's analysis fails to account for the 
effects of actual antenna gain, directionality, and elevation angles 
that are specific to each site. According to Google, in most

[[Page 36199]]

locations in the United States, elevation angles are high enough that 
the antenna gain will be no more than the front-to-back ratio of the 
antenna. Therefore, Google argues that relying on these front-to-back 
ratios reduces the power received by the FSS earth station by more than 
30 dB as compared to SIA's analysis. As a result, Google claims that, 
even in locations with low elevation angles, the resulting geographic 
restrictions are minimal because the excluded area is likely to be long 
but very narrow in shape as a result of the directionality.
    Google also asserts that numerous filter vendors have developed 
``radar elimination filters'' that are designed to protect FSS earth 
stations from existing high-powered military radar systems in the 3500-
3700 MHz band. According to Google, this equipment, which is widely 
available for less than $500, can be used to filter out interference 
from small cell operations. Google opines that the Commission should 
take account of available filter performance when creating final rules 
to protect FSS operations that might reduce the value of the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service band.
    Sony provides a study on the protection of FSS earth stations using 
the proposed maximum output power levels of CBSDs, taking aggregate 
interference into account. Sony calculates protection distances at 
various CBSD frequency offsets to C-Band earth stations, with and 
without RF filters, considering different earth station elevation 
angles, different I/N threshold and different CBSD installation 
heights. SIA claims that Sony's parameter choices tend to 
unrealistically downplay the interference susceptibility of FSS earth 
stations.
    The Wireless Innovation Forum argues that the Commission should 
focus on comprehensive interference analysis rather than static 
component elements of a system such as antenna angle, terrain, etc. The 
Forum contends that the issue of FSS user protection should be 
addressed by a multi-stakeholder group. Such a group should consider 
how and when to apply SAS control behavior associated with FSS earth 
stations.
    Discussion. The record broadly recognizes the need to protect 
incumbent FSS earth stations from harmful interference. There is also 
significant agreement about many of the technical factors that 
contribute to the interference equation, such as: (1) The actual EIRP 
density of CBSD and End User Device transmitters; (2) the location, 
antenna pattern, and orientation of those transmitters; (3) the FSS 
earth station receiver characteristics (including location, antenna 
gain, elevation and azimuth of the main antenna beam); and (4) the 
relative distance, mutual orientation, surrounding terrain and the 
propagation channel(s) between an FSS earth station and potential 
interfering transmitters. However, the record contains large variations 
in computed protection parameters and differing opinions among 
commenters about the efficacy of SAS-based interference mitigation 
techniques.
    We believe it is possible to balance the protection of incumbent 
FSS sites and greater Citizens Broadband Radio Service spectrum 
utilization instead of relying on a one-size-fits-all approach to 
protecting incumbent FSS sites using worst-case interference 
assumptions. The existing rules for the 3650-3700 MHz Wireless 
Broadband Service define a 150 km default separation distance with a 
circular contour around any grandfathered satellite earth stations, 
separating them for protection from base and fixed stations (See 47 CFR 
90.1331). In a number of cases, coordination with incumbent FSS 
licensees resulted in deployment of sites within the default protection 
area. In the context of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, we find 
these protections to be excessively large, overly simplistic, and 
inefficient given the capabilities of SASs to predict realistic path 
loss in the 3.5 GHz Band. In general, we expect that realistic and 
predictable path loss between CBSDs and FSS earth stations will be 
substantially higher than (near) line-of-sight free space path loss, 
resulting in smaller protections distances than 150 km and a protection 
contour similar to the butterfly-like pattern shown in the 3.65 GHz 
Order. We conclude that an analytic framework similar to what the 
Commission offered in Part 90, Subpart Z for Wireless Broadband Service 
in the 3650-3700 MHz Band, for determining interference to C-Band 
downlink earth stations from in-band operations, is applicable in the 
3.5 GHz Band. We therefore establish reasonable protection criteria for 
in-band FSS earth stations.
    As discussed in greater detail in Section III(K), we agree with 
Federated Wireless, Google, Motorola Solutions, SIA, the Wireless 
Innovation Forum, and others, that a multi-stakeholder process could 
provide insight into the technical factors and interference limits 
between coexisting services in the 3.5 GHz Band. While there are many 
technical implementation details to be worked out prior to equipment 
certification and deployment, we agree that an SAS-based system of 
frequency coordination and CBSD authorization can be effective in 
protecting in-band FSS earth stations, using characteristic parameters 
of incumbent systems and potential interfering systems. We therefore 
adopt rules that require CBSDs to protect specific incumbent in-band 
FSS earth stations from interference using power levels authorized and 
enforced by SAS. We seek comment on specific protection methodologies 
in Section IV(C).
    We adopt rules to protect FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band, 
by allowing the FSS earth stations to register with the Commission 
annually, or upon making changes to any of the parameters listed in 
Section 96.17(d). This registration information will be made available 
to all approved SASs and may be used to determine appropriate 
protection criteria for such earth stations. Annual registration for 
each earth station shall include, at a minimum, the earth station's 
geographic location, antenna gain, horizontal and vertical antenna gain 
pattern, antenna azimuth relative to true north, and antenna elevation 
angle. This information must be made available to SAS Administrators 
and maintained consistent with Section 96.55 of the rules.
    We also adopt a rule that CBSDs may operate within areas that are 
predicted to potentially cause interference to FSS earth stations 
provided that the licensee of the FSS earth station, the authorized 
user of the CBSD, and an SAS Administrator mutually agree to such 
operation at specified CBSD location(s) and the terms of any such 
agreement are provided to, and can be enforced by, an SAS. The terms of 
any such agreement shall be communicated promptly to all SAS 
Administrators.
b. Out-of-Band FSS Protection
    Background. The Commission also licenses FSS earth stations in the 
C-Band. In contrast to the Extended C-Band, the C-Band is highly 
utilized for FSS. As discussed above, the C-Band is used for a number 
of different applications, including distribution of multi-channel 
video content. FSS providers value the C-Band because its propagation 
characteristics allow for greater service reliability compared to other 
bands, especially in adverse weather conditions. The C-Band is one of 
the oldest and most mature FSS bands in-use. Preventing harmful 
interference into the C-Band from Citizens Broadband Radio Service has 
been one of our goals throughout this proceeding.
    C-Band FSS currently operates adjacent to two sources of signals

[[Page 36200]]

emitting from below the 3700 MHz band edge: high-powered military 
radars and the current Wireless Broadband Service operating in the 
3650-3700 MHz band. With respect to the former, FSS operators benefit 
from over 50 megahertz of frequency separation, but otherwise receive 
no regulatory out-of-band protections. Indeed, it is with the purpose 
of mitigating interference from military radars that the ``radar 
elimination filters'' described by Google were developed. For the 
latter, the ``standard'' emissions limit of 43 + 10 log (P) dB, 
equivalent to -13 dBm/MHz, regulates emissions from the 3650-3700 MHz 
band into the C-Band. We are not aware of any formal complaints by C-
Band FSS operators of harmful interference from over 45,000 wireless 
broadband site locations.
    We sought comment in the FNPRM about establishing out-of-band 
emissions limits to protect C-Band earth stations from Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service operations below 3700 MHz. Specifically, we 
proposed a stringent limit of -40 dBm/MHz for emissions into the C-
Band. However, this proposal did not assume adoption of the 
``supplemental proposal'' to include 3650-3700 MHz in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service.
    Discussion. The Commission has taken action in this R&O that we 
believe will significantly reduce the potential for interference into 
FSS earth stations in the adjacent C-Band. We also believe that with 
modern high-performance and low-cost digital and RF transmit filters, 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service devices will be able to make extensive 
use of the spectrum close to the band edge, especially at lower power 
levels.
3. Operations Near International Borders
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed that Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service operations along the Canadian and Mexican borders would be 
subject to international agreements with Mexico and Canada. The SAS 
would be required to implement these requirements. We sought comment on 
these proposals.
    In its comments, SIA agrees with the importance of ensuring that 
FSS earth stations in Canada and Mexico are protected from Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users in the United States. However, SIA 
contends that there is no indication of how the SAS will protect cross-
border sites that are not included in the Commission's licensing 
databases.
    Discussion. We adopt the rule proposed in the FNPRM and commit to 
working with Canadian and Mexican authorities to determine how best to 
coordinate in-band and adjacent band frequency use in the 3.5 GHz Band 
near international borders. This is approach is consistent with our 
usual practice for new services. SAS Administrators will be required to 
demonstrate that their systems can and will enforce agreements between 
the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments regarding commercial 
operations in the 3.5 GHz Band. The specific methods of enforcement 
will be determined and implemented by SAS administrators, with 
appropriate Commission oversight, after the agreements are in place.
    In addition, Industry Canada recently completed a consultation on 
the 3475-3650 MHz band which will allow the introduction of mobile 
services in the band. We will work with Canadian officials to ensure 
effective cross-border coordination of new devices or services 
introduced in the band.

H. Spectrum Access System

    As we stated in the NPRM, FNPRM, and Licensing PN, the 
effectiveness of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service depends largely 
on the development and implementation of one or more robust SASs to 
coordinate use of the 3.5 GHz Band. In this Section, we reaffirm our 
commitment to the expeditious development of a fully functional SAS, 
capable of protecting Incumbent Users from interference and 
facilitating coexistence among and between Priority Access Licensees 
and GAA users in the band. We also adopt high-level requirements to 
govern the authorization and operation of SASs in the band. In 
addition, we expect that industry participants will take it upon 
themselves to develop technical implementations of these requirements 
during the course of the SAS approval process and, where applicable, to 
develop industry-wide standards. This Section addresses: (1) The 
general scope of an SAS's responsibilities; (2) high-level SAS 
requirements; (3) specific responsibilities relating to frequency 
assignment, security, and information retention; and (4) the SAS 
approval processes.
1. General SAS Functions
    Background. Throughout this proceeding, we have acknowledged that 
the SAS is essential to commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band. We sought 
comment on the appropriate scope and functions of the SAS in the 
Licensing PN, NPRM, and FNPRM. In addition, OET and WTB held a workshop 
to discuss the operational and functional parameters of the SAS. The 
workshop and associated technical papers were organized according to 
the following focus areas: (1) General Responsibilities and Composition 
of the SAS; (2) SAS Functional Requirements; (3) SAS Monitoring and 
Management of Spectrum Use; and (4) Issues related to the Initial 
Launch and Evolution of the SAS and Band Plan.
    While commenters and workshop presenters submitted a diverse set of 
positions regarding the necessary features of the SAS, most agreed that 
an effective SAS would need to be more dynamic and responsive than the 
current TVWS database. Moreover, many commenters agreed that the FCC 
should set only baseline parameters and guidelines for the SAS and 
should allow industry stakeholders to develop detailed policies and 
standards to facilitate operation consistent with the Commission's 
rules.
    After thorough review of the record received in response to the 
Licensing PN, SAS Workshop, and NPRM, we proposed rules that would 
encourage the rapid development of a robust SAS, capable of managing 
the proposed three-tier authorization framework. We sought comment on 
these proposed rules and on the overall scope and functions of the SAS.
    Some commenters express concern about the complexity of the SAS and 
argue that the Commission should adopt rules to facilitate Priority 
Access licensing without the development of a fully functional SAS. 
These concerns are frequently linked to commenters' proposals for 
transitional band plans or LSA licensing frameworks discussed in 
Section III(B) above. Advocates of LSA tend to support SASs capable of 
managing their preferred two-tier framework. Other commenters support 
transitional plans and contend that the SAS is not yet fully developed 
and could be deployed to support two-tier sharing immediately with a 
portion of the band reserved for experimenting with three-tier sharing. 
These commenters contend that development of a fully functional SAS 
should not delay the assignment of Priority Access Licenses in the band 
or the deployment of robust Priority Access networks. Under the 
proposed transitional frameworks, the SAS could move from relatively 
basic functionality to more robust capabilities over time.
    AT&T argues that there are significant issues to be resolved in the 
development and implementation of an SAS capable of managing three-
tiers of authorized users. These issues include: (1) Implementation of 
appropriate security protocols; (2) interference coordination; (3) 
protocols to prevent the operation of rogue GAA devices; and (4) other, 
unforeseen complications. According to

[[Page 36201]]

AT&T, the Commission should adopt a phased approach to licensing and 
SAS development to bring PALs to market quickly while working towards 
the future implementation of three-tiered sharing across the entire 
band.
    Verizon argues that the Commission should only prescribe the 
minimum functions that an SAS would have to follow. According to 
Verizon, these core functions must include: (1) Access to a database 
with information about Incumbent Users' locations; and (2) frequency 
uses and access to the results of PAL auctions and subsequent PAL 
frequency assignments. CTIA agrees with this basic premise, arguing 
that the SAS should focus on core, high level functions.
    Some commenters also caution against allowing the SAS to manage the 
operations of wireless networks directly. Specifically, WISPA, T-
Mobile, NSN, and CTIA argue that the SAS should not directly manipulate 
the EIRP and other functions of attached CBSDs. T-Mobile asserts that 
SAS management of PALs is inconsistent with a licensee's obligation to 
manage its own network and that the SAS should be limited to managing 
GAA devices.
    Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, Federated Wireless, Google, Microsoft, 
PISC, Spectrum Bridge, WISPA and other commenters support the 
Commission's proposal to expeditiously authorize and approve a robust 
SAS, capable of managing three-tiers of service across the entire 3.5 
GHz Band. Notably, Google argues that the Commission should authorize 
fully functional SASs quickly to ensure that the band is put to 
productive use in the near future. According to Google, from the 
outset, the SAS should be capable of: (1) Managing three tiers of 
authorized users; (2) accepting and applying detailed information from 
CBSDs; and (3) setting and modifying maximum power levels and 
permissible operational frequencies for CBSDs. SASs could also provide 
valuable additional services, including recognizing coexistence 
agreements between PAL licensees, at their option.
    Federated Wireless also supports implementation of a fully 
functional SAS, capable of managing the proposed three-tier framework. 
According to Federated Wireless, moving away from the three-tiered 
authorization model--even temporarily--would reduce spectral and 
economic efficiency and introduce uncertainty into the band, reducing 
network deployments. Federated Wireless also contends that SAS-based 
sharing between GAA and Priority Access users is conceptually no 
different than sharing between Priority Access and Incumbent Users. 
Therefore, according to Federated Wireless, perceived risks of GAA 
interference should not pose an impediment to the rapid development and 
deployment of a fully functional SAS. However, Federated Wireless did 
suggest that the Commission should clarify that the role of the SAS 
with regard to device management is to determine the maximum 
permissible operational parameters for CBSDs to protect the spectrum 
rights of Citizens Broadband Radio Service Users and not to exercise 
the level of operational control over networks that some commenters 
fear.
    Discussion. After thorough review of the record, we continue to 
believe that developing a fully functional SAS capable from the outset 
of managing three tiers of authorized users would benefit the public 
interest, spur innovation, and encourage investment in the 3.5 GHz 
Band. As we stated in Section III(B), we believe that immediately 
implementing the three-tier sharing framework originally set forth in 
the PCAST Report and proposed in the NPRM and FNPRM, will promote the 
development of a robust device ecosystem and facilitate rapid network 
deployment in the band. Thus, the SAS must be capable of coordinating 
operations among and between Priority Access, GAA, and Incumbent Access 
Users in the band as a condition of authorization.
    While we acknowledge the concerns expressed by some commenters 
regarding complexity, we believe that the immediate use of the SAS to 
coordinate three tiers of service in the 3.5 GHz Band will best serve 
the public interest. As the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance noted, ``There is 
no need to phase in three-tier spectrum management as under the 
transitional plan proposed by some commenters; database technology can 
implement a three-tier system, and the approaches required to protect 
first-tier incumbents can be applied equally effectively to secondary 
user protection.'' Indeed, we believe that delaying the development of 
an SAS capable of managing three tiers of users in the band could cause 
spectrum to lie fallow and discourage deployment in the band. In 
addition, as noted above, simultaneous availability of PAL and GAA use 
is critical to the design of our auction framework, which is intended 
to provide potential auction bidders for PALs to have the choice of 
bidding for PAL priority rights where truly needed to implement their 
networks or relying on free, shared GAA use of the same frequencies in 
other situations, thus promoting more efficient use of the spectrum. 
Moreover, providing Priority Access Licensees with exclusive access to 
the band, even on a temporary basis, could provide an advantage to 
certain uses while hampering the development of other innovative uses 
for the band.
    Given the dynamic nature of the SAS that was proposed in the FNPRM, 
it is understandable that some commenters are concerned about the 
degree to which the SAS would manage the power levels, frequencies, and 
other operational features of CBSDs in the 3.5 GHz Band. We agree that 
the SAS should not micromanage the moment-to-moment operations of CBSDs 
in the band and we note that the FNPRM did not propose to allow the SAS 
this level of control. We also agree with T-Mobile that operators are 
in the best position to manage their own networks, and coordinate their 
own internal operations. However, we disagree with T-Mobile's assertion 
that the SAS should have no role in managing Priority Access users. As 
Google noted, the SAS must be able to direct Priority Access users to 
change their frequencies of operation to protect Incumbent User 
operations. We conclude that, to effectively coordinate Priority Access 
and GAA users in the band, the SAS must be responsible for 
authenticating and authorizing CBSDs in both tiers of service and 
ensuring that those CBSDs operate within permissible technical 
parameters. In essence, we see the SAS's role as akin to frequency 
coordination, a familiar concept in spectrum management, but with a 
high degree of automation.
    Under the rules we adopt herein, the SAS will be responsible for 
setting the maximum permissible power levels for CBSDs--within the 
maximum permissible power limits established in the rules--and 
authorizing them to operate over available frequencies in authorized 
locations, and other responsibilities consistent with the rules set 
forth in Part 96. As Google accurately notes, these capabilities will 
not affect operators' abilities to manage their networks so long as 
their preferences do not run counter to the requirements of the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. We continue to believe that the SAS 
should be responsible for setting and enforcing these high level 
parameters and for maintaining a stable spectral environment in the 3.5 
GHz Band. We agree with Federated Wireless that, ``the ability of the 
SAS to set maximum power levels and assign frequencies is critical to 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service band interference management.''
    In place of the manual processes that have characterized some other

[[Page 36202]]

frequency coordination regimes, the SAS would respond quickly to ensure 
effective coexistence between and among the three tiers of users in the 
band. As shown in Figure 3, the SAS would obtain information about 
registered or licensed commercial users in the band from the Commission 
and information about federal incumbent users of the band from ESC. The 
SAS could also interact directly or indirectly through a proxy--such as 
a network manager--with CBSDs operating in the band to ensure that 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users operate in a manner consistent 
with their authorizations and promote efficient use of the spectrum 
resource. SAS-to-SAS synchronization will ensure coordination occurs 
even between CBSDs that use different SAS providers.
2. High Level SAS Requirements
    Background. After thorough review of the record generated in 
response to the NPRM, Licensing PN, and SAS Workshop, we proposed that 
the SAS should perform a variety of high level functions to facilitate 
the implementation of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. 
Specifically, we proposed that authorized SASs would perform the 
following core functions:
     Determine the available frequencies at a given geographic 
location and assign them to CBSDs;
     Determine the maximum permissible radiated transmission 
power level for CBSDs at a given location and communicate that 
information to the CBSDs;
     Register and authenticate the identification information 
and location of CBSDs;
     Enforce Exclusion Zones to ensure compatibility between 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and incumbent federal 
operations;
     Protect Priority Access Licensees from harmful 
interference from General Authorized Access Users;
     Reserve the use of GAA channels for use in a CAF;
     Ensure secure transmission of information between the SAS 
and CBSDs.

In addition, we proposed that multiple SASs could be authorized by the 
Commission and that each SAS would provide nationwide service. The 
proposed rules outlined the essential requirements for a successful SAS 
and would promote innovation and productive use of the 3.5 GHz Band. We 
sought comment on these proposals and requested input regarding 
alternative or additional SAS guidelines.
    Numerous commenters submitted their views on the scope and 
functionality of the SAS, offering widely divergent opinions on the 
scope and necessary requirements for the system. Commenters generally 
support the authorization of multiple SASs on a nationwide basis. Some 
commenters also contend that the Commission should adopt a ``light 
touch'' regulatory approach towards the SAS and allow SAS 
Administrators, individual licensees, and the rest of the industry to 
work together to implement procedures to meet the Commission's 
regulations.
    Some commenters request that SASs be required or permitted to 
perform functions beyond those enumerated in the proposed rules. For 
example, Google proposes that SASs be permitted to honor coexistence 
agreements between Priority Access Licensees to operate CBSDs at higher 
power levels than the rules allow. Others, including Wireless 
Innovation Forum, Federated Wireless, and Google argue that the SAS 
should accept information from sensor networks to further develop 
advanced spectrum management practices.
    Discussion. We continue to believe that a ``light touch'' 
regulatory approach is appropriate for this band and that the rules 
should include only the high-level requirements necessary to ensure the 
effective development and operation of fully functional SASs. We agree 
with commenters that support collaborative, industry-wide efforts to 
create standards and best practices governing SAS operations. The 
Commission will assist these efforts through the SAS Administrator 
approval process, as set forth in III(H)(3)(b). We also believe that an 
active multi-stakeholder group could help develop industry consensus 
around the best methods of meeting the SAS requirements.
    After review of the record, we conclude that the SAS should perform 
the high level functions generally set forth in the FNPRM as well as 
certain additional functions needed to address changes to the rules 
governing CBSDs and Incumbent Users. We also agree with the commenters 
who contend that the SAS should provide nationwide service. The core 
functions that an SAS must perform are as follows:
     Determine the available frequencies at a given geographic 
location and assign them to CBSDs;
     Determine the maximum permissible transmission power level 
for CBSDs at a given location and communicate that information to the 
CBSDs;
     Register and authenticate the identification information 
and location of CBSDs;
     Enforce Exclusion and Protection Zones, including any 
future changes to such Zones, to ensure compatibility between Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users and incumbent federal operations;
     Communicate with the ESC and ensure that CBSDs operate in 
a manner that does not interfere with federal users;
     Ensure that CBSDs protect non-federal incumbent users 
consistent with the rules;
     Protect Priority Access Licensees from impermissible 
interference from other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users;

     Facilitate coordination between GAA users to promote a 
stable spectral environment;
     Ensure secure and reliable transmission of information 
between the SAS, ESC, and CBSDs;
     Provide an approved ESC with any sensing information 
reported by CBSDs if available;
     Protect Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees until 
the end of the grandfather period; and
     Facilitate coordination and information exchange between 
SASs.
This revised list of functions is necessary to enforce the rules 
governing protection of Incumbent Users and of Grandfathered Wireless 
Broadband Licensees. We address public interest rationales for these 
rules in Sections III(G) and III(J). Authorization of multiple SASs and 
SAS Administrators is addressed in Section III(H)(3).
    We also adopt a policy to ensure that the SAS facilitates 
coordination among GAA users to promote a stable spectral environment 
in the band. This requirement includes any coordination agreements 
entered into by users of Category B CBSDs pursuant to Section 96.35(e). 
It also entails a general responsibility for SASs to promote spectral 
efficiency and non-discriminatory coexistence among GAA users. This 
policy is consistent with our adoption of a three-tier access model and 
is essential to the development of a robust GAA device ecosystem and 
will foster innovation and investment in the band. It is also 
consistent with the recommendations of commenters that SASs be capable 
of integrating information from sensor networks or CBSDs regarding the 
interference environment and local spectrum usage to promote efficient 
use of the band. We further note that the specific policies and 
protocols needed to enforce this general requirement may be developed 
as part of the SAS approval process and may be informed by the work of 
an

[[Page 36203]]

industry-led multi-stakeholder group. While the SASs assign GAA users 
with a goal of minimizing harmful interference among those users, we 
recognize that enabling flexibility to deploy whatever technologies 
meet the standards in the rules can pose difficulties to completely 
manage interference. The SAS will help to minimize interference such as 
by avoiding assignment of the same frequency to multiple GAA users at 
the same location to the extent possible. However, our rules provide no 
assurance of interference protection between GAA users. To minimize 
interference, we encourage, but do not require, manufacturers to 
incorporate spectrum sharing features, much like those commonly 
employed in unlicensed uses. Contrary to Google's suggestion that SASs 
be permitted to honor coexistence agreements between Priority Access 
Licensees to operate CBSDs at higher power levels than the rules allow, 
our rules supersede any private agreements, unless otherwise specified.
a. Information Gathering and Retention
    Background. In the FNPRM we proposed high-level information 
gathering and retention requirements consistent with the 
responsibilities of the SAS, the security concerns of Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users and Incumbent users, and the Commission's 
oversight and enforcement responsibilities. To protect Incumbent Users 
and effectively coordinate Citizens Broadband Radio Service users, we 
proposed that the SAS retain information on all operations within the 
3.5 GHz Band. For CBSDs, such information would include all data that 
they are required to transmit to the SAS. For incumbent FSS operators, 
the SAS would maintain a record of the location of protected earth 
stations as well as the direction and look angle of all earth station 
receivers and any other information needed to perform its functions. 
For incumbent federal users, the SAS would include only the geographic 
coordinates of the Exclusion Zones. We sought comment on these proposed 
rules and alternative approaches.
    Some parties express concern about the type of information that the 
SAS would gather and maintain from Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users and whether that information would be secure and confidential. 
Notably, AT&T argues that the Commission should clarify that 
information gathered by the SAS is for registration purposes only and 
that licensees need not submit information about network performance. 
AT&T also contends that, since spectrum assignment is an FCC function 
and the SAS will be acting as the FCC's agent, all data collected by 
the SAS should be confidential.
    The Public Interest Spectrum Coalition supports the Commission's 
proposal and argues that it is critical that the informational inputs 
and outputs of the SAS, including exclusion zone coordinates and 
notifications of ``actual use'' by Priority Access Licensees, be 
available to the public. According to PISC, transparency is essential 
for the credibility and accountability of the SAS.
    NTIA contends that SASs should not retain information on federal 
operations, radar usage, or fleet movements. NTIA asserts that such 
restrictions are necessary to protect the operational security of 
military operations and installations in the United States.
    Discussion. After review of the record, we conclude that an SAS 
must be capable of gathering and retaining information submitted by 
registered CBSDs necessary to perform its essential tasks under Part 
96. Information not pertaining to federal incumbent operations must be 
retained for a minimum of 60 months.\18\ SASs must also obtain 
essential licensing information from Commission databases, maintain 
accurate records of the parameters of Protection Zones, and enforce 
additional federal Incumbent User protections based on information 
received from the ESC. Absent access to and retention of such essential 
information, SASs will be unable to effectively manage coexistence 
between and among the different tiers of users in the band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The 60 month information retention requirement mirrors the 
limitations period imposed on the Department of Justice to bring 
suit for collection of a forfeiture assessed by the Commission for 
violation of its rules. See 28 U.S.C. 2462. The 60 month information 
retention requirement ensures the preservation of information that 
may be relevant in future collection actions brought by the 
Department of Justice on the Commission's behalf. See 47 U.S.C. 
504(a) (requiring any collection action to enforce a Commission 
forfeiture be brought by the Department of Justice in a civil suit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge the concerns raised by commenters about disclosure 
of confidential business information to the public. To some extent, the 
tension in the comments reflects different traditions of spectrum 
management, which are intertwined in the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service rules we adopt today. Site-based radio services, for instance, 
typically require all site-based licensing information to be disclosed 
and available in various FCC databases. The flexible-use and unlicensed 
rules, however, do not require users to disclose information about 
specific sites. We agree with PISC that transparency is a key element 
of the authorization framework and that certain information must be 
made available to the public--and other SAS Administrators--consistent 
with usual Commission practices. We also understand that network owners 
may not desire release of information related to network deployments 
and configurations to the public in a manner that could compromise 
personal privacy or affect competitive interests. Regardless, some of 
this information may need to be shared, confidentially, with other SAS 
Administrators to effectively coordinate frequency assignments and 
avoid interference between CBSDs.
    Therefore, we find make two findings with respect to SAS 
Administrator disclosure of CBSD information. First, SAS Administrators 
must make all information necessary to effectively coordinate 
operations between and among CBSDs available to other SAS 
Administrators. Second, SAS Administrators must make CBSD registration 
information available to the general public, but they must obfuscate 
the identities of the licensees providing the information for any 
public disclosures.
    We also note that, contrary to PISC's assertions, the Commission is 
not ``effectively delegating its enforcement authority to privately-
operated SASs to enforce exclusions from the public airwaves.'' Based 
on the record before us, we have concluded that approved SAS will be 
capable of effectively coordinating operations between and among a wide 
variety of Citizens Broadband Radio Service Users and preventing 
disputes before they arise. However, as described in Section 
III(H)(2)(e), the Commission will retain ultimate responsibility for 
enforcing its rules, overseeing and approving SASs and SAS 
Administrators, resolving disputes between licensees, and addressing 
consumer complaints.
    With regard to information on federal Incumbent Users communicated 
from the ESC to the SAS and retention of that information, we adopt 
several safeguards. We require that the SAS and the ESC must not have 
any connectivity to any military or other sensitive federal database or 
system. Nor shall they store, retain, transmit, or disclose operational 
information on the movement or position of any federal systems. The 
Commission will work with NTIA and DoD to establish the information the 
ESC would need to transmit to the SAS as necessary to manage connected

[[Page 36204]]

CBSDs. For example, this data could be limited to the ESC's detection 
of protected radar signals, their approximate locations, and the 
protection zone coordinates as required for the SAS to instruct CBSDs 
to move off of a channel. We will restrict the storage and retention of 
this data and any other operational information to ensure only the 
effective operation of the SAS and ESC, and for no other purposes. The 
SAS shall only retain records of information or instructions received 
from the ESC in accordance with information retention policies 
established as part of the ESC approval process. These policies will 
include appropriate safeguards for classified and other sensitive data 
and will be developed by the Commission in coordination with NTIA and 
DoD. These rules implement the recommendations set forth in the NTIA 
Letter.
b. Registration, Authentication, and Authorization of CBSDs
    Background. We proposed that the SAS would confirm and verify the 
identity of any CBSD seeking to use the 3.5 GHz Band prior to 
authorizing its operation. The SAS would also prevent CBSDs from 
operating within any Exclusion Zones. We also proposed that 
registration information from multiple CBSDs could be communicated by a 
central network controller device. We sought comment on these proposed 
rules.
    As detailed in Section III(F)(2)(d), many commenters generally 
agree with the registration requirements for CBSDs. AT&T expresses 
concern about the security of data collected by the SAS and argues that 
the Commission should clearly state that such information is collected 
for registration purposes only and that licensees are not required to 
submit information about network performance. Microsoft suggests that 
there should be limits on the information the SAS collects and the time 
it maintains records for CBSDs.
    Discussion. We find that registering, authenticating, and 
authorizing CBSDs is an essential component of the SASs 
responsibilities. As described in Section III(F)(2)(b), CBSDs must 
report information on their technical specifications, location, and the 
identity of their authorized operators or licensees to the SAS. The SAS 
must, in turn, verify this information to ensure that CBSDs are used 
only by authorized users in accordance with the Commission's rules. The 
SAS must also verify that the FCC ID of any CBSD seeking to provide 
Citizens Broadband Radio Services is valid prior to authorizing it to 
begin providing service. We reiterate that individual CBSDs are not 
required to interface with the SAS so long as the required information 
is communicated by an aggregation point or network control device. We 
also note that these requirements do not apply to End User Devices. 
SASs must not collect, track, or store information on End User Devices 
or their users without user consent. The precise methods used to 
register, authenticate, and authorize CBSDs may be determined during 
the SAS approval process described in Section III(H)(3)(b).
c. Frequency Assignment
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed to dynamically assign PAL 
channels and GAA frequencies in the 3.5 GHz Band. Under that proposal, 
the SAS would be responsible for determining the available and 
appropriate frequencies at a given location using the location 
information supplied by CBSDs, Exclusion Zone parameters, the 
authorization status and operating parameters of CBSDs in the 
surrounding area, and such other information necessary to ensure the 
lawful operation of CBSDs. The SAS would also take into consideration 
any channel or frequency requests submitted by CBSDs as well as 
geographic and spectral efficiency considerations. We also proposed 
that the SAS be able to provide a list of available frequencies in a 
given area and confirm that any CBSDs causing harmful interference to 
an Incumbent User have been deactivated or reassigned upon request. We 
sought comment on these proposals.
    As set forth in detail in Section III(B), the record was divided 
over whether the SAS should be permitted to assign frequencies and 
channels to Citizens Broadband Radio Service users in the proposed 
manner. Commenters including Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, Federated 
Wireless, Google, Interdigital, PISC, Shared Spectrum Company, Spectrum 
Bridge, the WhiteSpace Alliance, and the Wireless Innovation Forum 
support the Commission's proposal to allow the SAS to assign 
frequencies in the band for both Priority Access Licensees and GAA 
Users. Other commenters, including AT&T, CTIA, NSN, 4G Americas, 
Ericsson, HKT Limited, and UK Broadband oppose the Commission's 
proposal and argued that Priority Access Licensees should be given 
static frequency assignments.
    In addition, Verizon stresses the importance of strong security 
protocols--dubbed ``channel use surety''--to ensure that GAA devices 
operate only on frequencies assigned by the SAS. According to Verizon, 
these protocols must be designed to prevent modifications of GAA 
devices or their firmware that would allow them to operate on 
unauthorized frequencies. Verizon stresses that such protocols are 
necessary to protect Priority Access Licensees and promote a stable 
spectral ecosystem.
    Discussion. As we detailed in Section III(B)(2)(c), it is in the 
public interest to establish a SAS-automated frequency assignment model 
for the 3.5 GHz Band. This method of frequency assignment is consistent 
with the Revised Framework and the proposals set forth in the FNPRM. 
The record clearly reflects that automated coordination by a robust SAS 
is essential to effective spectrum sharing between the three tiers of 
authorized users in the band.
    We also acknowledge the concerns raised by various commenters 
regarding frequency predictability and stability in an SAS-assigned 
frequency management regime. As detailed in Section III(C)(2)(a), we 
adopt appropriate provisions to ensure that PAL assignments remain as 
stable and consistent as possible across different channels and 
geographic boundaries. The SAS must respect and enforce these 
provisions to create a stable spectral environment for all Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users.
    In assigning frequencies for Priority Access and GAA use, the SAS 
must take appropriate steps to ensure that CBSDs operate only on 
authorized frequencies at all times. As Verizon noted, ensuring that 
devices operate only on assigned frequencies is essential to 
maintaining stability in the band and protecting network investments. 
However, while Verizon focuses on GAA users, we find that the SAS 
should take appropriate steps to ensure that all Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users operate only on their assigned frequencies. As one 
element of this process, we require that, when an SAS deauthorizes a 
CBSD or changes its permissible operational frequencies, it may require 
that CBSD to confirm that it has complied with the SAS's instructions. 
As described below, we impose end-to-end security requirements that 
will prevent tampering with devices to circumvent SAS control or 
otherwise defeating the purposes of our rules.
    As detailed in Section III(H)(2)(e) the Commission will address any 
issues concerning unauthorized frequency use or unauthorized equipment 
that arise in the band. We believe that applying these requirements to 
all users will help prevent interference, assist in network planning, 
and promote network investment in the 3.5 GHz Band.
    We acknowledge that our new framework for the 3.5 GHz Band raises

[[Page 36205]]

technological challenges that will likely require novel and 
collaborative solutions. Detailed implementation strategies for the 
frequency management rules we adopt herein will be addressed during the 
SAS Administrator approval process described in Section III(H)(3)(b). 
These discussions may also be informed by the outputs of any industry 
multi-stakeholder groups that are formed to address issues in the 3.5 
GHz Band. Through these processes, we hope to gather insight from 
potential SAS administrators, future licensees, and other industry 
stakeholders regarding the most effective techniques for implementing 
these rules.
d. Security
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed that the SAS employ protocols 
and procedures to ensure that all communications and interactions 
between the SAS and CBSDs are accurate and secure and that unauthorized 
parties cannot access or alter the SAS or the list of frequencies sent 
to a CBSD. These protocols and procedures would be reviewed and 
approved by the Commission before the SAS Administrator could be 
certified. We sought comment on these proposed rules and on any 
additional safeguards needed to protect sensitive federal information.
    The record strongly supports the inclusion of robust security 
protocols for communications between CBSDs and SASs. For instance, 
Ericsson supports a system wherein communications between CBSDs are 
protected using standard Internet security procedures. Federated 
Wireless agrees that secure Internet-based communications should be the 
minimum requirement for CBSD-to-SAS interactions but contends that SAS 
Administrators should be permitted to offer additional interfaces 
beyond the minimum requirements to meet the unique needs of various 
users. Google contends that the Commission should not require 
manufacturers and operators to adopt specific security measures but 
should instead require that devices and services in the 3.5 GHz Band 
reflect ``contemporary industry best practices for security.''
    AT&T argues that, to ensure security of information in the SAS, the 
Commission should contract with a vendor approved by DoD, NTIA, and the 
General Services Administration to create the SAS software as a ``work 
for hire'' and ensure that the Commission retains control over the 
system. They argue that this would give licensees a greater degree of 
certainty that their information will be secure and confidential.
    Discussion. After review of the record, we adopt our proposal to 
require secure and reliable communications among and between CBSDs and 
SASs. We will also require SASs to protect themselves from unauthorized 
data input or alteration of stored data. Secure and reliable 
communication pathways between SASs and CBSDs and between different 
SASs are essential for the success of the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service. Due to the nature of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, 
sensitive information relating to network configuration and operations 
will be routinely sent between CBSDs and SASs. This information must be 
protected from interception or modification--during transmission and 
while stored in an SAS--to ensure that the proprietary and confidential 
information provided by licensees is not compromised.
    However, while communications security in the band is paramount, we 
do not believe that mandating specific security protocols would serve 
the public interest at this time. Instead, we require potential SAS 
Administrators to develop and demonstrate that their systems include 
robust communications and information security features during the SAS 
Approval process. CBSDs shall demonstrate compliant security features 
during the equipment authorization process. These security protocols 
will be subject to the Commission's review and approval, with input 
from NTIA and DoD. We anticipate that given the immense value of 
industry-wide interoperability, groups--such as the types of multi-
stakeholder groups discussed in Section III(K)--will develop security 
models that SAS Administrators may consider, subject to Commission 
review. We also expect that security mechanisms will be updated on an 
ongoing basis to reflect state-of-the-art protection against ever-
evolving security threats.
    We do not agree with AT&T's argument that the SAS software should 
be created for the Commission as a ``work for hire.'' We believe that 
allowing applicants to develop multiple SASs within the parameters set 
by the Commission's rules will foster innovation, competition, and lead 
to a higher quality of service for all Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users. Indeed, this development path could lead to even more effective 
security features than could be created under the more restrictive 
approach suggested by AT&T. Moreover, as Federated Wireless notes, 
federal ownership of the software could lock the Commission into an 
expensive support system and hinder competition-driven innovation in 
the band.
    In addition, federal Incumbent Users have unique security concerns 
related to information that will be transmitted from the ESC to the 
SAS. SAS Administrators and potential ESC Operators are required to 
develop security protocols that meet the standards set by the 
Commission in collaboration with NTIA. Issues related to the ESC, 
including security policies, are addressed in greater detail Section 
III(I).
e. Enforcement
    Background. In the FNPRM we noted that many of our proposals could 
raise novel enforcement issues for the Commission. Many of the 
proposals in the FNPRM, including the SAS specifications, CBSD 
technical requirements, and security protocols were designed to address 
these issues and facilitate secure and consistent access to the 3.5 GHz 
Band for all authorized users. We sought comment on additional 
techniques and protocols that could be implemented, inside or outside 
the SAS, to address the unique enforcement concerns raised by the 
proposals in the FNPRM.
    Commenters that addressed enforcement issues mostly raised concerns 
about the perceived complexity and unproven nature of the SAS. For 
instance, commenters including CTIA, SIA, and Verizon express concerns 
about the ability of the SAS to manage three tiers of authorized users 
and effectively protect Incumbent and Priority Access tier operations. 
SIA questions the SAS's ability to prevent interference from CBSDs into 
existing FSS earth stations, especially given the complexity of the 
management functions under consideration. CTIA argues that an SAS 
capable of managing three tiers of operations has not been tested and 
that, until such a system is vetted, Incumbent and Priority Access tier 
users would run a serious risk of interference from GAA users.
    Discussion. We note that many of the issues raised by commenters 
regarding enforcement mechanisms are addressed in Sections III(H)(1) 
and III(H)(3). In addition to the rules proposed in the FNPRM, after 
review of the record, we also adopt additional requirements for the SAS 
to help manage access to the band and assist the Commission in 
performing its enforcement responsibilities. Specifically, to assist 
with the Commission's oversight responsibilities, we have added a 
requirement that SAS Administrators adopt procedures to immediately 
respond to requests from Commission

[[Page 36206]]

personnel for information stored or maintained by the SAS and to 
discontinue CBSD operations as directed by the Commission. We also 
require SAS Administrators to establish and follow protocols to comply 
with enforcement instructions from the Commission, including 
discontinuance of CBSD operations in designated geographic areas. These 
requirements are necessary to ensure that the Commission is able to 
ascertain the accuracy of information stored in the SAS, obtain the 
information necessary to enforce the Commission's rules, and ensure 
that CBSDs that do not comply with the Commission's rules are shut down 
in a timely manner.
    We expect that the SAS will be a valuable tool for spectrum 
management and enforcement and that SAS Administrators, in cooperation 
with individual licensees, will be able to resolve many of the issues 
that will arise in the band. We address concerns raised about the SAS's 
ability to manage and protect multiple tiers of authorized users 
elsewhere in this Report and Order. We expect many of the detailed 
enforcement mechanisms and procedures employed by SASs to be developed 
during the SAS Administrator approval process described in Section 
III(H)(3)(b). However, we reiterate that, regardless of the scope of 
the SAS, the Commission retains the ultimate responsibility for and 
authority over licensees in the band. In the event that the SAS is 
unable to resolve disputes between licensees or identify and address 
the sources of harmful interference in the band, we will address these 
issues, as well as any issues concerning unauthorized frequency use or 
unauthorized equipment.
3. SAS Administrators
    In the FNPRM, we proposed that only designated SAS Administrators 
that have been approved by the Commission could operate an SAS. We 
proposed to authorize multiple SAS Administrators, though each 
Administrator would be responsible for a single SAS. SAS Administrators 
would have to demonstrate, in detail, how their SASs will comply with 
the Commission's rules and establish detailed protocols to enforce the 
responsibilities set forth in part 96. We hereby adopt many of the 
proposals described in the FNPRM, set forth general guidelines for SAS 
Administrators, and provide details regarding the SAS Approval process.
    We intend to foster a diverse, competitive marketplace of SAS 
providers. We believe that the rules we adopt will promote 
technological innovation and encourage the development of market based 
solutions to the challenges involved with effective spectrum management 
in the 3.5 GHz Band. We believe that competition among multiple SAS 
providers is essential to the success of the 3.5 GHz Band. Indeed, we 
believe our rules will provide much leeway for competitive SAS 
Administrators to provide differentiated, value-added services in the 
course of fulfilling the core regulatory obligations. We hope that such 
competition will create a ``race to the top'' that yields advances in 
technology, at reasonable cost, as SAS Administrators vie to serve 
different parts of the market. We have seen this dynamic begin to 
emerge in TV White Spaces, with the approval of multiple database 
providers to-date, as well as in more conventional frequency-
coordinated radio services.
    At the same time we understand that network effects and 
technological ``lock-in'' can also sometimes present dynamics that 
hinder, rather than help, competition. Were this to occur in the 3.5 
GHz Band, an SAS Administrator might use its position not only to 
facilitate a particular use of the band, but also to control access to 
the band. Let us be clear: we do not intend to create a back-door 
``license'', which vests exclusionary power in one or a few SAS 
Administrators (separate from any licenses assigned pursuant to our 
Part 96 rules). We will carefully review SAS Administrator 
applications--and will revise the rules, if necessary--to ensure that 
the SASs develop in a way that achieves the positive goals set forth in 
this Report and Order.
a. SAS Administrator Requirements
    1. Background. In the FNPRM we proposed that SAS's be operated only 
by approved SAS Administrators. Those SAS Administrators would be 
authorized for a five-year term, renewable at the Commission's 
discretion. We proposed that the SAS Administrators establish protocols 
and procedures to manage Citizens Broadband Radio Service Users in the 
band, protect Incumbent Users from harmful interference, and perform 
the other proposed SAS functions set forth in the Proposed Rules. We 
also proposed that SAS Administrators be required to:
     Maintain a regularly updated database that contains the 
information described in the proposed rules;
     establish a process for acquiring and storing in the 
database necessary and appropriate information from the Commission's 
databases;
     respond in a timely manner to verify, correct or remove, 
as appropriate, data in the event that the Commission or a party brings 
claim of inaccuracies in the SAS to its attention;
     securely transfer the information in the SAS to another 
designated entity in the event it does not continue as an SAS 
Administrator at the end of its term;
     cooperate with other SAS Administrators to develop a 
standardized process for coordinating and exchanging required 
information;
     provide a means to make public information available to 
the public in an accessible manner.
    The record shows general support for authorizing multiple SAS 
Administrators in the band. Commenters emphasize that authorizing 
multiple SAS Administrators will promote competition and innovation in 
the band. Google also cautions against overly proscriptive rules, 
noting that SAS Administrators should be able to differentiate 
themselves based on the technologies and services they offer.
    The record was split on the issue of whether SAS Administrators 
should be permitted to act as Priority Access Licensees. Some 
commenters, including Verizon and Google, support allowing SAS 
Administrators to also hold Priority Access Licenses. Google argues 
that preventing SAS Administrators from holding PALs would discourage 
parties from investing in SAS development, reducing overall competition 
in the band. Microsoft disagrees, and argues that SAS Administrators 
should not be permitted to hold PALs to prevent conflicts of interest.
    Discussion. The primary function of any SAS Administrator will be 
to develop protocols, procedures, and systems to enforce the 
Commission's rules governing SAS operations. We will require each SAS 
Administrator to provide services for a five-year term, which, at the 
Commission's discretion, may be renewed. In the event that an SAS 
Administrator does not wish to continue at the end of its term, or if 
its term is not renewed, it will be required to transfer its database 
along with the information necessary to access the database to another 
designated SAS. The SAS administrator would be permitted to charge a 
reasonable fee for conveyance of that resource.
    If the Commission approves multiple SAS Administrators, we must 
ensure that each SAS contains consistent, accurate information. Because 
a CBSD will only be required to contact a single SAS, there is a need 
for SASs to share accurate registration information so that each SAS 
has the same, current view of the radio environment. Therefore, we

[[Page 36207]]

will require SAS Administrators to cooperate with one another to 
develop a standardized process for coordinating their operations, 
avoiding any conflicting assignments, maximizing shared use of 
available frequencies, ensuring continuity of service to all registered 
CBSDs, and sharing the data collected from registered CBSDs. We will 
also require SAS Administrators to coordinate with each other to 
facilitate non-interfering use by CBSDs connected to other SASs, 
maximize available GAA frequencies by assigning PALs to similar 
channels in the same geographic regions, and perform such other 
functions necessary to ensure that available spectrum is used 
efficiently. SAS Administrators must share information on the CBSDs and 
licensees managed by their SAS to the extent necessary to facilitate 
the effective coordination of all approved SASs.
    In addition, an SAS will obtain much of the information on licensed 
use of the 3.5 GHz Band from Commission databases. This information 
will include information on Priority Access Licensees and licensed in-
band FSS users. This information may be stored in the Commission's 
Universal Licensing System database or another system. Each SAS will be 
required to synchronize itself with Commission databases at least once 
a day so that the information in the SAS remains current.
    SAS Administrators must also establish protocols and procedures to 
protect Incumbent operations consistent with information received from 
an approved ESC. SAS Administrators will be responsible for ensuring 
that all information transmitted by the ESC is acted upon and protected 
consistent with any additional requirements imposed during the SAS and 
ESC approval processes. SAS Administrators may themselves provide an 
ESC (if approved) or work with another approved ESC provider.
    We will expect SAS Administrators to respond quickly to verify and 
correct or remove data in the event that a party or the Commission 
brings claims of inaccuracies in the SAS to its attention. This 
obligation to remedy inaccuracies applies to information entered into 
or omitted from the SAS, whether willfully or through operator error. 
Further, SAS Administrators must ensure that the SAS is able, at all 
times, to promptly respond to requests from Commission personnel for 
any information stored in the SAS. SAS Administrators must ensure that 
there is a capability in place to respond to emergency instances that 
require CBSDs to cease operation in a geographic area or during a 
specified time period.
    Finally, we permit SAS Administrators to hold PALs and act as GAA 
users. We disagree with Microsoft's contention that allowing SAS 
Administrators to hold or lease PALs would necessarily lead to 
discriminatory conduct based on potential conflicts of interest. So 
long as an approved SAS Administrator complies with all of our rules, 
coordinates fairly with other SAS Administrators, and is one of several 
options available to end users in a competitive market for SAS 
services, we believe that the public interest should be well served by 
the SAS community. However, we include in our rules a requirement that 
SAS Administrators discharge their frequency assignment functions, 
whether involving their own users or those served by a different SAS 
Administrator, in a non-discriminatory manner, consistent with the 
priority accorded to PAL users vis-[agrave]-vis GAA users under our 
rules.
    In addition, in determining whether to approve applicants to serve 
as SAS Administrators, we will require a demonstration of their intent 
and ability to comply with all of our rules, including this 
nondiscrimination requirement as well as the requirement that they 
cooperate with other SAS Administrators in coordinating and exchanging 
required information. Moreover, the Commission will monitor the 
behavior of SAS Administrators and will take enforcement action if 
necessary to ensure that SAS Administrators comply with all applicable 
rules. The Commission will also monitor the competitive balance in the 
3.5 GHz Band and may take action to rectify any anti-competitive 
behavior that could be attributed to SAS Administrators holding or 
leasing PALs or GAA licenses or operating CBSDs (under PAL or GAA 
authorization) in the band.
    In the past, we have recognized the need to avoid conflicts of 
interest in connection with frequency coordination. We believe the 
foregoing protections are sufficient to guard against such conflicts in 
the discharge of SAS duties. First, as noted above, we contemplate 
approval of a number of SAS Administrators, to ensure that 3.5 GHz Band 
licensees have sufficient choices and thereby promote competition as to 
fees and service quality. We believe that establishment of a 
competitive market for these services will help ensure against 
discriminatory conduct based on potential conflicts of interest. 
Second, we have designed the SAS function to be a highly automated one 
that minimizes the potential for such discriminatory conduct, and will 
review applications during the approval process in the light of that 
goal. In these circumstances, we believe the foregoing protections 
should be adequate.
b. SAS and SAS Administrator Approval Process
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed to authorize multiple SASs 
for five-year terms. We also proposed that the Bureau review 
applications for SAS certification and establish procedures for 
reviewing the qualifications of prospective SAS Administrators. We 
sought comment on this approach and on the appropriate process for 
selecting, reviewing, and approving SAS Administrators.
    Several commenters, including AT&T, Ericsson, Google, and PISC 
supported the Commission's proposal to require prospective SAS 
administrators to complete a thorough review and approval process. AT&T 
notes that the approval process, coupled with the SAS Administrator 
requirements, strikes a balance between Commission oversight of the SAS 
and the need to avoid adopting overly prescriptive rules about the SAS. 
While Google supports rigorous requirements to ensure that SAS 
Administrators have the technical expertise and financial security to 
operate an SAS, it urges the Commission not to mandate specific 
technology that SAS Administrators must use. Instead, Google asks that 
we ``establish basic functional requirements that will protect both 
incumbent users and the rights of PAL holders.''
    Discussion. We will designate one or more private sector 
administrators to create and operate an SAS, following a thorough 
approval and review process. We believe that a comprehensive process 
for SASs and SAS Administrators will foster competition, promote the 
development of innovative technologies, and further the public 
interest. An approval process that builds upon the TVWS experience 
should facilitate the testing and development of multiple SASs to 
oversee the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. We adopt the proposed 
delegation of authority to WTB and OET and instruct them to take such 
actions as authorized by Sections 0.241(j) and 0.331(f).
    As stated previously, the rules governing SASs and SAS 
Administrators are high-level guidelines that describe the minimum 
requirements for any authorized SAS. We expect that applicants will 
develop specific policies, procedures, and technologies to show 
compliance with, implement and enforce the rules during the approval 
process. We agree with

[[Page 36208]]

Google that our rules should ``provide a framework to enable efficient 
spectrum use'' without mandating ``the specific technical means by 
which SAS administrators achieve them.'' All stages of the process, 
including review of applications and system compliance testing, will be 
overseen by WTB and OET, in close consultation with NTIA and DoD.
    After the release of this Report and Order, WTB and OET will issue 
a Public Notice requesting proposals from entities desiring to 
administer an SAS. Applicants will be required to, at a minimum, 
demonstrate how they plan to meet the Commission's rules governing SAS 
operations, demonstrate their technical qualifications to operate an 
SAS, and provide any additional information requested by WTB and OET. 
Based on these applications, WTB and OET will determine whether to 
conditionally approve any of the applicants. If an application is not 
accepted, the applicant may file an Application for Review with the 
Commission.
    Any applicants that receive conditional approval must demonstrate, 
to the satisfaction of WTB and OET, that their SASs meet all of the 
requirements set forth in the Commission's rules and any other 
conditions that these offices deem necessary. WTB and OET will provide 
detailed instructions to applicants throughout the process. At a 
minimum, applicants will be required to allow their systems to be 
tested and analyzed by FCC staff prior to making their systems 
available for a period of public testing prior to release. Applicants 
may also be required to attend workshops and meetings as directed by 
the offices. NTIA will provide input and guidance as needed to ensure 
that the concerns of federal incumbents are properly addressed during 
the approval process.
    We expect that this process will facilitate the rapid development 
and deployment of multiple fully functional SASs. We also expect that, 
through the approval process, applicants and other stakeholders will 
work collaboratively to develop standards, procedures, and industry 
best practices in several key areas, including SAS coordination and 
information exchange, communications between CBSDs and SASs, and 
information security. We believe that these collaborative efforts will 
yield flexible, innovative solutions to these, and other, technical 
issues. However, if satisfactory solutions are not reached through 
industry consensus, the Commission may address these issues in the 
future.
c. SAS Administrator Fees
    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed that SAS Administrators be 
permitted to collect reasonable fees from Priority Access Licensees and 
General Authorized Access users for use of the SAS and associated 
services. We based this proposal on a similar rule adopted for TVWS 
database administrators (See 47 CFR 47.1514). We sought comment on this 
proposal and on whether SAS Administrators should be permitted to 
collect fees from all Citizens Broadband Radio Service users.
    Many commenters, including Federated Wireless, Ericsson, Verizon, 
and PISC support our proposal to allow SAS Administrators to collect 
reasonable fees from both Priority Access Licensees and GAA users. T-
Mobile contends that SAS administrators should not be permitted to 
collect fees from Priority Access Licensees since the Commission 
proposes to assign PALs via competitive bidding. However, T-Mobile 
maintains that if fees are necessary to recover SAS costs, they should 
only be collected from GAA users.
    Discussion. We find that permitting SAS Administrators to charge 
reasonable fees to Priority Access Licensees and GAA users is in the 
public interest. Our review of the record shows that there is 
widespread support for allowing SAS Administrators to collect 
reasonable fees from both Priority Access Licensees and GAA users. As 
Ericsson notes, allowing SAS Administrators to collect fees from PAL 
and GAA users in a manner similar to users of the TVWS databases is 
``reasonable and appropriate.'' Ericsson explains that the collection 
of fees will give SAS Administrators the flexibility to develop 
individual business models. We agree; allowing SAS Administrators the 
option of whether and which users to charge for use of an SAS will give 
Administrators the greatest possible flexibility and facilitate the 
development t of various competitive business models. Accordingly, SAS 
Administrators may charge any Citizens Broadband Radio Service user a 
reasonable fee for provision of its services.
    We do not agree with T-Mobile's assertion that SAS Administrators 
should not be permitted to charge fees to Priority Access Licensees 
since those licensees will have already paid for spectrum access at 
auction. We believe that allowing SAS Administrators the freedom to 
determine whether to charge users for their valuable services--and 
which users to charge--will promote competition in the band. The choice 
to acquire spectrum access and bear the costs associated with managing 
access to the spectrum, including whether to pay an SAS Administrator, 
is a business decision to be made by the potential licensee. This 
approach is wholly consistent with Commission precedent in other 
services, including Land Mobile Services authorized under part 90 of 
the Commission's rules, wherein licensees pay the Commission to obtain 
a license and a third party for coordination services.
    Our determination is based on the expectation that a competitive 
market for SAS services will emerge. We intend to allow the market to 
determine the appropriate rates to be charged to Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users. However, if SAS Administrators engage in anti-
competitive or collusive practices resulting in excessive fees, or if a 
competitive market for SAS services otherwise fails to materialize, the 
Commission may take steps to address such issues.

I. Environmental Sensing Capability

    Background. In the FNPRM, we proposed that the SAS retain 
information on all operations within the 3.5 GHz Band, including, for 
incumbent federal users, the geographic coordinates of the Exclusion 
Zones. We also noted that some commenters have argued that the SAS 
should be required to incorporate spectrum sensing information from 
CBSDs or other remote beaconing and sensing sites to accurately detect 
incumbent usage models and respond to the interference environment. In 
addition, we stated that we would explore the possibility of allowing 
dynamic coordinated access to spectrum within Exclusion Zones. We 
sought comment on allowing Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations 
within Exclusion Zones as well as the use of sensors for frequency 
management and incumbent protection.
    Several commenters support allowing Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users to dynamically access areas within the Exclusion Zones 
proposed in the FNPRM. In addition, as set forth in Section III(G), 
many commenters supported using spectrum sensing technology to protect 
federal users from harmful interference and facilitate more widespread 
commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band. Some commenters also contend that 
the Commission should authorize the use of a federal SAS to securely 
maintain information on federal incumbent operations and accelerate the 
process for reducing exclusion zones.
    In its March 24, 2015 letter, NTIA suggested that sensors could be 
used to

[[Page 36209]]

protect federal operations using an ESC. NTIA suggests that the ESC 
could consist of one or more commercially operated networks of device-
based or infrastructure-based sensors that would be used to detect 
signals from federal radar systems. According to NTIA, based on ESC 
inputs, the SAS could instruct commercial users to vacate a channel 
when proximity to federal operations (in frequency, location, or time) 
presents a risk of harmful interference to federal radar systems. The 
information communicated by the ESC could then be used by the SAS to 
direct Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to another channel or, if 
necessary, to cease transmissions to avoid potential interference to 
federal radar systems. NTIA also asserts that ESC sensors would only be 
required in the vicinity of the Exclusion Zones established to protect 
federal radar systems.
    Discussion. We agree with NTIA's suggestion to allow the use of one 
or more ESCs to detect federal frequency use in and adjacent to the 3.5 
GHz Band. As NTIA, Google, Federated Wireless, and others have noted, 
spectrum sensing technologies--in conjunction with management of CBSDs 
by an approved SAS--would allow Citizens Broadband Radio Service users 
to operate near the coastline on a channel or frequency not being used 
by federal radar systems. This would allow for more efficient and 
widespread commercial use of the spectrum while ensuring that federal 
use of the band is protected. Moreover, sensing technology would allow 
federal users to deploy next generation radar systems without fear of 
interference from commercial operators.
    We also agree with NTIA that the ESC should be developed, managed, 
and maintained by a non-governmental entity and should not require 
oversight or day-to-day input from NTIA or DoD. We note that the rules 
governing the ESC are technologically neutral and, as such, ESC 
developers may utilize different sensing techniques that yield the 
desired result. The sensors comprising an authorized ESC may be 
infrastructure-based, device-based, or a combination of the two, as 
long as the ESC complies with the rules and guidelines set forth by the 
Commission. These sensors shall be deployed in the vicinity of the 
Exclusion Zones described in Section III(G) to ensure that all federal 
radar use in and adjacent to the 3.5 GHz Band is accurately detected 
and reported to an SAS.
    In addition and as noted above, our rules protect the security and 
confidentiality of federal operations by ensuring that the ESC does not 
store, retain, transmit, or disclose any information on the locations 
or movements of any federal systems. The ESC will not provide any 
insights into the operations, locations, parameters, or features of 
federal radar and other systems that could potentially affect their 
security posture. This is consistent with NTIA's recommended approach 
to providing information on federal systems that is necessary for the 
effective implementation of the ESC.
    While some commenters support establishing a federal SAS to retain 
and manage federal spectrum use data, given the sensitivity of the 
information in question, we do not think it would be in the public 
interest to retain this data. Moreover, given the large number of 
commenters who opined on the positive benefits and technological 
feasibility of using sensing technology in the band, we believe that 
retaining information on federal operations will not be necessary to 
share the band effectively.
    Prospective ESC operators must have their systems reviewed, 
certified, and approved through the approval process used to approve 
SASs and SAS Administrators described in Section III(H)(3)(b). While 
the processes are the same, ESCs and SASs shall be evaluated, tested, 
and approved separately. However, these processes may be concurrent and 
the ability to communicate with an SAS will be a key component of ESC 
approval. The approval process will be overseen by the Commission in 
close consultation with NTIA and DoD. To be approved, an ESC must meet 
the following requirements:
     Be managed and maintained by a non-governmental entity;
     accurately detect federal frequency use in the 3550-3700 
MHz band and adjacent frequencies;
     communicate information about detected frequency use to an 
approved SAS;
     maintain security of detected and communicated signal 
information;
     comply with all Commission rules and guidelines governing 
the construction, operation, and approval of ESCs;
     be available at all times to immediately respond to 
requests from authorized Commission personnel for any information 
collected or communicated by the ESC;
     ensure that the ESC operates without any connectivity to 
any military or other sensitive federal database or system;
     ensure that the ESC does not store, retain, transmit, or 
disclose operational information on the movement or position of any 
federal system or any information that reveals other operational 
information of any federal system that is not required to effectively 
operate the ESC by part 96.

Following ESC approval, approved SAS Administrators making use of an 
approved ESC may dynamically authorize CBSDs nationwide, consistent 
with Section III(G). We also direct WTB and OET to submit a report to 
the Commission on the status of the development, review, and approval 
of SASs and ESCs at nine month intervals. The first such report will be 
due on January 17, 2016. Overall, we believe that the development of an 
ESC--in conjunction with an approved SAS--will maximize efficient 
commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band while protecting important federal 
incumbent operations.

J. 3650-3700 MHz Band

    Background. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on a 
supplemental proposal to include the adjacent 3650-3700 MHz band in the 
proposed Citizens Broadband Radio Service regulatory regime. As we 
noted in the NPRM, incorporating this additional 50 megahertz would 
create a 150 megahertz contiguous block of spectrum that could be used 
by existing licensees in the 3650-3700 MHz band--as well as new 
licensees--to expand the services that they are already providing. 
Subsequently, in the Licensing PN the Commission specifically sought 
comment on extending the Revised Framework to the 3650-3700 MHz band, 
and asked what provisions would need to be made for existing operators 
and how much transition time would be required.
    In the FNPRM, we reaffirmed our supplemental proposal to extend our 
proposed rules for the 3.5 GHz Band to the 3650-3700 MHz band. The 
Commission stated that, if it decided to include the latter band 
segment in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the existing 3650-3700 
MHz operations would be grandfathered for a period of five years after 
the effective date of the proposed rules. During the transition period, 
existing licensees would be permitted to operate stations in accordance 
with the technical rules in part 90, subpart Z of this chapter, if any 
had been authorized. During this period, Grandfathered Wireless 
Broadband Providers would be required to avoid causing harmful 
interference to the federal sites listed in 47 CFR 90.1331 and 
grandfathered FSS earth stations, in accordance with existing part 90 
rules (47 CFR 90.1331). At the end of the transition period, 
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Providers would

[[Page 36210]]

have the option, available to all eligible 3.5 GHz Band users, to apply 
for PALs in the 3550-3650 MHz band or to operate on a GAA basis 
consistent with part 96 rules. The Commission sought comment on the 
current equipment upgrade cycles for equipment in the band, and the 
incremental cost to part 90 incumbents of complying with Part 96 
requirements weighed against the benefits of obtaining access to an 
additional 100 megahertz of spectrum on a PAL or GAA basis.
    Many commenters support the proposal to create a 150 megahertz 
contiguous block of spectrum for the 3.5 GHz Band. T-Mobile, for 
example, observes that by extending the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service licensing framework to the 3650-3700 MHz band, we will 
``increase the utility of the band, benefitting existing operators, 
attracting new providers, and fostering a large, innovative equipment 
market.'' Similarly, Motorola Mobility asserts that including 3650-3700 
MHz will meet the Commission's policy goals of making additional 
spectrum available for mobile broadband service to the public, while 
promoting interference mitigation techniques and spectral efficiency. 
Google similarly supports extension of the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service framework to the 3650-3700 MHz band, but notes that current 
users should only be grandfathered to use the band for a period of time 
based on their actual current use.
    Some commenters oppose changing the existing framework for the 
3650-3700 MHz band. These commenters assert that given existing 
investment in the band, 3650-3700 MHz should not be integrated with the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service framework. WISPA notes that Wireless 
Internet Service Providers (WISPs) currently use the 3650-3700 MHz band 
to provide fixed wireless broadband services. Cloud Alliance in Vermont 
and Neptuno Networks in Puerto Rico, for example, use their 3650 MHz 
licenses to provide WiMAX service. Exelon and Ameren Services Inc. 
state that they use 3650 MHz licenses as part of their communications 
networks for the management of utility grids. UTC similarly notes that 
utilities have used their licenses to deploy and support smart grid 
applications including supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) 
and advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) systems. UTC maintains that 
extending the proposed Part 96 rules to the 3650-3700 MHz band would 
increase congestion in the band and impose undue costs on incumbents.
    Alternatively, some commenters suggest that if we decide to apply 
the proposed Part 96 rules to the 3650-3700 MHz band, we must do so by 
adopting sufficient protections to safeguard existing investment in the 
band and to mitigate any impact on incumbent operations. Neptuno argues 
for a grandfathering period of five years or the remainder of the 
licensee's ten-year term, whichever is longer, with the ability to 
continue using current equipment. UTC, pointing to CenterPoint's 
investment to support a smart grid system, proposes that incumbent 
operators be (1) grandfathered permanently; (2) protected from PAL and 
GAA operations in the band; and (3) have the first option to access 
PALs in their area. WISPA asks that incumbent operators be given 
priority access protection and be permitted to permanently retain and 
operate their existing equipment.
    Discussion. We conclude that it is in the public interest to adopt 
our supplemental proposal and include the 3650-3700 MHz band in the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service framework, creating a 150 megahertz 
contiguous band for flexible, shared uses. We have tailored the 3.5 GHz 
Band rules in response to commenter concerns that incumbent 3650-3700 
MHz licensees should be able to continue operations after transition to 
the broader Citizens Broadband Radio Service framework. We also provide 
for a transition period--longer, for many licensees, than was proposed 
in the FNPRM--in which incumbent 3650-3700 MHz licensees will enjoy 
interference protections that ease the transition to the new rules.
    Including the 3650-3700 MHz band will serve the public interest by 
promoting spectrum availability, efficiency, and usability for all 3.5 
GHz Band users, including prior 3650-3700 MHz licensees. There is 
substantial support in the record for extending the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service rules to the 3650-3700 MHz band. As Google notes, 
``[m]ore contiguous spectrum can support more uses, attract more 
services, and encourage expansion of the equipment market--all of which 
will increase the intensity and diversity of 3.5 GHz operations.'' PISC 
adds that common technical rules for PAL and GAA devices for the entire 
3550-3700 MHz Band will promote ``a mass market ecosystem of devices 
that can operate on either licensed (PAL) or unlicensed (GAA) 
spectrum.'' The Wi-Fi Alliance maintains that extension of the rules 
will ``promote the availability and efficient use of the spectrum 
band'' and ``provide economies of scale for equipment across the full 
150-megahertz contiguous block of spectrum, thereby facilitating the 
realization of a robust small-cell market.'' The Shared Spectrum 
Company contends that the expanded bandwidth available for GAA use will 
result in the deployment of innovative technologies such as sensing 
systems, which might not be financially attractive under ``the 
traditional capital and planning restrictions imposed on auction 
licensing paradigms.'' Our band-wide operability requirement for CBSDs 
will ensure that the benefits of equipment scale and spectrum access 
described above inure to all users. This scale should be far greater 
scale than available under the current part 90 regime, due in large 
part to the relatively small size of the incumbents' band (only 50 
megahertz of spectrum).
    We have also endeavored with the Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
to create a regulatory environment that will preserve, encourage, or 
even accelerate network deployments, including those providing smart 
grid and WISP services, which have taken root under the existing rules 
governing the 3650-3700 MHz band (See 47 CFR 90.1301, et seq.). In 
making our supplemental proposal to include the 3650-3700 MHz band, we 
recognized that there were currently over 2,000 part 90 incumbent 
licensees in this band with more than 25,000 registered sites. As noted 
above, many of these Part 90 incumbents have made substantial 
investments in equipment deploying various services in the band. These 
investments were made under a non-exclusive licensing regime and 
subject to their statutory waiver against any claim to use of the 
spectrum ``as against the regulatory power of the United States.'' \19\ 
Still, we strive to minimize the adverse effects of rule changes on 
incumbents to the extent possible without compromising the public 
interest benefits that we believe such rules changes will produce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 47 U.S.C. 304. It is also ``undisputed that the Commission 
always retain[s] the power to alter the term of existing licenses by 
rulemaking.'' Celtronix Telemetry, Inc. v. FCC, 272 F.3d 585, 589 
(D.C. Cir. 2001). Accord, Cellco Partnership v. FCC, 700 F.3d 534, 
543 (D.C. Cir. 2012). See also Committee for Effective Cellular 
Rules v. FCC, 53 F.3d 1309, 1318-20 (D.C. Cir. 1995); WBEN, Inc. v. 
United States, 396 F.2d 601, 617-18 (2d Cir.1968) (upholding rules 
resulting in increased interference during term of fulltime AM 
stations' licenses resulting from operations of daytime licensees); 
California Citizens Band Ass'n v. United States, 375 F.2d 43, 50-52 
(9th Cir. 1967). While such modifications may not extend to making 
``fundamental changes'' to the terms of existing licenses, Cellco, 
700 F.3d at 534, here as noted below we have taken steps to ensure 
that part 90 incumbents may continue to provide those same services 
[using the same technologies], over the same as well as 
substantially additional spectrum. See Community Television, Inc. v. 
FCC, 216 F.3d 1133, 1140-41 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have therefore modified our proposal in four important ways to

[[Page 36211]]

preserve existing 3650-3700 MHz investment. First, our decision not to 
allow Priority Access use in the 3650-3700 MHz band segment means that 
this portion of the band will continue to be licensed on a non-
exclusive basis, and thus will continue to be available on a non-
exclusive basis to former part 90 incumbents.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ We emphasize that the existing part 90 rules provide for 
non-exclusive spectrum access only. See 47 CFR 90.1307. See also 
Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 72 FR 40767 (July 25, 2007): ``In contrast to an 
exclusive licensing model in which a licensee may exclude others 
from a particular license area, the non-exclusive licensing model 
adopted in the 3650 MHz Order requires a potential entrant to 
consider that the presence of other licensees will require 
cooperative use and may, at times, restrict the amount of spectrum 
and/or time that spectrum is available to any particular licensee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, our technical rules for Category B CBSDs will accommodate 
existing 3650-3700 MHz network deployments and, in fact, will increase 
technical flexibility in rural areas. In urban areas, the power level 
authorized for Category B CBSDs is the same as allowed under the 
existing Part 90 rules. In rural areas, the levels are even higher. 
These rules therefore address a principal concern of part 90 incumbents 
about the potential for substantial decreases in coverage areas due to 
lower power levels.
    Third, while we believe our band-wide operability rule will 
ultimately benefit prior existing users of the 3650-3700 MHz band by 
expanding equipment availability and spectrum access, we exempt 
equipment deployed under these preexisting rules from the operability 
requirement. We believe that this exemption will allow 3650-3700 MHz 
users to continue operating under the new 3.5 GHz Band rules, without 
need to retrofit or abandon their existing equipment.
    Fourth, defining a CBSD in a flexible way to encompass a network of 
base stations should allow legacy network equipment to interact with 
the SAS at relatively low cost, through the addition of a proxy 
controller device. The vast majority of equipment deployed in the 3650-
3700 MHz band uses the WiMAX technology standard. We note that this 
standard, like most carrier-grade managed network technologies, defines 
network management interfaces that allow for operator control of 
network operating parameters. These interfaces provide software 
``hooks'' that can enable deployment of a network proxy controller that 
intermediates between the legacy network and the SAS, effectively 
translating between the SAS and network management layer to ensure 
compatibility with our part 96 rules.
    In short, we believe that we have made necessary and appropriate 
rule accommodations to allow prior existing 3650-3700 MHz licensees to 
continue operations in the band under a framework that provides access 
to greater spectrum that may better meet their needs in the long run. 
To the extent that we may have overlooked any technical obstacles to 
achieving this goal, we note that part 90 incumbents may avail 
themselves of our waiver process on a case-by-case basis.
    Nevertheless, recognizing the potential challenges that may come 
with any regulatory transition, and in light of the significant 
investment many incumbent 3650-3700 MHz licensees have made in the 
band, we provide additional protections for these incumbent operations 
during a reasonable transition period. In place of the strict five-year 
term proposed in our FNPRM, we will protect incumbent 3650-3700 MHz 
nationwide licensees (Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Providers) for 
five years after the R&O Adoption Date or for the remainder of the 
license term, whichever is longer, with one exception. We do not 
believe it would be appropriate to extend a transition period of more 
than five years to those Part 90 incumbents licensed after the January 
8, 2013 Federal Register publication date of the NPRM. Such licensees 
were on notice of our supplemental proposal to integrate the 3650-3700 
MHz band into the Citizens Broadband Radio Service regulatory regime 
before obtaining their licenses, and we believe according them more 
than a five-year priority over GAA users of the band would 
unnecessarily curtail the spectral efficiencies contemplated by our 
rules.
    The grandfathering period ``allows incumbent licensees to benefit 
from the original term of the license they possess while giving them 
sufficient time to decide whether to seek a new license under a 
modified regime or look for other alternatives'' that may be available 
at that time. We are mindful of some commenters' concerns that existing 
licensees in the 3650-3700 MHz band entered the band with the 
expectation of a ten-year license term under the prior existing rules. 
As noted above, we believe our technical and licensing rules will allow 
for continued operation in the band for the indefinite future. The 
transition period will provide incumbent licensees with the benefit of 
operating under the existing Part 90 framework for the remainder of 
their full licensed term, or in some cases substantially longer. At the 
end of the transition period, these licensees may continue to operate 
their networks under the GAA rules, but without the priority accorded 
them during the transition.
    During the transition period, grandfathered licensees will receive 
interference protection from other 3.5 GHz Band users operating in the 
3650-3700 MHz band segment (i.e., GAA users) for network operations and 
frequencies that are in use at registered sites as of April 17, 2016. 
We agree with Google's comment that ``[c]onsistent with the logic of 
grandfathering, protection should be provided only for the channels and 
locations where operations currently are deployed, rather than 
categorically granting incumbents exclusive rights to a full 50 MHz of 
spectrum they may not be using (and may not be authorized to use).'' In 
defining the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone, we intend to 
distinguish between ``real'' networks that have received substantial 
investment and provide socially productive service from ``paper 
networks'' whose only effect is to restrict spectrum accessible by the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
    The Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone therefore represents the 
exclusions, in geographic area and frequency range, needed to 
reasonably protect registered networks that are constructed, in 
service, and in compliance with the prior existing rules for the 3650-
3700 MHz band. We elaborate on these concepts as follows:
     Registered means that any fixed or base stations defining 
the extent of the network have been properly registered with ULS.
     Constructed means that all of the requisite infrastructure 
elements are in-place and operational. These include siting, FCC-
certified radio equipment, backhaul, power, etc.
     In service means that the network provides ongoing service 
to unaffiliated, paying subscribers (e.g., broadband service from a 
WISP) or for bona fide private uses (e.g., utility networks, network 
backhaul).
     Compliance means that to receive protection, licensees 
must be in compliance with all other applicable FCC rules (or operating 
pursuant to a waiver of those rules).
    We will determine a Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone, after 
issuing a Public Notice seeking comment on the appropriate methodology 
and relevant technical parameters. In conducting our technical 
analysis, we will use realistic modeling assumptions, reflecting the 
equipment, technical configuration, and propagation environment of 
real-world

[[Page 36212]]

deployments authorized by the Part 90 rules. Alternatively, a 
simplified metric (e.g., distance from a base station) that 
sufficiently approximates such a technical analysis may be appropriate 
instead. We also emphasize that the Grandfathered Wireless Protection 
Zone shall only protect frequencies in use by a Grandfathered Wireless 
Broadband Provider at a given site.
    The Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone will be defined based on 
fixed or base stations registered by applications filed in ULS on or 
before April 17, 2015, the adoption date of this Report and Order.\21\ 
The use of the adoption date is necessary to prevent a speculative 
``land rush'' in site registrations during the period between the 
adoption date and the effective date of the new and revised rules. This 
approach will also help prevent the protection of ``paper'' networks 
and ensure that the 3650-3700 MHz band is put to its most productive 
use. Additionally, we note that for any assignments or transfers of 
control of Grandfathered Wireless Broadband licenses or registered 
sites that occur following the effective date of this Report and Order, 
the applicable transition period will run with the original license 
date, on a site-by-site basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Under the current part 90 rules, stations that operate 
above the power limits specified in 47 CFR 90.1333 are required to 
be registered. We note that many subscriber units/customer premise 
equipment/remote terminals operate above the mobile/portable power 
limits. However, we believe that it is appropriate to define the 
Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zones based on the contour of base 
and fixed access points that define the network. As such, in this 
context, ``fixed or base station'' does not include subscriber 
units, customer premise equipment, or remote terminals that 
communicate with base stations or access points. We will rely on 
information provided in the equipment certification to distinguish 
base stations and fixed access points from customer premise 
equipment. Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zones will not be 
specifically defined for subscriber units operated by Grandfathered 
Wireless Broadband Licensees, regardless of whether they have been 
registered in ULS. We expect, however, that the methodology for 
defining the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone around based and 
fixed access points will provide appropriate protections for the 
subscriber units, customer premise equipment, and remote terminals 
associated with registered base and fixed stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current procedures, we will generally consider a fixed or 
base station to be `unused' if it has not operated for one year or 
more. We believe this establishes an expectation that any sites 
registered in ULS will be constructed within one year of registration. 
Therefore, we will establish the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone 
around only those base and fixed stations that are registered by 
applications filed in ULS on or before April 17, 2015 and are 
constructed, in service, and in full compliance with the rules by April 
17, 2016. Additionally, the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone will 
be reduced should any portions of the protected network fail to meet 
the above criteria after April 17, 2016. Any registrations filed after 
April 17, 2015 will only be afforded protection from harmful 
interference under our rules within the licensee's Grandfathered 
Wireless Protection Zone, i.e., a Grandfathered Wireless Broadband 
Provider may not expand its protected contour using sites registered 
after April 17, 2015. Modifications to ULS site registrations after the 
April 17, 2015 will not have the effect of increasing the Grandfathered 
Wireless Protection Zone.
    In order to be afforded Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Provider 
protections, we require incumbent operators to register their frequency 
usage with approved SAS Administrators. Existing licensees must 
register their fixed and base stations as well as their service 
contours with the SAS. In addition, existing licensees must indicate 
the specific frequencies and channel bandwidth in use at each site. 
Subsequently, any Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Provider protections 
will only apply in the frequency range registered by the incumbent. 
Registration with the SAS will promote spectrum efficiency by 
identifying precisely which spectrum is reserved for Grandfathered 
Wireless Broadband Providers and which spectrum may be available for 
GAA use under rules governing the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
    Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees will be deemed incumbent 
users within their registered service contours for the duration of the 
transition period. During this transition period, Grandfathered 
Wireless Broadband Providers must avoid causing harmful interference to 
authorized federal users and grandfathered FSS earth stations, in 
accordance with our rules (See 47 CFR 90.1331). Thus, existing FSS 
sites will be protected under part 90, subpart Z of this chapter until 
the last Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensee within a given 
protected area is transitioned to the new part 96 regime. After the 
transition period, such facilities shall be protected from harmful 
interference consistent with the protections afforded similarly 
situated facilities as set forth in Sections 96.15 and 96.17. 
Consistent with current practice, during the transition period, 
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Providers with overlapping service 
contours must coordinate with one another as currently required by part 
90, subpart Z of this chapter.
    Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees may register sites 
outside of their Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zones, but these 
sites will not be entitled to any interference protection from Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users. We strongly encourage Grandfathered 
Wireless Broadband Licensees to procure equipment with an eye toward 
complying with the part 96 technical rules once the transition period 
is completed. We expect all Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees 
to comply with the Part 96 rules once their transitions are complete. 
At that point, use of legacy equipment that does not operate across the 
entire 150 megahertz band could hinder a former part 90 licensee's 
flexibility with respect to other GAA operations in the band. On the 
other hand, the use of technology that is capable of, or can be 
upgraded to, operation throughout the band will provide for the 
possibility of much greater spectrum access. Grandfathered Wireless 
Broadband Licensees, and their vendors, should plan accordingly.
    As described in Section III(B)(1), we conclude that it is in the 
public interest to limit 3650-3700 MHz use to GAA operations. GAA 
operation closely aligns with the current licensing regime in the band 
where licenses are awarded on a non-exclusive basis and licensees must 
share spectrum and coordinate operations. Similarly, GAA operators will 
have shared use of the entire 3.5 GHz Band and access will be 
coordinated by the SAS. We believe that limiting the 3650-3700 MHz band 
to GAA use post-transition, rather than adopting our original proposal 
to allow both PALs and GAA use, will minimize disruption to incumbent 
operators. By eliminating the availability of PALs in the 3650-3700 MHz 
portion of the band, incumbent operators will continue to have access 
to the entire 50 MHz, post-transition. Grandfathered Wireless Broadband 
Providers thus will have the option, available to all eligible 3.5 GHz 
Band users, to operate on a GAA basis consistent with Part 96 rules 
throughout the 3650-3700 MHz band.
    We disagree with commenters who maintain that the existing 
licensing regime should be retained for the 3650-3700 MHz band 
specifically because the spectrum is used for critical infrastructure 
applications such as Smart Grid. While we acknowledge the federal 
policy of supporting such modifications of the electrical transmission 
and distribution system (See 47 U.S.C. 17381, et seq.), our new

[[Page 36213]]

framework does not preclude such continued use of the band. Instead, 
the new framework promotes flexible, shared use of the band for any 
suitable purpose, including critical infrastructure use. Further, by 
extending the band from 3550-3700 MHz, we increase the contiguous, 
interoperable spectrum available for critical infrastructure use. 
Critical infrastructure users will now have access to up to 80 MHz of 
GAA spectrum in each census tract with the ability to use an additional 
70 MHz of PAL spectrum on an opportunistic basis. The framework we 
adopt today increases, rather than limits, the spectrum available for 
critical infrastructure use. Moreover, we note that existing licenses 
in the 3650-3700 MHz band are nationwide, non-exclusive licenses. Thus, 
licensees in this band were never afforded exclusive use of the 
spectrum for any period of time. By limiting Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service use in the band to GAA uses at the end of the transition 
period, we retain the non-exclusive, shared characteristic of this 
spectrum.
    We decline to adopt additional protections for Grandfathered 
Wireless Broadband Providers beyond those that we adopt today. The 
additional protections suggested by commenters will only serve to delay 
the ultimate integration of 3650-3700 MHz into the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service. In addition, we note that incumbent licensees had no 
expectation of exclusive access to the spectrum in the 3650-3700 MHz 
band as all licenses issued in the band were non-exclusive. We conclude 
that the modified protections for incumbent licensees that we adopt 
today will maximize the benefits to all potential licensees, while 
minimizing the costs to incumbent licensees. Based on careful 
consideration of the record in this proceeding, we adopt modified rules 
for transitioning the 3650-3700 MHz band into the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service as provided in Appendix A.

K. Multi-Stakeholder Group

    Background. In the FNPRM, we noted that the TAC recommends that the 
Commission consider forming one or more multi-stakeholder groups to 
study receiver standards and interference limits policy at service 
boundaries in the 3.5 GHz Band. In addition, the Wireless Innovation 
Forum recommends that the FCC encourage the formation of industry led 
multi-stakeholder groups, proposes key characteristics of such a 
process, and commits to establishing such a multi-stakeholder process 
to develop recommendations for the 3.5 GHz Band and other band 
opportunities. Consistent with the recommendations of the TAC, we 
encouraged action to charter a technical group of stakeholders to 
develop industry coordination agreements and protocols, including 
technical options and methods for managing spectrum access that would 
improve access to and make efficient use of the 3.5 GHz Band. We sought 
comment on the appropriate scope and structure of such a group.
    The record generally supports the formation of an industry led 
multi-stakeholder group to study technical issues in the 3.5 GHz Band. 
The Wireless Innovation Forum asserts that a technically focused multi-
stakeholder group should address a variety of outstanding SAS issues, 
including inter-SAS communications, communications security, 
protections of higher tier users, and CBSD-to-SAS communications. The 
Wireless Innovation Forum argues that the Commission should establish 
certification procedures to ensure that SASs and CBSDs conform to the 
procedures and methods developed by this multi-stakeholder group. They 
also propose a detailed organizational framework for the working group, 
including a process for the group to provide proposals to the Federal 
Government and for government agencies to act on such proposals within 
a limited period of time. Indeed, on February 12, 2014, the Wireless 
Innovation Forum announced the approval of a charter for a new Spectrum 
Sharing Committee focused on developing industry standards for the 3.5 
GHz Band.
    The Wi-Fi Alliance states that, while industry groups may play an 
important role in guiding coexistence matters in the 3.5 GHz Band, the 
Commission should take an active role in developing spectrum management 
tools for the band.
    Discussion. As we stated in the FNPRM, we believe that a multi-
stakeholder group focused on the complex technical issues raised by 
this proceeding could provide us with a wealth of valuable insights and 
useful information. A broad-based group incorporating wireless 
carriers, network equipment manufacturers, potential SAS 
Administrators, satellite operators, existing 3650-3700 MHz band 
licensees, and other parties with an interest in the 3.5 GHz Band could 
be instrumental in developing answers to some of the novel technical 
questions raised by the Citizens Broadband Radio Service rules. We hope 
that any such group would work collaboratively towards innovative 
solutions that would encourage the rapid development of the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service, protect valuable incumbent operations, and 
benefit all potential stakeholders in the band. We do not, however, 
take a position on the exact scope, makeup, or organizational structure 
of any such working group.
    At this time, we also decline to adopt a specific process for 
reviewing and responding to recommendations made by such a forum. We 
encourage working group participants to share their findings with the 
Commission and to incorporate their work, to the extent feasible, into 
the development of CBSDs, SASs, and ESC components. We also believe 
that the insights provided by any such working group could be 
informative during the SAS Administrator approval process.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations

    This proceeding shall continue to 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 w 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 Section 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
Section 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

[[Page 36214]]

available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format 
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.
    We note that our ex parte rules provide for a conditional exception 
for all ex parte presentations made by NTIA or Department of Defense 
representatives. This proceeding raises significant technical issues 
implicating federal and non-federal spectrum allocations and users. 
Staff from NTIA, DoD, and the FCC have engaged in technical discussions 
in the development of this Report and Order, and we anticipate these 
discussions will continue after this Report and Order is released. 
These discussions will benefit from an open exchange of information 
between agencies, and may involve sensitive information regarding the 
strategic federal use of the 3.5 GHz Band. Recognizing the value of 
federal agency collaboration on the technical issues raised in this 
Report and Order, NTIA's shared jurisdiction over the 3.5 GHz Band, the 
importance of protecting federal users in the 3.5 GHz Band from 
interference, and the goal of enabling spectrum sharing to help address 
the ongoing spectrum capacity crunch, we find that this exemption 
serves the public interest.

B. Comment Filing Procedures

    Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy 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.
    [ssquf] 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 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the 
Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules 
adopted and proposed in this document, respectively. The FRFA is set 
forth in Appendix B. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. 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 Report and Order as set forth on the first page of 
this document, and 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 this Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, 
the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Report and Order contains new information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 
general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on 
the new information collection requirements contained in this 
proceeding.

E. Congressional Review Act

    The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).

V. Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 
5(c), 302a, 303, 304, 307(e), and 316 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), 302a, 
303, 304, 307(e), and 316, that this Report and Order in GN Docket No. 
12-354 is adopted and shall become effective thirty (30) days after 
publication of the text or summary thereof in the Federal Register, 
except for those rules and requirements that require approval by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, which shall become effective after the Commission publishes a 
notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the 
relevant effective date.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    It is further ordered, that the freeze on acceptance of 
applications with respect to new earth stations in the fixed-satellite 
service imposed in the 3.5 GHz NPRM is lifted, effective thirty (30) 
days after publication of the text or summary of this Report and Order, 
in the Federal Register.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities by the policies and rules adopted in this Report and Order 
(R&O). The Commission will send a copy of this R&O, including this 
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In addition, the R&O and FRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
    As required by the RFA (See 5 U.S.C. 603), the Commission 
incorporated an

[[Page 36215]]

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking and Order (NPRM) and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (FNPRM). The Commission sought written public comment on the 
proposals in the NPRM and FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No 
comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This present FRFA conforms to 
the RFA (See 5 U.S.C. 604.)

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    In the R&O, the Commission adopted rules for commercial use of 150 
megahertz in the 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band). The 3.5 GHz Band is 
currently used for Department of Defense Radar services and commercial 
fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations (space-to-earth). The 
creation of a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service in this band will 
add much-needed capacity to meet the ever-increasing demands of 
wireless innovation. As such, it represents a major contribution toward 
the Commission's goal of making 500 megahertz newly available for 
broadband use and will help to unleash broadband opportunities for 
consumers throughout the country, particularly in areas with 
overburdened spectrum resources.
    The R&O also adopts a new approach to spectrum management, which 
makes use of advances in computing technology to facilitate more 
intensive spectrum sharing: Between commercial and federal users and 
among multiple tiers of commercial users. This three-tiered sharing 
framework is enabled by a Spectrum Access System (SAS). The SAS 
incorporates a dynamic spectrum database and interference mitigation 
techniques to manage all three tiers of authorized users (Incumbent 
Access, Priority Access, and General Authorized Access (GAA)). The SAS 
thus serves as an advanced, highly automated frequency coordinator 
across the band--protecting higher tier users from those beneath and 
optimizing frequency use to allow maximum capacity and coexistence in 
the band.
    Incumbent users represent the highest tier in the new 3.5 GHz 
framework and receive interference protection from Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users. Protected incumbents include the federal 
operations described above, as well as FSS and, for a finite period, 
grandfathered terrestrial wireless operations in the 3650-3700 MHz 
portion of the band. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service itself 
consists of two tiers--Priority Access and GAA--both authorized in any 
given location and frequency by an SAS. As the name suggests, Priority 
Access operations receive protection from GAA operations. Priority 
Access Licenses, defined as an authorization to use a 10 megahertz 
channel in a single census tract for three years, will be assigned in 
up to 70 megahertz of the 3550-3650 MHz portion of the band. GAA will 
be allowed, by rule, throughout the 150 megahertz band. GAA users will 
receive no interference protection from other Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users. In general, under this three-tiered licensing framework 
incumbent users would be able to operate on a fully protected basis, 
while the technical benefits of small cells are leveraged to facilitate 
innovative and efficient uses in the 3.5 GHz Band.
    As a result of the Commission's actions in the R&O, small business 
will have access to spectrum that is currently unavailable to them. The 
potential uses for this spectrum are vast. For example, wireless 
carriers can deploy small cells on a GAA basis where they need 
additional capacity. Real estate owners can deploy neutral host systems 
in high-traffic venues, allowing for cost-effective network sharing 
among multiple wireless providers and their customers. Manufacturers, 
utilities, and other large economic sectors, can construct private 
wireless broadband networks to automate industrial processes that 
require some measure of interference protection and yet are not 
appropriately outsourced to a commercial cellular network. All of these 
applications can potentially share common wireless technologies, 
providing economies of scale and facilitating intensive use of the 
spectrum. The Commission's actions in the R&O thus constitute a 
significant benefit for small businesses.
    In the R&O, the Commission also adopted its supplemental proposal 
to integrate the 3650-3700 MHz band within the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service, thereby encompassing an additional 50 megahertz of contiguous 
spectrum. The Commission currently licenses the 3650-3700 MHz band on a 
non-exclusive basis, with protections for incumbent FSS operations. 
Smart grid, rural broadband, small cell backhaul, and other point-to-
multipoint networks will enjoy three times more bandwidth than was 
available under our previous 3650-3700 MHz band rules. The adoption of 
the supplemental proposal will promote spectrum efficiency and 
availability, as well as economies of scale for equipment across the 
full 150 MHz band.

B. Legal Basis

    The actions are authorized under Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 5(c), 
302a, 303, 304, 307(e), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), 302a, 303, 304, 
307(e), and 316.

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

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted (5 U.S.C. 
603(b)(3)). The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as 
having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction (5 U.S.C. 
601(6)).'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601(3)). A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) 
Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 
of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by 
the SBA (15 U.S.C. 632).
    Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards 
that encompass entities that could be directly affected by the 
proposals under consideration (5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6)). As of 2010, there 
were 27.9 million small businesses in the United States, according to 
the SBA. Additionally, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is 
not dominant in its field (5 U.S.C. 601(4)).'' Nationwide, as of 2007, 
there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the 
term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as 
``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty 
thousand (5 U.S.C. 601(5)).'' Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that 
there were 89,527 governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We 
estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as 
``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most 
governmental jurisdictions are small.
    Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves.

[[Page 36216]]

Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging 
services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that category is 
that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees (13 CFR 
121.201, NAICS code 517210). Census Bureau data for 2007, show that 
there were 1,383 firms in this category that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 1,368 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 15 firms 
had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category 
and the associated small business size standard, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers 
(except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our 
actions.
    Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications. 
Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and 
earth station operators. Since 2007, the SBA has recognized two census 
categories for satellite telecommunications firms: ``Satellite 
Telecommunications'' and ``Other Telecommunications.'' Under the 
``Satellite Telecommunications'' category, a business is considered 
small if it had $32.5 million or less in annual receipts (13 CFR 
121.201, NAICS code 517410). Under the ``Other Telecommunications'' 
category, a business is considered small if it had $32.5 million or 
less in annual receipts (13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517919).
    The first category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point 
telecommunications services to other establishments in the 
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and 
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' For this category, Census 
Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 satellite 
communications firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
482 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.
    The second category of Other Telecommunications is comprised of 
entities ``primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category, 
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms 
that operated for the entire year (13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517919). 
Of this total, 2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million. We 
anticipate that some of these ``Other Telecommunications firms,'' which 
are small entities, are earth station applicants/licensees that might 
be affected by our rule changes.
    While, our rule changes may have an impact on earth and space 
station applicants and licensees, space station applicants and 
licensees rarely qualify under the definition of a small entity. 
Generally, space stations cost hundreds of millions of dollars to 
construct, launch and operate. Consequently, we do not anticipate that 
any space station operators are small entities that would be affected 
by our actions.
    Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as 
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for firms in this category, which is: All such firms having 
750 or fewer employees (13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220). According 
to Census Bureau data for 2010, there were a total of 810 
establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 787 had employment of under 500, and an additional 23 had 
employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size standard, the majority 
of firms can be considered small.
    3650-3700 MHz Band Licensees. In March 2005, the Commission 
released an order providing for the nationwide, non-exclusive licensing 
of terrestrial operations, utilizing contention-based technologies, in 
the 3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650-3700 MHz). As of April 2010, more than 
1270 licenses have been granted and more than 7433 sites have been 
registered. The Commission has not developed a definition of small 
entities applicable to 3650-3700 MHz band nationwide, non-exclusive 
licensees. However, we estimate that the majority of these licensees 
are Internet Access Service Providers (ISPs) and that most of those 
licensees are small businesses.

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

    Under the new rules, Citizens Broadband Radio Services Devices 
(CBSDs) must comply with technical and operational requirements aimed 
at preventing interference to Incumbent Access and Priority Access 
users, including: Complying with technical parameters (e.g., power and 
unwanted emissions limits) and specific deployment conditions; 
reporting location information to an SAS as part of initial 
registration by a professional installer; having the ability to operate 
across all frequencies from 3550-3700 MHz; having the ability to 
measure and report on their local interference levels; and 
incorporating security features to protect against modification of 
software and firmware by unauthorized parties, and to protect 
communication data that are exchanged between CBSDs and End User 
Devices. Under the new rules, End User Devices must operate under the 
power and control of an SAS-authorized CBSD and contain security 
features to protect against modification of software and firmware by 
unauthorized parties. The new rules require Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users to meet certain qualification requirements, designate 
whether they will provide service on a common carrier or non-common 
carrier basis, and register their devices with an SAS.
    In the R&O, the Commission adopted a number of measures to protect 
Incumbent operators. To protect incumbent federal users, the Commission 
established Exclusion Zones and Protection Zones to ensure 
compatibility between Federal Incumbent Users and Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users. In addition, Fixed Satellite Service Earth 
Stations in the 3600-3650 MHz Band and the 3700-4200 MHz Band will be 
afforded protection from harmful interference from CBSDs under the new 
rules if they register with the Commission annually. Likewise, 
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Providers in the 3650-3700 MHz Band 
must register their frequency usage with an SAS in order to receive 
protection from harmful interference during their grandfathered period.

[[Page 36217]]

    In addition, the Commission adopted its supplemental proposal to 
incorporate the 3650-3700 MHz band into the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service. Accordingly, small businesses operating in this band must 
transition from the current non-exclusive nationwide licensing approach 
to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensing framework. 
Recognizing that this transition would likely entail additional costs 
and administrative burdens, the Commission adopted enhanced protections 
for Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Providers in the 3650-3700 MHz 
Band. First, the Commission determined not to allow Priority Access use 
in the 3650-3700 MHz band segment; this means that this portion of the 
band will continue to be licensed on a non-exclusive basis, and thus 
will continue to be available on a non-exclusive basis to former part 
90 incumbents. Second, the Commission adopted technical rules for 
Category B CBSDs, which will accommodate existing 3650-3700 MHz network 
deployments and, in fact, will increase technical flexibility in rural 
areas. Third, the Commission exempted equipment already deployed under 
preexisting rules in part 90, subpart Z of this chapter from the band-
wide operability requirement. This exemption will allow 3650-3700 MHz 
users to continue operating under the new 3.5 GHz Band rules, without 
need to retrofit or abandon their existing equipment. Fourth, defining 
a CBSD in a flexible way to encompass a network of base stations should 
allow legacy network equipment to interact with the SAS at relatively 
low cost, through the addition of a proxy controller device. The 
Commission believes that it has made necessary and appropriate rule 
accommodations to allow prior existing 3650-3700 MHz licensees to 
continue operations in the band under a framework that provides access 
to greater spectrum that may better meet their needs in the long run. 
To the extent that the Commission may have overlooked any technical 
obstacles to achieving this goal, part 90 incumbents may avail 
themselves of the Commission's waiver process on a case-by-case basis.
    While our proposals require small businesses to register with an 
SAS and comply with the rules established for the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service, they will receive the ability to access spectrum that is 
currently unavailable to them. On balance, this would constitute a 
significant benefit for small business.

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

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the 
following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of 
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take 
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities (5 
U.S.C. 604(a)(6)).
    The reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements 
resulting from the R&O will apply to all entities in the same manner. 
The Commission believes that applying the same rules equally to all 
entities in this context promotes fairness. The Commission does not 
believe that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated with 
the rules will unduly burden small entities. The rules the Commission 
adopts should benefit small entities by giving them more information, 
more flexibility, and more options for gaining access to valuable 
wireless spectrum. Specifically, the hybrid framework adopted in the 
R&O leverages advances in computing technology and economics to select, 
automatically, the best approach based on local conditions. Where 
competitive rivalry for spectrum access is low, the General Authorized 
Access tier provides a low-cost mode of access, similar to unlicensed 
uses. Where rivalry is high, an auction resolves mutually exclusive 
applications in specific geographic areas for Priority Access Licenses. 
Finite-term licensing facilitates evolution of the band and an ever-
changing mix of General Authorized Access and Priority Access bandwidth 
over time.

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

    None.

G. Report to Congress

    The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including 
the FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act (See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)). In addition, the Commission will send 
a copy the Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of this 
Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in 
the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 604(b)).

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 0

    Administrative practice and procedure, Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common 
carriers, Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 2

    Communications equipment, Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 90

    Business and industry.

47 CFR Part 95

    Radio.

47 CFR Part 96

    Telecommunications, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 1, 2, 90, 95 and 96 as 
follows:

PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

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

    Authority: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 
225, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Section 0.241 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  0.241  Authority delegated.

* * * * *
    (j) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is 
delegated authority jointly with the Chief of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau to administer the Spectrum Access System 
(SAS) and SAS Administrator functions set forth in part 96 of this 
chapter. The Chief is delegated authority to develop specific methods 
that will be used to designate SAS Administrators; to designate SAS 
Administrators; to develop procedures that these SAS Administrators 
will use to ensure compliance with the requirements for SAS operation; 
to make determinations regarding the continued acceptability of 
individual SAS Administrators; and to perform other functions as needed 
for the administration of the SAS. The Chief is delegated the authority 
to

[[Page 36218]]

perform these same functions with regard to the Environmental Sensing 
Capability.

0
3. Section 0.331 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  0.331  Authority delegated.

* * * * *
    (f) The Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is 
delegated authority jointly with the Chief of the Office of Engineering 
and Technology to administer the Spectrum Access System (SAS) and SAS 
Administrator functions set forth in part 96 of this chapter. The Chief 
is delegated authority to develop specific methods that will be used to 
designate SAS Administrators; to designate SAS Administrators; to 
develop procedures that these SAS Administrators will use to ensure 
compliance with the requirements for SAS operation; to make 
determinations regarding the continued acceptability of individual SAS 
Administrators; and to perform other functions as needed for the 
administration of the SAS. The Chief is delegated the authority to 
perform these same functions with regard to the Environmental Sensing 
Capability.

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79, et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, 
and 1455.


0
5. Section 1.901 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1.901  Basis and purpose.

    The rules in this subpart are issued pursuant to the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The purpose of the rules 
in this subpart is to establish the requirements and conditions under 
which entities may be licensed in the Wireless Radio Services as 
described in this part and in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 
90, 95, 96, 97 and 101 of this chapter.

0
6. Section 1.902 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1.902  Scope.

    In case of any conflict between the rules set forth in this subpart 
and the rules set forth in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 
90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of title 47, chapter I of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, the rules in part 1 shall govern.

0
7. Section 1.907 is amended by revising the definitions to ``Private 
Wireless Services,'' ``Wireless Radio Services,'' and ``Wireless 
Telecommunications Services'' to read as follows:


Sec.  1.907  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Private Wireless Services. Wireless Radio Services authorized by 
parts 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 that are not Wireless 
Telecommunications Services, as defined in this part.
* * * * *
    Wireless Radio Services. All radio services authorized in parts 13, 
20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97 and 101 of this chapter, 
whether commercial or private in nature.
    Wireless Telecommunications Services. Wireless Radio Services, 
whether fixed or mobile, that meet the definition of 
``telecommunications service'' as defined by 47 U.S.C. 153, as amended, 
and are therefore subject to regulation on a common carrier basis. 
Wireless Telecommunications Services include all radio services 
authorized by parts 20, 22, 24, 26, and 27 of this chapter. In 
addition, Wireless Telecommunications Services include Public Coast 
Stations authorized by part 80 of this chapter, Commercial Mobile Radio 
Services authorized by part 90 of this chapter, common carrier fixed 
microwave services, Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS), Local 
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), and Digital Electronic Message 
Service (DEMS), authorized by part 101 of this chapter, and Citizens 
Broadband Radio Services authorized by part 96 of this chapter.

0
8. Section 1.1307 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.1307  Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, 
for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2)(i) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the 
Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; 
the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this 
chapter; the Personal Communications Services (PCS) pursuant to part 24 
of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 
25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services 
pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth 
stations only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized 
Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, or the 3650 MHz 
Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the 
Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), or the Medical Device 
Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio) pursuant to part 95 of this 
chapter; or the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of 
this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF 
exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in 
Sec. Sec.  2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter.
* * * * *

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

0
9. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

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


0
10. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as 
follows:
0
a. Revise pages 39-40.
0
b. In the list of United States (US) Footnotes, add footnotes US105, 
US107, and US433 in alphanumerical order, and revise footnote US109.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  2.106  Table of frequency allocations.

* * * * *

[[Page 36219]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN15.018


[[Page 36220]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN15.019


[[Page 36221]]


* * * * *

United States (US) Footnotes

* * * * *
    US105 In the band 3550-3650 MHz, non-Federal stations in the 
radiolocation service that were licensed or applied for prior to July 
23, 2015 may continue to operate on a secondary basis until the end of 
the equipment's useful lifetime.
    US107 In the band 3600-3650 MHz, the following provisions shall 
apply to earth stations in the fixed-satellite service (space-to-
Earth):
    (a) Earth stations authorized prior to, or granted as a result of 
an application filed prior to, July 23, 2015 and constructed within 12 
months of initial authorization may continue to operate on a primary 
basis. Applications for modifications to such earth station facilities 
filed after July 23, 2015 shall not be accepted, except for changes in 
polarization, antenna orientation, or ownership; and increases in 
antenna size for interference mitigation purposes.
    (b) The assignment of frequencies to new earth stations after July 
23, 2015 shall be authorized on a secondary basis.
    US109 The band 3650-3700 MHz is also allocated to the Federal 
radiolocation service on a primary basis at the following sites: St. 
Inigoes, MD (38[deg]10' N, 76[deg]23' W); Pascagoula, MS (30[deg]22' N, 
88 29' W); and Pensacola, FL (30[deg]21'28'' N, 87[deg]16'26'' W). The 
FCC shall coordinate all non-Federal operations authorized under 47 CFR 
part 90 within 80 km of these sites with NTIA on a case-by-case basis. 
For stations in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service these sites shall 
be protected consistent with the procedures set forth in 47 CFR 
96.15(b) and 96.67.
* * * * *
    US433 In the band 3550-3650 MHz, the following provisions shall 
apply to Federal use of the aeronautical radionavigation (ground-based) 
and radiolocation services and to non-Federal use of the fixed and 
mobile except aeronautical mobile services:
    (a) Non-Federal stations in the fixed and mobile except 
aeronautical mobile services are restricted to stations in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service and shall not cause harmful interference to, or 
claim protection from, Federal stations in the aeronautical 
radionavigation (ground-based) and radiolocation services at the 
locations listed at: ntia.doc.gov/category/3550-3650-mhz. New and 
modified federal stations shall be allowed at current or new locations, 
subject only to approval through the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration frequency assignment process with new 
locations added to the list at: ntia.doc.gov/category/3550-3650-mhz. 
Coordination of the Federal stations with Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service licensees or users is not necessary. Federal operations, other 
than airborne radiolocation systems, shall be protected consistent with 
the procedures set forth in 47 CFR 96.15 and 96.67.
    (b) Non-federal fixed and mobile stations shall not claim 
protection from federal airborne radar systems.
    (c) Federal airborne radar systems shall not claim protection from 
non-Federal stations in the fixed and mobile except aeronautical mobile 
services operating in the band.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 2.1091 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  2.1091  Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: Mobile 
devices.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) Mobile devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio 
Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular 
Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the 
Personal Communications Services pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; 
the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this 
chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to 
part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station 
devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized 
Mobile Radio Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service 
pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are subject to routine 
environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment 
authorization or use if:
* * * * *
0
12. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2.1093  Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable 
devices.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone 
Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal 
Communications Service (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the 
Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; 
the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27 
of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station devices 
only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio 
Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband 
Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the Wireless Medical 
Telemetry Service (WMTS) and the Medical Device Radiocommunication 
Service (MedRadio), pursuant to subparts H and I of part 95 of this 
chapter, respectively, unlicensed personal communication service, 
unlicensed NII devices and millimeter wave devices authorized under 
Sec. Sec.  15.253(f), 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of 
this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 
96 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for 
RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use.
* * * * *

PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
13. 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), 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.


0
14. Section 90.103 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the ``3500 to 3650'' entry and adding new ``3500 to 3550'' 
and ``3550 to 3650'' entries in numerical order in the Megahertz 
portion of the Radiolocation Service Frequency Table in paragraph (b).
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(30).
    The additions and revision read as follows:


Sec.  90.103  Radiolocation Service.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

                  Radiolocation Service Frequency Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Frequency or band            Class of  station(s)    Limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Kilohertz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Megahertz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3500 to 3550.......................  ......do..............           12
3550 to 3650.......................  ......do..............           30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) * * *

[[Page 36222]]

    (30) This frequency band is shared with and is on a secondary basis 
to the Government Radiolocation Service, the Fixed Satellite Service 
(part 25), and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (part 96). No new 
licenses for Non-Federal Radiolocation Services in this band will be 
issued after July 23, 2015.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 90.1307 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1307--Licensing.  

    (a) The 3650-3700 MHz band is licensed on the basis of non-
exclusive nationwide licenses. Non-exclusive nationwide licenses will 
serve as a prerequisite for registering individual fixed and base 
stations. A licensee cannot operate a fixed or base station before 
registering it under its license and licensees must delete 
registrations for unused fixed and base stations.
    (b) The Commission shall issue no new licenses or license renewals 
under this section after April 17, 2015, except as specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) If a license issued under this Section expires between April 
17, 2015 and April 17, 2020, the licensee may request a one-time 
renewal and the Commission may renew that license for a term ending no 
later than April 17, 2020.
    (d) Licenses that were issued after January 8, 2013 will be 
afforded protection from harmful interference from Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users pursuant to Sec.  90.1338 until April 17, 2020 
regardless of their expiration date.

0
16. Section 90.1311 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1311  License term.

    The license term is ten years, except as set forth in Sec.  
90.1307, beginning on the date of the initial authorization (non-
exclusive nationwide license) grant. Registering fixed and base 
stations will not change the overall renewal period of the license.

0
17. Section 90.1331 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and the 
Note to paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1331  Restrictions on the operation of base and fixed 
stations.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 
base and fixed stations may not be located within 80 km of the 
following Federal Government radiolocation facilities:
St. Inigoes, MD--38[deg] 10' N., 76[deg], 23' W
Pensacola, FL--30[deg] 21' 28'' N., 87[deg], 16' 26'' W
Pascagoula, MS--30[deg] 22' N, 88[deg] 29' W

    Note to paragraph (b)(1):  Licensees installing equipment in the 
3650-3700 MHz band should determine if there are any nearby Federal 
Government radar systems that could affect their operations. 
Information regarding the location and operational characteristics 
of the radar systems operating adjacent to this band are provided in 
NTIA TR-99-361.

* * * * *

0
18. Section 90.1338 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1338  Grandfathered operation and transition to Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service.

    (a) Fixed and base station registrations filed in ULS on or before 
April 17, 2015 that are constructed, in service, and fully compliant 
with the rules in part 90, subpart Z as of April 17, 2016 will be 
afforded protection from harmful interference caused by Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users until the end of their license term (with 
one exception that fixed and base stations registered under licenses 
issued after January 8, 2013 will only be afforded protection until 
April 17, 2020), consistent with Sec.  90.1307. Protection criteria for 
such registered base stations are described in Sec.  96.21of this 
chapter. Registrations originally filed after April 17, 2015 will only 
be afforded protection from harmful interference under this section 
within the licensee's Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone, as 
defined in Sec. Sec.  96.3 and 96.21 of this chapter.
    (b) Existing licensees as of April 17, 2015 may add new mobile or 
portable stations (as defined in Sec.  90.1333) and/or add new 
subscriber units that operate above the power limit defined in Sec.  
90.1333, only if they can positively receive and decode an enabling 
signal from a base station. Such units will be afforded protection 
within the licensee's Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone (as 
defined in Sec. Sec.  96.3 and 96.21 of this chapter) until April 17, 
2020 or until the end of their license term, whichever is later (with 
one exception that mobile and portable stations associated with 
licenses issued after January 8, 2013 will only be afforded protection 
until April 17, 2020).

PART 95--PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES

0
19. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, and 307(e).

0
20. Section 95.401 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  95.401  (CB Rule 1) What are Citizens Band Radio Services?

* * * * *
    (h) Citizens Broadband Radio Service--The rules for this service, 
including technical rules, are contained in part 96 of this chapter. 
Only Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices authorized on a General 
Authorized Access basis, as those terms are defined in Sec.  96.3, are 
considered part of the Citizens Band Radio Services.
0
21. Section 95.601 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  95.601  Basis and purpose.

    This section provides the technical standards to which each 
transmitter (apparatus that converts electrical energy received from a 
source into RF (radio frequency) energy capable of being radiated) used 
or intended to be used in a station authorized in any of the Personal 
Radio Services listed below must comply. This section also provides 
requirements for obtaining certification for such transmitters. The 
Personal Radio Services to which these rules apply are the GMRS 
(General Mobile Radio Service)--subpart A, the Family Radio Service 
(FRS)--subpart B, the R/C (Radio Control Radio Service)--subpart C, the 
CB (Citizens Band Radio Service)--subpart D, the Low Power Radio 
Service (LPRS)--subpart G, the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service 
(WMTS)--subpart H, the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service 
(MedRadio)--subpart I, the Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS)--subpart J, 
and Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service On-Board Units (DSRCS-
OBUs)--subpart L.

0
22. Add part 96 to read as follows:

PART 96--CITIZENS BROADBAND RADIO SERVICE

Subpart A--General Rules
Sec.
96.1 Scope.
96.3 Definitions.
96.5 Eligibility.
96.7 Authorization required.
96.9 Regulatory status.
96.11 Frequencies.
96.13 Frequency assignments.
Subpart B--Incumbent Protection
96.15 Protection of federal incumbent users.
96.17 Protection of existing fixed satellite service (FSS) earth 
stations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band and 3700-4200 MHz Band.
96.19 Operation near Canadian and Mexican borders.
96.21 Protection of existing operators in the 3650-3700 MHz Band.

[[Page 36223]]

Subpart C--Priority Access
96.23 Authorization.
96.25 Priority access licenses.
96.27 Application window.
96.29 Competitive bidding procedures.
96.31 Aggregation of priority access licenses.
Subpart D--General Authorized Access
96.33 Authorization.
96.35 General authorized access use.
Subpart E--Technical Rules
96.39 Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) general 
requirements.
96.41 General radio requirements.
96.43 Additional requirements for category A CBSDs.
96.45 Additional requirements for category B CBSDs.
96.47 End user device additional requirements.
96.49 Equipment authorization.
96.51 RF safety.
Subpart F--Spectrum Access System
96.53 Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.
96.55 Information gathering and retention.
96.57 Registration, authentication, and authorization of Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service Devices.
96.59 Frequency assignment.
96.61 Security.
96.63 Spectrum access system administrators.
96.65 Spectrum access system administrator fees.
Subpart G--Environmental Sensing Capability
96.67 Environmental sensing capability.


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

Subpart A--General Rules


Sec.  96.1  Scope.

    (a) This section sets forth the regulations governing use of 
devices in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service Devices (CBSDs) may be used in the frequency bands listed 
in Sec.  96.11. The operation of all CBSDs shall be coordinated by one 
or more authorized Spectrum Access Systems (SASs).
    (b) The Citizens Broadband Radio Service includes Priority Access 
and General Authorized Access tiers of service. Priority Access 
Licensees and General Authorized Access Users must not cause harmful 
interference to Incumbent Users and must accept interference from 
Incumbent Users. General Authorized Access Users must not cause harmful 
interference to Priority Access Licensees and must accept interference 
from Priority Access Licensees.


Sec.  96.3  Definitions.

    The definitions in this section apply to this part.
    Census tract. Statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent 
entity that are updated prior to each decennial census as part of the 
Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program. Census tracts 
are defined by the United States Census Bureau and census tract maps 
can be found at http://www.census.gov. For purposes of this part, 
Census Tracts shall be defined as they were in the 2010 United States 
Census. The Commission may from time to time update this definition to 
reflect boundaries used in subsequent decennial Census definitions.
    Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD). Fixed Stations, or 
networks of such stations, that operate on a Priority Access or General 
Authorized Access basis in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
consistent with this rule part. For CBSDs which comprise multiple nodes 
or networks of nodes, CBSD requirements apply to each node even if 
network management and communication with the SAS is accomplished via a 
single network interface. End User Devices are not considered CBSDs.
    (1) Category A CBSD. A lower power CBSD that meets the general 
requirements applicable to all CBSDs and the specific requirements for 
Category A CBSDs set forth in Sec. Sec.  96.41 and 96.43.
    (2) Category B CBSD. A higher power CBSD that meets the general 
requirements applicable to all CBSDs and the specific requirements for 
Category B CBSDs set forth in Sec. Sec.  96.41 and 96.45.
    Coastline. The mean low water line along the coast of the United 
States drawn according to the principles, as recognized by the United 
States, of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous 
Zone, 15 U.S.T. 1606, and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law 
of the Sea, 21 I.L.M. 1261.
    End user device. A device authorized and controlled by an 
authorized CBSD. These devices may not be used as intermediate service 
links or to provide service over the frequencies listed in Sec.  96.11 
to other End User Devices or CBSDs.
    Environmental Sensing Capability (ESC). A system that detects and 
communicates the presence of a signal from an Incumbent User to an SAS 
to facilitate shared spectrum access consistent with Sec. Sec.  96.15 
and 96.67.
    Exclusion zone. A geographic area wherein no CBSD shall operate. 
Exclusion Zones shall be enforced and maintained by the SAS. Exclusion 
Zones will be converted to Protection Zones following the approval and 
commercial deployment of an ESC and SAS consistent with this part.
    Fixed station. A CBSD or End User Device that transmits and/or 
receives radio communication signals at a fixed location. Fixed 
Stations may be moved from time to time but Fixed CBSDs must turn off 
and re-register with the SAS prior to transmitting from a new location.
    Geo-location capability. The capability of a CBSD to register its 
geographic coordinates within the level of accuracy specified in Sec.  
96.39. The CBSD location is used by the SAS to determine frequency 
availability and maximum transmit power limits for CBSDs.
    General Authorized Access (GAA) User. An authorized user of one or 
more CBSDs operating on a General Authorized Access basis, consistent 
with subpart D of this part.
    Grandfathered wireless broadband licensee. A licensee authorized to 
operate in the 3650-3700 MHz band consistent with Sec.  90.1338 of this 
chapter.
    Grandfathered wireless protection zone. A geographic area and 
frequency range in which Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees 
will receive protection from Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
transmissions and defined using methodology determined by the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology.
    Incumbent user. A federal entity authorized to operate on a primary 
basis in accordance with the table of frequency allocations, fixed 
satellite service operator, or Grandfathered Wireless Broadband 
Licensee authorized to operate on a primary basis on frequencies 
designated in Sec.  96.11.
    License area. The geographic component of a PAL. Each License Area 
consists of one Census Tract.
    Mobile station. A device intended to be used while in motion or 
during halts at unspecified points.
    Portable station. A device designed to be used within 20 
centimeters of the body of the user.
    Priority Access License (PAL). A license to operate on a Priority 
Access basis, consistent with subpart C of this part.
    Priority access licensee. A holder of one or more PALs. Priority 
Access Licensees shall be entitled to protection from General 
Authorized Access Users and other Priority Access Licensees within the 
defined temporal, geographic, and frequency limits of their PAL, 
consistent with the rules set forth in this part.

[[Page 36224]]

    Protection zone. A geographic area wherein CBSDs may operate only 
with the permission of an approved SAS and ESC.
    Rural area. For purposes of this part, any Census Tract which is 
not located within, or overlapping:
    (1) A city, town, or incorporated area that has a population of 
greater than 20,000 inhabitants; or
    (2) An urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town 
that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants.
    Service area. One or more contiguous License Areas held by the same 
Priority Access Licensee.
    Spectrum Access System (SAS). A system that authorizes and manages 
use of spectrum for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in accordance 
with subpart F of this part.
    Spectrum Access System (SAS) administrator. An entity authorized by 
the Commission to operate an SAS in accordance with the rules and 
procedures set forth in Sec.  96.63.


Sec.  96.5  Eligibility.

    Any entity, other than those precluded by Section 310 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, and otherwise 
meets the technical, financial, character, and citizenship 
qualifications that the Commission may require in accordance with such 
Act is eligible to be a Priority Access Licensee or General Authorized 
Access User under this part; provided further, that no entity barred by 
47 U.S.C. 1404 is eligible to be a Priority Access Licensee.


Sec.  96.7  Authorization required.

    (a) CBSDs and End User Devices must be used and operated consistent 
with the rules in this part.
    (b) Authorizations for PALs may be granted upon proper application, 
provided that the applicant is qualified in regard to citizenship, 
character, financial, technical and other criteria established by the 
Commission, and that the public interest, convenience and necessity 
will be served. See 47 U.S.C. 301, 308, 309, and 310. The holding of an 
authorization does not create any rights beyond the terms, conditions, 
and period specified in the authorization and shall be subject to the 
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the 
Commission's rules and policies thereunder.
    (c) Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees are authorized to 
operate consistent with Sec.  90.1338 of this chapter.


Sec.  96.9  Regulatory status.

    Priority Access Licensees and General Authorized Access Users are 
permitted to provide services on a non-common carrier and/or on a 
common carrier basis. An authorized Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
user may render any kind of communications service consistent with the 
regulatory status in its authorization and with the Commission's rules 
applicable to that service.


Sec.  96.11  Frequencies.

    (a) The Citizens Broadband Radio Service is authorized in the 3550-
3700 MHz frequency band.
    (1) General Authorized Access Users may operate in the 3550-3700 
MHz frequency band.
    (2) Priority Access Users may operate in the 3550-3650 MHz 
frequency band.
    (3) Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees may continue to use 
the 3650-3700 MHz band in accordance with Sec.  90.1338 of this 
chapter.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  96.13  Frequency assignments.

    (a) Each PAL shall be authorized to use a 10 megahertz channel in 
the 3550-3650 MHz band.
    (1) No more than seven PALs shall be assigned in any given License 
Area at any given time.
    (2) Multiple channels held by the same Priority Access Licensee in 
a given License Area shall be assigned consistent with the requirements 
of Sec.  96.25.
    (3) Any frequencies designated for Priority Access that are not in 
use by a Priority Access Licensee may be utilized by General Authorized 
Access Users.
    (b) The 3650-3700 MHz band shall be reserved for Grandfathered 
Wireless Broadband Licensees and GAA Users.
    (c) An SAS shall assign authorized CBSDs to specific frequencies, 
which may be reassigned by that SAS, consistent with this part.

Subpart B--Incumbent Protection


Sec.  96.15  Protection of federal incumbent users.

    (a) This paragraph (a) applies only to CBSDs operating in the 3550-
3650 MHz band.
    (1) CBSDs and End User Devices must not cause harmful interference 
to and must accept interference from federal Incumbent Users authorized 
to operate in the 3550-3700 MHz band and below 3550 MHz.
    (2) The SAS shall only authorize the use of CBSDs consistent with 
information on federal frequency use obtained from an approved ESC, 
except as provided in this section.
    (3) For Category A CBSDs, Exclusion Zones shall be maintained along 
the Coastline, as shown at ntia.doc.gov/category/3550-3650-mhz. 
Exclusion Zones shall also be maintained around federal radiolocation 
sites as set forth at ntia.doc.gov/category/3550-3650-mhz . NTIA shall 
notify the Commission in writing if and when the list of protected 
federal radiolocation sites is updated. Exclusion Zones shall be 
maintained and enforced until one or more ESCs are approved and used by 
at least one SAS, in accordance with Sec.  96.67. Thereafter, Exclusion 
Zones shall be converted to Protection Zones.
    (i) Category A CBSDs may be authorized by an approved SAS in 
geographic areas outside of Exclusion Zones before an ESC is approved.
    (ii) Once an ESC is approved and used by at least one SAS, Category 
A CBSDs may only be authorized consistent with information on federal 
frequency use provided to the SAS by an approved ESC.
    (iii) Category B CBSDs may only be authorized consistent with 
information on the presence of a signal from a federal system provided 
to the SAS by an approved ESC.
    (4) Within 60 seconds after the ESC communicates that it has 
detected a signal from a federal system in a given area, the SAS must 
either confirm suspension of the CBSD's operation or its relocation to 
another unoccupied frequency, if available.
    (5) The Commission will, as necessary, add or modify Exclusion 
Zones or Protection Zones to protect current and future federal 
Incumbent Users.
    (6) The Commission may temporarily extend or modify Exclusion Zones 
and Protection Zones to protect temporary operations by federal 
Incumbent Users. Federal Incumbent Users will coordinate with the 
Commission prior to the beginning of any non-emergency operation 
requiring additional protection. Such modifications will be 
communicated to the SAS along with the expiration date and time of any 
modification.
    (b) This paragraph (b) applies to CBSDs operating in the 3650-3700 
MHz band.
    (1) CBSDs and End User Devices must not cause harmful interference 
to and must accept interference from federal Incumbent Users authorized 
to operate in the 3500-3700 MHz band.
    (2) Exclusion Zones shall be maintained for an 80 km radius around 
the federal radiolocation sites listed in 47 CFR 90.1331 and 47 CFR 
2.106, US 109. These Exclusion Zones shall be maintained and enforced 
until one or

[[Page 36225]]

more ESCs are approved and used by at least one SAS, in accordance with 
Sec.  96.67. Thereafter, Exclusion Zones shall be converted to 
Protection Zones.
    (3) CBSDs may only be authorized within these Protection Zones 
consistent with information on the presence of a signal from a federal 
system provided to the SAS by an approved ESC, in accordance with Sec.  
96.67.
    (4) Within 60 seconds after the ESC communicates that it has 
detected a signal from a federal system in a given area, the SAS must 
either confirm suspension of the CBSD's operation or its relocation to 
another unoccupied frequency.


Sec.  96.17  Protection of existing fixed satellite service (FSS) earth 
stations in the 3600-3650 MHz Band and 3700-4200 MHz Band.

    (a) CBSDs shall protect the FSS earth stations authorized to 
operate in the 3600-3650 MHz band listed at fcc.gov/cbrs-protected-fss-sites in accordance with the Commission's rules.
    (b) CBSDs shall protect the FSS earth stations authorized to 
operate in the 3700-4200 MHz band listed at fcc.gov/cbrs-protected-fss-sites in accordance with the Commission's rules.
    (c) These protection criteria will be enforced by the Spectrum 
Access System authorized consistent with subpart F of this part.
    (d) FSS earth station licensees requesting protection under this 
part must register with the Commission annually, no later than 30 days 
before the end of the preceding calendar year, or upon making changes 
to any of the operational parameters listed in this section. 
Registration information will be made available to all approved SASs.
    (1) Annual registration for each earth station shall include, at a 
minimum:
    (i) The earth station's geographic location (Using NAD83 
coordinates);
    (ii) Antenna gain;
    (iii) Azimuth and elevation antenna gain pattern;
    (iv) Antenna azimuth relative to true north; and
    (v) Antenna elevation angle.
    (2) Such information must be made available to SAS Administrators 
and maintained consistent with Sec.  96.55.
    (e) CBSDs may operate within areas that may cause interference to 
FSS earth stations provided that the licensee of the FSS earth station 
and the authorized user of the CBSD mutually agree on such operation 
and the terms of any such agreement are provided to an SAS 
Administrator that agrees to enforce them. The terms of any such 
agreement shall be communicated promptly to all other SAS 
Administrators.


Sec.  96.19  Operation near Canadian and Mexican borders.

    Citizens Broadband Radio Service operation in the 3550-3700 MHz 
band is subject to current and future international agreements with 
Mexico and Canada. The terms of these agreements shall be implemented 
by the SAS.


Sec.  96.21  Protection of existing operators in the 3650-3700 MHz 
Band.

    (a) Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees shall be granted 
Incumbent User status consistent with Sec. Sec.  90.1307 and 90.1338 of 
this chapter. Notwithstanding this status, Grandfathered Wireless 
Broadband Licensees shall not cause harmful interference to federal 
Incumbent Users and grandfathered FSS earth stations consistent with 
the rules governing Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators in this 
part.
    (1) Incumbent User protections for a Grandfathered Wireless 
Broadband Licensee shall only apply within its Grandfathered Wireless 
Protection Zone.
    (2) Incumbent User protections for a Grandfathered Wireless 
Broadband Licensee shall only apply to Grandfathered Wireless 
Protection Zones around base or fixed stations that are registered in 
ULS on or before April 17, 2015 and constructed, in service, and fully 
compliant with the rules in part 90, subpart Z of this chapter as of 
April 17, 2016. Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zones will be reduced 
in geographic area and/or applicable frequency range if portions of the 
protected network fail to meet the above criteria after April 17, 2016. 
Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zones will not be defined for 
subscriber units operated by Grandfathered Wireless Broadband 
Licensees, regardless of whether they have been registered in ULS.
    (3) Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zones must be registered in 
the SAS for these protections to apply.
    (b) Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees may operate within 
their Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zones and operational 
frequencies consistent with the technical rules in part 90, subpart Z, 
consistent with the transition period set forth in Sec. Sec.  90.1307 
and 90.1338 of this chapter.
    (c) Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees and Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users must protect authorized grandfathered FSS 
earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band, consistent with the existing 
protection criteria in part 90, subpart Z of this chapter until the 
last Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensee's license expires within 
the protection area defined for a particular grandfathered FSS earth 
station. Thereafter, the protection criteria in Sec.  96.17 applicable 
to similarly situated facilities shall apply.

Subpart C--Priority Access


Sec.  96.23  Authorization.

    (a) Applications for PALs must:
    (1) Demonstrate the applicant's qualifications to hold an 
authorization;
    (2) State how a grant would serve the public interest, convenience, 
and necessity;
    (3) Contain all information required by FCC rules and application 
forms;
    (4) Propose operation of a facility or facilities in compliance 
with all rules governing the Citizens Broadband Radio Service; and
    (5) Be amended as necessary to remain substantially accurate and 
complete in all significant respects, in accordance with the provisions 
of Sec.  1.65 of this chapter.
    (b) CBSDs used for Priority Access must register with an SAS and 
comply with its instructions consistent with Sec.  96.39 and subpart F 
of this part.
    (c) Records pertaining to PALs, including applications and 
licenses, shall be maintained by the Commission in a publicly 
accessible system.


Sec.  96.25  Priority access licenses.

    (a) Priority Access Licensees must operate CBSDs consistent with 
the technical rules and interference protection requirements set forth 
in this part.
    (b) PALs have the following parameters:
    (1) Geography: Each PAL consists of a single License Area.
    (i) Contiguous geographic areas: An SAS must assign geographically 
contiguous PALs held by the same Priority Access Licensee to the same 
channels in each geographic area, to the extent feasible. The SAS may 
temporarily reassign individual PALs held by the same Priority Access 
Licensee to different channels, so that geographical contiguity is 
temporarily not maintained, to the extent necessary to protect 
Incumbent Users or if necessary to perform its required functions under 
subpart F of this part.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) Channels: Each PAL consists of a 10 megahertz channel within 
the frequency range set forth in Sec.  96.11. Channels must be assigned 
by the SAS. Priority Access Licensees may request a particular channel 
or frequency range from the SAS but will not be guaranteed a particular 
assignment.

[[Page 36226]]

    (i) Contiguous channels: An SAS must assign multiple channels held 
by the same Priority Access Licensee to contiguous channels in the same 
License Area, to the extent feasible. The SAS may temporarily reassign 
individual PALs to non-contiguous channels to the extent necessary to 
protect Incumbent Users or if necessary to perform its required 
functions under subpart F of this part.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) License term: Each PAL has a three-year license term. Each PAL 
must automatically terminate at the end of its three-year term and may 
not be renewed. However, Priority Access Licensees may reapply for 
subsequent authorizations in the same License Area, subject to the 
limitations set forth in Sec.  96.27. Priority Access Licensees may 
hold consecutive PALs up to the maximum number set forth in Sec.  
96.27.
    (c) Unused PAL channels shall be made available for assignment by 
the SAS for General Authorized Access use.


Sec.  96.27  Application window.

    (a) Applications for PALs will be accepted every three years, or at 
such other times with respect to PALs not previously licensed as 
determined by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau in accordance with 
the rules in this chapter. The application window and application 
process will be announced via public notice.
    (b) The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau must make up to two 
consecutive three-year terms for any given PAL available during the 
first application window. During subsequent application windows, the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau shall make only one three-year 
license term available for any given PAL.


Sec.  96.29  Competitive bidding procedures.

    (a) Mutually exclusive initial applications for a Priority Access 
License are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive 
bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will 
apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
    (b) Applications for Priority Access Licenses are mutually 
exclusive when they seek in total more PALs in a particular geographic 
area than the number of PALs available in that geographic area.
    (c) When there are two or more accepted applications for PALs in a 
given License Area for a specific auction, the Commission will make 
available for assignment one less PAL than the total number of PALs in 
that License Area for which all applicants have applied, up to a 
maximum of seven.
    (d) When there is only one application for initial Priority Access 
Licenses in a License Area that is accepted for filing for a specific 
auction, no PAL will be assigned for that License Area, the auction 
with respect to that License Area will be canceled, and the spectrum 
will remain accessible solely for shared GAA use until the next filing 
window for competitive bidding of PALs.


Sec.  96.31  Aggregation of priority access licenses.

    Priority Access Licensees may aggregate up to four PAL channels in 
any License Area at any given time.

Subpart D--General Authorized Access


Sec.  96.33  Authorization.

    (a) Any party meeting the requirements set forth in Sec.  96.5 is 
eligible to operate a CBSD on a General Authorized Access basis.
    (b) CBSDs used for General Authorized Access must register with the 
SAS and comply with its instructions.


Sec.  96.35  General authorized access use.

    (a) General Authorized Access Users shall be permitted to use 
frequencies assigned to PALs when such frequencies are not in use, as 
determined by the SAS.
    (b) Frequencies that are available for General Authorized Access 
Use shall be made available on a shared basis.
    (c) General Authorized Access Users shall have no expectation of 
interference protection from other General Authorized Access Users 
operating in accordance with this part.
    (d) General Authorized Access Users must not cause harmful 
interference to and must accept interference from Priority Access 
Licensees and Incumbent Users in accordance with this part.
    (e) General Authorized Access Users operating Category B CBSDs must 
make every effort to cooperate in the selection and use of available 
frequencies provided by an SAS to minimize the potential for 
interference and make the most effective use of the authorized 
facilities. Such users shall coordinate with an SAS before seeking 
station authorization, and make every effort to ensure that their CBSDs 
operate at a location, and with technical parameters, that will 
minimize the potential to cause and receive interference among CBSDs. 
Operators of CBSDs suffering from or causing harmful interference are 
expected to cooperate and resolve interference problems through 
technological solutions or by other mutually satisfactory arrangements.

Subpart E--Technical Rules


Sec.  96.39  Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) general 
requirements.

    This section applies to all CBSDs. Additional rules applicable only 
to Category A or Category B CBSDs are set forth in Sec. Sec.  96.43 and 
96.45.
    (a) Geo-location and reporting capability. (1) All CBSDs must be 
able to determine their geographic coordinates (referenced to the North 
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)) to an accuracy of 50 meters 
horizontal and 3 meters of elevation. Such geographic 
coordinates shall be reported to an SAS at the time of first activation 
from a power-off condition.
    (2) For professionally installed CBSDs, geographic coordinates to 
the same accuracy specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be 
determined and reported to the SAS as part of the installation and 
registration process. Geographic coordinates must be determined and 
reported each time the CBSD is moved to a new location.
    (3) A non-professionally installed CBSD must check its location and 
report to the SAS any location changes exceeding 50 meters horizontal 
and 3 meters elevation from its last reported location 
within 60 seconds of such location change.
    (b) Operability. All CBSDs must be capable of two-way operation on 
any authorized frequency assigned by an SAS. Equipment deployed by 
Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees during their license term 
will be exempt from this requirement.
    (c) Registration with SAS. A CBSD must register with and be 
authorized by an SAS prior to its initial service transmission. The 
CBSD must provide the SAS upon its registration with its geographic 
location, antenna height above ground level (in meters), CBSD class 
(Category A/Category B), requested authorization status (Priority 
Access or General Authorized Access), FCC identification number, call 
sign, user contact information, air interface technology, unique 
manufacturer's serial number, sensing capabilities (if supported), and 
additional information on its deployment profile required by Sec. Sec.  
96.43 and 96.45. If any of this information changes, the CBSD shall 
update the SAS within 60 seconds of such change, except as otherwise 
set forth in this section. All information provided by the CBSD to the 
SAS must be true, complete, correct, and made in good faith.

[[Page 36227]]

    (1) A CBSD must operate at or below the maximum power level 
authorized by an SAS, consistent with its FCC equipment authorization, 
and within geographic areas permitted by an SAS on the channels or 
frequencies authorized by an SAS.
    (2) A CBSD must receive and comply with any incoming commands from 
its associated SAS about any changes to power limits and frequency 
assignments. A CBSD must cease transmission, move to another frequency 
range, or change its power level within 60 seconds as instructed by an 
SAS.
    (d) Signal Level Reporting. A CBSD must report to an SAS regarding 
received signal strength in its occupied frequencies and adjacent 
frequencies, received packet error rates or other common standard 
metrics of interference for itself and associated End User Devices as 
directed by an SAS.
    (e) Frequency reporting. If directed by the SAS, a CBSD that 
receives a range of available frequencies or channels from an SAS must 
promptly report to the SAS which of the available channels or 
frequencies it will utilize.
    (f) Security. CBSDs shall incorporate security measures sufficient 
to ensure that they are capable of communicating only with SASs 
operated by approved SAS Administrators, and that communications 
between CBSDs and SASs, between individual CBSDs, and between CBSDs and 
End User Devices are secure to prevent corruption or unauthorized 
interception of data.
    (1) For purposes of obtaining operational limits and frequency 
availabilities and their updates, CBSDs shall only contact SASs 
operated by SAS Administrators approved by the Commission in accordance 
with subpart F of this part.
    (2) All communications between CBSDs and SASs must be transmitted 
using secure methods that protect the systems from corruption or 
unauthorized modification of the data.
    (3) Communications between a CBSD and its associated End User 
Devices for purposes of obtaining operational power, location, and 
frequency assignments shall employ secure methods that protect the 
system from corruption or unauthorized modification of the data.
    (g) Device security. All CBSDs and End User Devices must contain 
security features sufficient to protect against modification of 
software and firmware by unauthorized parties. Applications for 
certification of CBSDs and End User Devices must include an operational 
description of the technologies and measures that are incorporated in 
the device to comply with the security requirements of this section. In 
addition, applications for certification of CBSDs and End User Devices 
must identify at least one of the SAS databases operated by an approved 
SAS Administrator that the device will access for channel/frequency 
availability and affirm that the device will conform to the 
communications security methods used by such databases.
    (h) Airborne operations. Airborne operations by CBSDs and End User 
Devices are prohibited.


Sec.  96.41  General radio requirements.

    The requirements in this section apply to CBSDs and their 
associated End User Devices, unless otherwise specified.
    (a) Digital modulation. Systems operating in the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service must use digital modulation techniques.
    (b) Conducted and emitted power limits. Unless otherwise specified 
in this section, the maximum conducted output power, maximum transmit 
antenna gain, maximum EIRP, and maximum Power Spectral Density (PSD) of 
any CBSD and End User Device must comply with the limits shown in the 
table below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum
                                                                     conducted     Maximum EIRP       Maximum
                Device                       Geographic area       output power       (dBm/10      conducted PSD
                                                                      (dBm/10       megahertz)       (dBm/MHz)
                                                                    megahertz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End User Device.......................  All.....................             n/a              23             n/a
Category A CBSD.......................  All.....................              24              30              14
Category B CBSD\1\....................  Non-Rural...............              24              40              14
Category B CBSD\1\....................  Rural...................              30              47              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Category B CBSDs will only be authorized for use after an ESC is approved and commercially deployed
  consistent with Sec.  Sec.   96.15 and 96.67.

    (c) Power management. CBSDs and End User Devices shall limit their 
operating power to the minimum necessary for successful operations.
    (1) CBSDs must support transmit power control capability and the 
capability to limit their maximum EIRP and the maximum EIRP of 
associated End User Devices in response to instructions from an SAS.
    (2) End User Devices shall include transmit power control 
capability and the capability to limit their maximum EIRP in response 
to instructions from their associated CBSDs.
    (d) Received signal strength limits. (1) For both Priority Access 
and GAA users, CBSD transmissions must be managed such that the 
aggregate received signal strength, measured at any location on the 
Service Area boundary of any co-channel PAL, shall not exceed an 
average (rms) power level of -80 dBm in any direction when integrated 
over a 10 megahertz reference bandwidth, with the measurement antenna 
placed at a height of 1.5 meters above ground level, unless the 
affected PAL licensees agree to an alternative limit and communicate 
that to the SAS.
    (2) These limits shall not apply for co-channel operations at the 
boundary between geographically adjacent PALs held by the same Priority 
Access Licensee.
    (e) 3.5 GHz Emissions and interference limits--(1) General 
protection levels. Except as otherwise specified in this section, for 
channel and frequency assignments made by the SAS to CBSDs, the power 
of any emission outside the fundamental emission (whether in or outside 
of the authorized band) shall not exceed -13 dBm/MHz within 0-10 
megahertz above the upper SAS-assigned channel edge and within 0-10 
megahertz below the lower SAS-assigned channel edge. At all frequencies 
greater than 10 megahertz above the upper SAS assigned channel edge and 
less than 10 MHz below the lower SAS assigned channel edge, the power 
of any emission shall not exceed -25 dBm/MHz. The upper and lower SAS 
assigned channel edges are the upper and lower limits of any channel 
assigned to a CBSD by an SAS, or in the case of multiple contiguous 
channels, the upper and lower limits of the combined contiguous 
channels.
    (2) Additional protection levels. Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1) 
of this section, the power of any emissions

[[Page 36228]]

below 3530 MHz or above 3720 MHz shall not exceed -40dBm/MHz.
    (3) Measurement procedure. (i) Compliance with this provision is 
based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution 
bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. However, in the 1 megahertz bands 
immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee's authorized frequency 
channel, a resolution bandwidth of no less than one percent of the 
fundamental emission bandwidth may be employed. A narrower resolution 
bandwidth is permitted in all cases to improve measurement accuracy 
provided the measured power is integrated over the full reference 
bandwidth (i.e., 1 MHz or 1 percent of emission bandwidth, as 
specified). The emission bandwidth is defined as the width of the 
signal between two points, one below the carrier center frequency and 
one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions 
are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter power.
    (ii) When measuring unwanted emissions to demonstrate compliance 
with the limits, the CBSD and End User Device nominal carrier 
frequency/channel shall be adjusted as close to the licensee's 
authorized frequency block edges, both upper and lower, as the design 
permits.
    (iii) Emission power measurements shall be performed with the CBSD 
and End User Devices operating at their maximum EIRP levels.
    (iv) Emission power measurements shall be performed with a peak 
detector in maximum hold.
    (4) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes 
harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require 
greater attenuation than specified in this section.
    (f) Reception limits. Priority Access Licensees must accept 
adjacent channel and in-band blocking interference (emissions from 
other authorized Priority Access or GAA CBSDs transmitting between 3550 
and 3700 MHz) up to a power spectral density level not to exceed -40 
dBm in any direction with greater than 99% probability when integrated 
over a 10 megahertz reference bandwidth, with the measurement antenna 
placed at a height of 1.5 meters above ground level, unless the 
affected Priority Access Licensees agree to an alternative limit and 
communicates that to the SAS.
    Note to paragraph (f): Citizens Broadband Radio Service users 
should be aware that there are Federal Government radar systems in the 
band and adjacent bands that could adversely affect their operations.


Sec.  96.43  Additional requirements for category A CBSDs.

    (a) Category A CBSDs shall not be deployed or operated outdoors 
with antennas exceeding 6 meters height above average terrain. CBSDs 
deployed or operated outdoors with antennas exceeding 6 meters height 
above average terrain will be classified as, and subject to, the 
operational requirements of Category B CBSDs.
    (b) When registering with an SAS, Category A CBSDs must transmit 
all information required under Sec.  96.39. This transmission shall 
also indicate whether the device will be operated indoors or outdoors.
    (c) Any CBSD operated at higher power than specified for Category A 
CBSDs in Sec.  96.41 will be classified as, and subject to, the 
operational requirements of a Category B CBSD.


Sec.  96.45  Additional requirements for category B CBSDs.

    (a) Category B CBSDs must be professionally installed.
    (b) In the 3550-3650 MHz band, Category B CBSDs must be authorized 
consistent with information received from an ESC, as described in Sec.  
96.15.
    (c) Category B CBSDs are limited to outdoor operations.
    (d) When registering with an SAS, Category B CBSDs must transmit 
all information required under Sec.  96.39 plus the following 
additional information: antenna gain, beamwidth, azimuth, downtilt 
angle, and antenna height above ground level.


Sec.  96.47  End user device additional requirements.

    (a) End User Devices may operate only if they can positively 
receive and decode an authorization signal transmitted by a CBSD, 
including the frequencies and power limits for their operation.
    (1) An End User Device must discontinue operations, change 
frequencies, or change its operational power level within 10 seconds of 
receiving instructions from its associated CBSD.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) Any device operated at higher power than specified for End User 
Devices in Sec.  96.41 will be classified as, and subject to, the 
operational requirements of a CBSD.


Sec.   96.49 Equipment authorization.

    (a) Each transmitter used for operation under this part and each 
transmitter marketed as set forth in Sec.  2.803 of this chapter must 
be of a type which has been certificated for use under this part.
    (b) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in 
these services must request equipment authorization following the 
procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.


Sec.  96.51  RF safety.

    Licensees and manufacturers are subject to the radio frequency 
radiation exposure requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  1.1307(b), 
1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. 
Applications for equipment authorization of Mobile or Portable devices 
operating under this section must contain a statement confirming 
compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and 
unwanted emissions and technical information showing the basis for this 
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.

Subpart F--Spectrum Access System


Sec.  96.53  Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.

    The purposes of the SAS include:
    (a) To enact and enforce all policies and procedures developed by 
the SAS Administrator pursuant to Sec.  96.63.
    (b) To determine and provide to CBSDs the permissible channels or 
frequencies at their location.
    (c) To determine and provide to CBSDs the maximum permissible 
transmission power level at their location.
    (d) To register and authenticate the identification information and 
location of CBSDs.
    (e) To retain information on, and enforce, Exclusion Zones and 
Protection Zones in accordance with Sec. Sec.  96.15 and 96.17.
    (f) To communicate with the ESC to obtain information about federal 
Incumbent User transmissions and instruct CBSDs to move to another 
frequency range or cease transmissions.
    (g) To ensure that CBSDs operate in geographic areas and within the 
maximum power levels required to protect federal Incumbent Users from 
harmful interference, consistent with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
96.15 and 96.21.
    (h) To ensure that CBSDs protect non-federal Incumbent Users from 
harmful interference, consistent with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
96.17 and 96.21.
    (i) To protect Priority Access Licensees from interference caused 
by other PALs and from General Authorized Access Users consistent with 
Sec.  96.25.
    (j) To facilitate coordination between GAA users operating Category 
B CBSDs, consistent with Sec.  96.35.
    (k) To resolve conflicting uses of the band while maintaining, as 
much as

[[Page 36229]]

possible, a stable radio frequency environment.
    (l) To ensure secure and reliable transmission of information 
between the SAS and CBSDs.
    (m) To protect Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees 
consistent with Sec. Sec.  90.1307 and 90.1338 of this chapter, and 
Sec.  96.21.
    (n) To implement the terms of current and future international 
agreements as they relate to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.


Sec.  96.55  Information gathering and retention.

    (a) The SAS shall maintain current information on registered CBSDs, 
the geographic locations and configuration of protected FSS locations 
as set forth in Sec.  96.17, and the federal Incumbent User Exclusion 
Zones and Protection Zones.
    (1) For registered CBSDs, such information shall include all 
information required by Sec. Sec.  96.39 and 96.45.
    (2) SAS Administrators must make all information necessary to 
effectively coordinate operations between and among CBSDs available to 
other SAS Administrators.
    (3) SAS Administrators must make CBSD registration information 
available to the general public, but they must obfuscate the identities 
of the licensees providing the information for any public disclosures.
    (4) For non-federal Incumbent Users, the SAS shall maintain a 
record of the location of protected earth stations as well as the all 
registration information required by Sec.  96.17.
    (b) The SAS shall maintain records not pertaining to federal 
Incumbent User transmissions for at least 60 months.
    (c) The SAS shall only retain records of information or 
instructions received regarding federal Incumbent User transmissions 
from the ESC in accordance with information retention policies 
established as part of the ESC approval process.
    (d) The SAS shall be technically capable of directly interfacing 
with any necessary FCC database containing information required for the 
proper operation of an SAS.
    (e) The SAS shall process and retain acknowledgements by all 
entities registering CBSDs that they understand the risk of possible 
interference from federal Incumbent User radar operations in the band.


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

    (a) An SAS must register, authenticate, and authorize operations of 
CBSDs consistent with this part.
    (b) CBSDs composed of a network of base and fixed stations may 
employ a subsystem for aggregating and communicating all required 
information exchanges between the SAS and CBSDs.
    (c) An SAS must also verify that the FCC identifier (FCC ID) of any 
CBSD seeking access to its services is valid prior to authorizing it to 
begin providing service. A list of devices with valid FCC IDs and the 
FCC IDs of those devices is to be obtained from the Commission's 
Equipment Authorization System.
    (d) An SAS must not authorize operation of CBSDs within Protection 
Zones except as set forth in Sec.  96.15.


Sec.  96.59  Frequency assignment.

    (a) An SAS must determine the available and appropriate channels/
frequencies for CBSDs at any given location using the information 
supplied by CBSDs, including location, the authorization status and 
operating parameters of other CBSDs in the surrounding area, 
information communicated by the ESC, other SASs, and such other 
information necessary to ensure effective operations of CBSDs 
consistent with this part. All such determinations and assignments 
shall be made in a non-discriminatory manner, consistent with this 
part.
    (1) Upon request from the Commission or a CBSD, an SAS must confirm 
whether frequencies are available in a given geographic area.
    (2) Upon request from the Commission, an SAS must confirm that 
CBSDs in a given geographic area and frequency band have been shut down 
or moved to another available frequency range in response to 
information received from the ESC.
    (3) If an SAS provides a range of available frequencies or channels 
to a CBSD, it may require that CBSD to confirm which channel or range 
of frequencies it will utilize.
    (b) Consistent with the requirements of Sec.  96.25, an SAS shall 
assign geographically contiguous PALs held by the same Priority Access 
Licensee to the same channels in each geographic area, where feasible. 
The SAS shall also assign multiple channels held by the same Priority 
Access Licensee to contiguous frequencies within the same License Area, 
where feasible.
    (c) An SAS may temporarily assign PALs to different channels 
(within the frequency range authorized for Priority Access use) to 
protect Incumbent Access Users or if necessary to perform its required 
functions.


Sec.  96.61  Security.

    (a) An SAS must employ protocols and procedures to ensure that all 
communications and interactions between the SAS and CBSDs are accurate 
and secure and that unauthorized parties cannot access or alter the SAS 
or the information it sends to a CBSD.
    (b) Communications between CBSDs and an SAS, between an ESC and an 
SAS, between individual CBSDs, and between different SASs, must be 
secure to prevent corruption or unauthorized interception of data. An 
SAS must be protected from unauthorized data input or alteration of 
stored data.
    (c) An SAS must verify that the FCC identification number supplied 
by a CBSD is for a certified device and must not provide service to an 
uncertified device.


Sec.  96.63   Spectrum access system administrators.

    The Commission will designate one or more SAS Administrators to 
provide nationwide service. The Commission may, at its discretion, 
permit the functions of an SAS, such as a data repository, 
registration, and query services, to be divided among multiple 
entities; however, it shall designate one or more specific entities to 
be an SAS Administrator responsible for coordinating the overall 
functioning of an SAS and providing services to operators in the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Each SAS Administrator designated by 
the Commission must:
    (a) Maintain a regularly updated database that contains the 
information described in Sec.  96.55.
    (b) Establish a process for acquiring and storing in the database 
necessary and appropriate information from the Commission's databases, 
including PAL assignments, and synchronizing the database with the 
current Commission databases at least once a day to include newly 
licensed facilities or any changes to licensed facilities.
    (c) Establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure 
compliance with the rules set forth in this part, including the SAS 
functions set forth in subpart F of this part.
    (d) Establish and follow protocols and procedures sufficient to 
ensure that all communications and interactions between the SAS, ESC, 
and CBSDs are accurate and secure and that unauthorized parties cannot 
access or alter the SAS or the information transmitted from the SAS to 
CBSDs.

[[Page 36230]]

    (e) Provide service for a five-year term. This term may be renewed 
at the Commission's discretion.
    (f) Respond in a timely manner to verify, correct or remove, as 
appropriate, data in the event that the Commission or a party brings a 
claim of inaccuracies in the SAS to its attention. This requirement 
applies only to information that the Commission requires to be stored 
in the SAS.
    (g) Securely transfer the information in the SAS, along with the IP 
addresses and URLs used to access the system, and a list of registered 
CBSDs, to another approved entity in the event it does not continue as 
the SAS Administrator at the end of its term. It may charge a 
reasonable price for such conveyance.
    (h) Cooperate to develop a standardized process for coordinating 
operations with other SASs, avoiding any conflicting assignments, 
maximizing shared use of available frequencies, ensuring continuity of 
service to all registered CBSDs, and providing the data collected 
pursuant to Sec.  96.55.
    (i) Coordinate with other SAS Administrators including, to the 
extent possible, sharing information, facilitating non-interfering use 
by CBSDs connected to other SASs, maximizing available General 
Authorized Access frequencies by assigning PALs to similar channels in 
the same geographic regions, and other functions necessary to ensure 
that available spectrum is used efficiently consistent with this part.
    (j) Provide a means to make non-federal non-proprietary information 
available to the public in a reasonably accessible fashion in 
conformity with the rules in this part.
    (k) Ensure that the SAS shall be available at all times to 
immediately respond to requests from authorized Commission personnel 
for any and all information stored or retained by the SAS.
    (l) Establish and follow protocols to respond to instructions from 
the President of the United States, or another designated Federal 
government entity, issued pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 606.
    (m) Establish and follow protocols to comply with enforcement 
instructions from the Commission.
    (n) Ensure that the SAS:
    (1) Operates without any connectivity to any military or other 
sensitive federal database or system, except as otherwise required by 
this part; and
    (2) Does not store, retain, transmit, or disclose operational 
information on the movement or position of any federal system or any 
information that reveals other operational information of any federal 
system that is not required by this part to effectively operate the 
SAS.


Sec.  96.65  Spectrum access system administrator fees.

    (a) An SAS Administrator may charge Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users a reasonable fee for provision of the services set forth 
in subpart F of this part.
    (b) The Commission, upon request, will review the fees and can 
require changes to those fees if they are found to be unreasonable.

Subpart G--Environmental Sensing Capability


Sec.  96.67   Environmental sensing capability.

    (a) The primary purpose of the ESC is to facilitate coexistence of 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users with federal Incumbent Users 
through signal sensing. An ESC will be operated by a non-governmental 
entity and, except as set forth in this section, will not rely on 
governmental agencies to affirmatively communicate information about 
the operations of incumbent radio systems.
    (b) An ESC may only operate after receiving approval by the 
Commission. Such approval shall be conditioned on meeting the 
requirements of this part and any other requirements imposed by the 
Commission. The Commission may revoke, modify, or condition ESC 
approval at its discretion.
    (c) An ESC must meet the following requirements:
    (1) Be managed and maintained by a non-governmental entity;
    (2) Accurately detect the presence of a signal from a federal 
system in the 3550-3700 MHz band and adjacent frequencies using 
approved methodologies that ensure that any CBSDs operating pursuant to 
ESC will not cause harmful interference to federal Incumbent Users;
    (3) Communicate information about the presence of a signal from a 
federal Incumbent User system to one or more approved SASs;
    (4) Maintain security of detected and communicated signal 
information;
    (5) Comply with all Commission rules and guidelines governing the 
construction, operation, and approval of ESCs;
    (6) Ensure that the ESC shall be available at all times to 
immediately respond to requests from authorized Commission personnel 
for any information collected or communicated by the ESC; and
    (7) Ensure that the ESC operates without any connectivity to any 
military or other sensitive federal database or system and does not 
store, retain, transmit, or disclose operational information on the 
movement or position of any federal system or any information that 
reveals other operational information of any federal system that is not 
required by this part to effectively operate the ESC.
    (d) ESC equipment may be deployed in the vicinity of the Exclusion 
Zones and Protection Zones to accurately detect federal Incumbent User 
transmissions.

[FR Doc. 2015-14494 Filed 6-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P