[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49024-49069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14505]



[[Page 49023]]

Vol. 81

Tuesday,

No. 143

July 26, 2016

Part IV





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 96





Amendment of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Commercial 
Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 49024]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 96

[WT Docket No. 12-354; FCC 16-55]


Amendment of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Commercial 
Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
addresses eight petitions for reconsideration on certain rules adopted 
in the Report and Order (Report and Order) in this proceeding governing 
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz band. The 
Commission also finalizes the regulatory scheme established in the 
Report and Order to make this spectrum available for wireless broadband 
through dynamic sharing among three tiers of users.

DATES: Effective August 25, 2016 except for Sec. Sec.  1.9046, 96.3, 
96.17(b), 96.25(c)(1)(i), and 96.32(a) and (b) which contain 
information collection requirements subject to approval by the Office 
of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will 
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective 
date for those sections.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Powell, [email protected], of 
the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-
1618. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact 
Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918 or send an email to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-354, 
FCC 16-55 released on May 2, 2106. The complete text of the public 
notice is available for viewing via the Commission's ECFS Web site by 
entering the docket number, WT Docket No. 12-354. The complete text of 
the public notice is also available for public inspection and copying 
from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday 
or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference 
Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554, telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-488-5563.
    The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration 
and Second 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).

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

    1. In this Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Second 
Order) we finalize the rules governing the innovative Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service in the 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band). 
Facing ever-increasing demands of wireless innovation and constrained 
availability of clear sources of spectrum, the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service is an opportunity to add much-needed capacity through 
innovative sharing. With this Second Order, we finalize the regulatory 
scheme we created in 2015, putting in place the last rules necessary 
for this service to become commercially available. (80 FR 36163, June 
23, 2015)
    2. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service takes advantage of advances 
in technology and spectrum policy to dissolve age-old regulatory 
divisions between commercial and federal users, exclusive and non-
exclusive authorizations, and private and carrier networks. The 
regulatory framework takes from recommendations from the President's 
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and substantial 
engagement and input from stakeholders representing a cross section of 
the communications, technology, and public interest realms.
    3. The comprehensive regulatory scheme adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O 
included specific licensing, technical, and service rules to enable 
dynamic sharing between three tiers of users in the 3.5 GHz Band. The 
Spectrum Access System (SAS) is the advanced frequency coordinator (or 
coordinators) necessary to assign rights and maximize efficiency in the 
band. The SAS(s) will incorporate information from the Environmental 
Sensing Capability (ESC), which will be used to increase available 
spectrum in coastal areas while continuing to protect incumbent 
Department of Defense (DoD) radar systems.
    4. In this Second Order, we reaffirm the regulatory approach 
adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O. In doing so, we deny several petitions for 
reconsideration that are inconsistent with our goals and grant others 
that advocated rule modifications that would facilitate more equitable 
and efficient use of the 3.5 GHz Band. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we developed 
a comprehensive approach intended to balance consideration of the 
complex issues and competing considerations involved in creating a 
sharing regime in this band, and each rule is a vital part of that 
approach. We reaffirm our commitment to add much needed capacity 
spectrum to the marketplace through innovative sharing rules and 
techniques, and believe the rules established in the 3.5 GHz R&O are 
the best means to do so.
    5. Nonetheless, we do agree with some petitioners who argue for an 
increase in the power level for non-rural Category B CBSDs and greater 
flexibility in how to measure and direct the power. This will provide 
additional flexibility for all CBSD deployments to potentially increase 
their utility, and create additional flexibility for non-rural 
deployments. While rejecting arguments both to increase and to decrease 
our out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits for CBSDs, we revise our 
measurement of such limits to conform to the well-established root mean 
square (RMS) measurement technique reflected in our rules for other 
services. We also adopt a limited exception to the PAL assignment rules 
that would allow a single PAL to be issued in License Areas located in 
Rural Areas in the absence of mutually exclusive applications. At SIA's 
request, we also revise our rules to make clear that SASs must be 
capable of receiving and responding to interference complaints from 
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth station licensees.
    6. While we created a robust and substantial regulatory framework 
in the 3.5 GHz R&O, there were several technical issues that required 
further refinement and input on the record. To bolster the record on 
these issues, we released a Second FNPRM seeking comment on how to: (1) 
Define ``use'' of Priority Access License (PAL) areas to determine the 
availability of spectrum for General Authorized Access (GAA) use; (2) 
implement and promote a robust secondary market in the band; and (3) 
optimize protections for licensed in-band and out-of-band FSS earth 
stations.
    7. These are important issues, and are fundamental to the fabric of 
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. They explore how to maximize the 
efficient use of spectrum by allowing opportunistic GAA use of spectrum 
when and where it is not utilized by Priority Access Licensees. They 
look at how we can maximize the amount of spectrum available in the 
band by optimizing the protection of in-band and out-of-band FSS earth 
stations, while leveraging the SAS and other tools to maximize 
operations towards the 3700 MHz band edge. They examine how to create 
reliable and flexible secondary market rules that can be implemented 
across hundreds of thousands of licenses.

[[Page 49025]]

    8. In resolving these final issues, we strive to establish simple 
rules that are implementable in the near term, while protecting DoD 
radar systems consistent with the process and procedures established in 
the 3.5 GHz R&O. We establish a definition of use that allows Priority 
Access Licensees to certify the extent of their service area to an SAS, 
while also establishing a maximum point at which they will receive 
protection. This is a both a flexible and objective way to allow 
Priority Access Licensees to design and deploy networks, and SAS 
Administrators to provide objective protection and effective GAA 
access. We authorize ``light-touch leasing'' to allow Priority Access 
Licensees to leverage the secondary market to provide access to any 
qualified lessee with minimal administrative requirements or 
transaction costs. Finally, we establish protection criteria for in-
band FSS, and out-of-band FSS sites used for telemetry, command, and 
control (TT&C) that provides a high level of reliability, while also 
allowing the SASs to optimize based on the characteristics of the FSS 
earth station, the terrain, the CBSD deployment characteristics near 
the site, and other factors.
    9. With these decisions, we complete the regulatory framework for 
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, and set the stage for the 
commercial availability of a contiguous 150 megahertz of spectrum for 
wireless broadband use.

II. Procedural Background

A. 3.5 GHz NPRM, Licensing Public Notice, and FNPRM

    10. As part of its ongoing efforts to address the growing demand 
for fixed and mobile broadband capacity, the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC or Commission) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(78 FR 1188, January 8, 2013) in December 2012 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. The technical rules focused on the use of low-powered 
small cells to drive increases in broadband capacity and spectrum reuse 
and an SAS that would coordinate multiple tiers of users.
    11. In November 2013, in response to comments received on the 
record up to that point, the Commission released the 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.
    12. In April 2014, the Commission released the 3.5 GHz FNPRM (79 FR 
31247, June 2, 2014), 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: (1) Implement the three-tier authorization model proposed in the 
NPRM; (2) 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; (3) 
create an open eligibility authorization system for Priority Access and 
GAA operations; (4) establish granular, exclusive spectrum rights for 
the Priority Access tier, consistent with parameters discussed in the 
Licensing PN; (5) set a defined ``floor'' for GAA spectrum 
availability, to ensure that GAA access is available nationwide 
(subject to Incumbent Access tier use); (6) 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; (7) 
establish baseline technical rules for fixed or nomadic base stations 
operating in the 3.5 GHz Band; and (8) set guidelines for the operation 
and certification of SASs in the band. The FNPRM also sought comment 
on: (1) Protection criteria for Incumbent Access users; (2) potential 
protection of FSS earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band (C-Band); 
(3) competitive bidding procedures for resolving mutually exclusive 
applications for Priority Access Licenses (PALs); and (4) the possible 
extension of the proposed rules to include the 3650-3700 MHz band.

B. Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    13. On April 17, 2015, the Commission released the 3.5 GHz R&O, 
which established the Citizens Broadband Radio Service under a new part 
96 of the Commission's rules. The 3.5 GHz R&O established a three-tier 
framework for making the entirety of the 3.5 GHz Band available for 
shared commercial use utilizing an SAS to coordinate operations between 
and among users in different tiers. This three-tier sharing framework 
is largely consistent with the proposals put forth in the FNPRM.
    14. Incumbent Access users represent the highest tier in this 
framework and receive interference protection from all Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users. Protected incumbents include federal 
shipborne and ground-based radar operations and FSS earth stations in 
the 3600-3700 MHz band and, for a finite period, grandfathered 
terrestrial wireless operations in the 3650-3700 MHz portion of the 
band. Non-federal incumbents must register the parameters of their 
operations with the Commission and/or an SAS to receive protection from 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users (47 CFR 96.15, 96.17, 96.21). In 
addition, an ESC may be used to detect transmissions from DoD radar 
systems and transmit that information to an SAS to ensure that federal 
Incumbent Users are protected from interference (47 CFR 96.15, 96.67).
    15. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service itself consists of two 
tiers--Priority Access and GAA--both assigned in any given location and 
frequency by an SAS. Priority Access operations receive protection from 
GAA operations. A PAL is defined as a non-renewable authorization to 
use a 10 megahertz channel in a single census tract for three years. 
PALs will be assigned via competitive bidding in up to 70 megahertz of 
the 3550-3650 MHz portion of the band. One Priority Access Licensee may 
hold up to forty megahertz of PALs in any given census tract at any 
given time (47 CFR 96.25, 96.29).
    16. GAA use will be licensed by rule throughout the 150 megahertz 
band. Both Priority Access and GAA use will be assigned and coordinated 
by an SAS, which will also perform additional coordination functions as 
set forth in the rules. GAA users will be permitted to operate on any 
frequencies not assigned to PALs. GAA users will receive no 
interference protection from other Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users, including other GAA users, and must not interfere with higher 
tier operations.
    17. The Second FNPRM, which was released along with the 3.5 GHz 
R&O, sought comment on how to define ``use'' by Priority Access 
Licensees and whether the Commission should rely on an engineering 
definition, an economic definition, or a hybrid of the two to

[[Page 49026]]

determine whether frequencies are in use. The Second FNPRM also sought 
comment on the applicability of existing secondary market rules to PALs 
and the appropriate administration of secondary market transactions in 
the band. Finally, the Second FNPRM a sought comment on the methodology 
and parameters for protecting in-band and C-Band FSS earth stations.
    18. After the adoption of the 3.5 GHz R&O, and as directed therein, 
on October 23, 2015, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) 
released a Public Notice (80 FR 69662, November 10, 2015) seeking 
comment on the appropriate methodology for determining the contours for 
protecting existing 3650-3700 MHz wireless broadband licensees from 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users during a fixed transition 
period. Finally, as directed by the Commission in the 3.5 GHz R&O, WTB 
and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) released a Public 
Notice seeking proposals for future SAS Administrator(s) and ESC 
operator(s) in the 3.5 GHz Band. The Public Notice summarized the 
requirements for both SAS Administrators and ESC operators, as 
established in the 3.5 GHz R&O, and described the process for 
submitting proposals. It also briefly described the process that WTB/
OET will use to evaluate prospective SAS Administrators and ESC 
operators.

C. Petitions for Reconsideration

    19. Petitions for Reconsideration on the 3.5 GHz R&O were due July 
23, 2015. The following eight parties filed petitions for 
reconsideration: CTIA, Jon Peha, Motorola Solutions, NAB, Nokia 
Solutions, SIA, Verizon, and WinnForum (80 FR 59705, October 2, 2015). 
The arguments raised in these petitions are described in greater detail 
in the relevant sections of the Second Order.
    20. CTIA--The Wireless Association Petition. CTIA seeks revisions 
to the licensing process for PALs, arguing that the Commission should 
adopt a five-year license term with a renewal expectancy. CTIA asks the 
Commission to reconsider its decision not to award a PAL in census 
tracts unless there are mutually exclusive applications. CTIA also 
seeks change to the technical rules, including changes to the OOBE 
limits and the measurement procedure for such limits. Finally, CTIA 
requests that the Commission increase the maximum effective isotropic 
radiated power (EIRP) and conducted power limits for Category A and 
Category B CBSDs.
    21. Jon Peha Petition. Jon Peha seeks reconsideration of the 
Commission's decision that ``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.'' Instead he argues 
that the Commission should grant PALs in every market where there is 
demand, even if there is only one bidder.
    22. Motorola Solutions Petition. Motorola Solutions supports 
WinnForum's Petition and also seeks reconsideration of the Commission's 
decision to only issue PALs where two or more parties file an 
application.
    23. NAB Petition. NAB asks the Commission to eliminate professional 
installation as a method to report the geographic location of a CBSD to 
an SAS. NAB contends that location data should be reported 
automatically by a mandatory geo-location capability built into the 
device.
    24. Nokia Solutions Petition. Nokia Solutions asks the Commission 
to increase the response time from when an ESC communicates it has 
detected a signal from a federal system in a given area that the SAS 
must either confirm suspension of the CBSD's operation or relocation 
from 60 seconds to 600 seconds. Nokia Solutions also argues that the 
Commission should specify emission limits for End User Devices that are 
compliant with 3GPP specifications. Nokia Solutions seeks changes to 
the power limits, asking that the total transmit power for CBSDs be 
stated simply as maximum EIRP and increased by 6 dB for Category A and 
9 dB for Category B CBSDs. Finally, Nokia Solutions asks that the 
Commission revise the vertical location accuracy requirements to align 
with US Government Position Accuracy standard for outdoor installation 
and remove such requirements for indoor installations.
    25. SIA Petition. SIA seeks changes to a variety of technical rules 
and aspects of the FSS protection rules. Among other things, SIA states 
that the Commission should adopt a stringent OOBE limit at 3680 MHz to 
protect C-Band operations immediately above the 3700 MHz band edge. SIA 
also argues that the Commission should: (1) Decrease the maximum power 
limits for CBSDs; (2) reduce the 60-second timeframe for a CBSD to 
confirm deactivation or a change in frequency; (3) eliminate or clarify 
the annual registration requirements for FSS earth stations; (4) 
establish procedures for reporting FSS interference to SASs and 
implementing immediate shutdown procedures in response to such reports; 
and (5) reconsider the freeze on new co-primary FSS earth stations in 
the band.
    26. Verizon Petition. Verizon seeks reconsideration of the power 
limits, stating that the Commission should increase the EIRP to levels 
closer to real-world small cell deployments and to rely solely on EIRP 
rather than imposing limits on both EIRP and conducted power.
    27. WinnForum Petition. The WinnForum asks the Commission to 
reconsider a number of the technical rules governing the 3.5 GHz Band. 
WinnForum argues that the Commission should: (1) Increase the 
reconfiguration response time from when an ESC communicates it has 
detected a signal from a federal system in a given area that the SAS 
must either confirm suspension of the CBSD's operation or relocation 
from 60 seconds to 600 seconds; (2) increase Category A and Category B 
CBSD EIRP limits and provide additional flexibility between EIRP and 
conducted power limits; and (3) modify the geo-location rules to allow 
SASs to estimate CBSD elevation above ground level for purpose of 
determining vertical location accuracy.

D. Oppositions and Replies to Petitions for Reconsideration

    28. Oppositions to the petitions for reconsideration were due 
October 19, 2015, and replies to oppositions were due October 29, 2015. 
Eight parties filed responses. The arguments raised in these 
oppositions are described in greater detail in the relevant sections of 
the Second Order.
    29. CTIA Opposition. CTIA opposes SIA's petition and supports the 
petitions filed by Jon Peha and Motorola Solutions. CTIA asks the 
Commission to reject SIA's request to impose stricter OOBE limits and 
states the 3.5 GHz FNPRM provided adequate notice that that the 
Commission would extend these limits for the 3650-3700 MHz band. CTIA 
claims the power limits for non-rural Category B CBSDs should be 
increased to provide operators with additional flexibility. Finally, 
CTIA supports Jon Peha's and Motorola Solutions' request that the 
Commission issue PALs in all census tracts, even if there is only one 
applicant.
    30. Federated Wireless Opposition. Federated Wireless asks that the 
Commission take the following actions in response to the petitions for 
reconsideration: (1) Increase maximum EIRP and conducted power limits 
for CBSDs; (2) modify the elevation accuracy requirement to allow the 
SAS to play a role in determining CBSD location; and (3) allow PALs to 
be issued even when there is a single applicant in a given census 
tract. Federated Wireless also asks the

[[Page 49027]]

Commission to reject the petitions that seek elimination of the option 
to allow a professional installer to report geo-location and petitions 
that request adoption of a maximum antenna height limitation for 
Category B CBSDs.
    31. Google Opposition. Google argues that the Commission should 
reject SIA's request to strengthen OOBE limits and eliminate 
registration requirements for FSS earth station operators. Google also 
argues that professional installation can protect incumbents and the 
Commission should retain this option to report geo-location accuracy 
and that the SAS should not be required to perform additional 
validation of location data. Google also supports many of the 
petitioners for technical amendments to the rules to maximize spectrum 
availability.
    32. SIA Opposition. SIA asks the Commission to reject requests to 
relax OOBE limits and use an RMS detection methodology for measuring a 
device's compliance with the Commission's OOBE rules. SIA also opposes: 
(1) Higher EIRP limits for CBSDs; (2) unlimited antenna height for 
Category B CBSDs; and (3) any increase in the CBSD or SAS 
reconfiguration time. Finally, SIA supports elimination of the 
professional installation option for reporting location accuracy.
    33. Qualcomm Opposition. Qualcomm supports CTIA's request to allow 
the use of an RMS detector to measure OOBE. Qualcomm also supports 
CTIA's request to relax the requirement limiting OOBE below 3530 MHz 
and above 3720 MHz to -40 dBm/MHz.
    34. T-Mobile Opposition. T-Mobile supports increasing the license 
term for PALs from three years to ten years with a renewal expectancy. 
T-Mobile also argues that the Commission should: (1) Make the total 
number of PALs in a census tract for which applicants have applied 
available for renewal; (2) increase OOBE and EIRP limits for CBSDs and 
eliminate conducted power limits; and (3) increase the reconfiguration 
response time when an incumbent user is detected. Finally, T-Mobile 
asks the Commission to continue to evaluate whether geo-location 
capabilities can be built into devices in the future.
    35. Verizon Opposition. Verizon states that the Commission should 
deny SIA's request for stricter OOBE limits and that SIA's concerns 
about FSS protections are premature. Verizon reiterates its position 
that allowing CBSDs to operate at higher power limits is crucial to the 
success of this band.
    36. WISPA Opposition. WISPA argues that the Commission should 
retain the majority of its technical rules, including the maximum power 
limit, absence of height restrictions for Category B CBSDs, elevation 
reporting rule and the professional installation requirements. However, 
WISPA supports requests to relax OOBE limits and to use an RMS detector 
to measure these levels. WISPA opposes the petitions that request 
increasing the three-year license term for PALs and opposes permitting 
a renewal expectancy. However, WISPA supports the requests to award 
PALs in census tracts even if there is only one application. Finally, 
WISPA supports retaining the FSS earth station registration 
requirements.

E. Responses to Second FNPRM

    37. The Commission received comment on the three outstanding issues 
in the Second FNPRM described above: (1) Defining use by PALs; (2) 
creating secondary markets in the 3.5 GHz Band; and (3) FSS protection 
criteria. These comments, and those received in subsequent rounds, are 
summarized and referenced in the Second Order below.

III. Order on Reconsideration

    38. Section 1.429 of the Commission's rules establishes the 
standards for submission, review, and consideration of petitions for 
reconsideration (47 CFR 1.429). The eight petitions for reconsideration 
filed in this proceeding were assessed pursuant to the requirements set 
forth in section 1.429 (47 CFR 1.429). The arguments made by 
petitioners are addressed on an issue-by-issue basis below. Except as 
otherwise set forth below, these petitions do not raise any new issues 
not considered in the 3.5 GHz R&O, or where they do, we do not find 
these arguments persuasive. Through this Order on Reconsideration we 
reaffirm our commitment to the rules and comprehensive regulatory 
framework established in the 3.5 GHz R&O.

A. PAL License Terms and Renewability

    39. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission adopted a three-
year non-renewable license term for PALs. This represents an increase 
from the one-year, non-renewable term that was originally proposed in 
the FNPRM and on which the Commission sought comment in the Licensing 
PN. After review of the record, the Commission found that three-year, 
non-renewable license terms strike an appropriate balance between the 
public interest need for targeted, flexible licensing and the need to 
provide sufficient certainty for licensees to invest in the 3.5 GHz 
Band.
    40. CTIA asks that the Commission extend PAL license terms to five 
years and grant an ongoing renewal expectancy, provided that the 
licensee has deployed services and registered with an SAS. CTIA argues 
that the existing three-year license term does not provide operators 
sufficient time or assurance to realize a return on investment. CTIA 
contends that many challenges associated with network deployment, such 
as developing and certifying equipment, obtaining appropriate zoning 
and permitting, and deploying infrastructure, are amplified in the 3.5 
GHz Band given the novelty and complexity of higher frequency small 
cell deployments. Further, CTIA cites IEEE's reluctance to develop a 
standard to support IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN) for 
the 3.5 GHz Band as a signal that the 3.5 GHz R&O is already affecting 
investment and innovation. Three parties, AT&T, PCIA, and T-Mobile, 
support CTIA's position.
    41. WISPA filed an opposition to the CTIA Petition stating that the 
Commission should not revisit the carefully balanced compromise that 
resulted in the Commission's adoption of a three-year license term. 
WISPA contends that the approach adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O reflects a 
balance between the views of parties that prefer short-term licenses--
including WISPA members--and those that prefer longer license terms. 
Further, WISPA doubts that large wireless carriers will choose not to 
deploy in this band. Rather, WISPA notes that, in recent years, the 
mobile wireless industry has embraced unlicensed deployment models and 
argues that the Citizens Broadband Radio Service will provide similar 
investment incentives for the industry.
    42. CTIA filed a reply to WISPA's opposition reiterating its 
arguments. CTIA argues that, while WISPA's members may not need the 
same level of certainty that mobile operators will require, the 
Commission should not ignore the novelty and complexity that mobile 
operators will face when deploying in the 3.5 GHz Band.
    43. Discussion. We deny CTIA's request and reaffirm our decision to 
issue PALs with three-year non-renewable license terms. We agree with 
WISPA that the 3.5 GHz R&O already reflects a balance among parties 
that advocated for short license terms and those that prefer longer 
terms. We originally proposed a one-year non-renewable license term for 
PALs but, based on the record, we instead adopted a longer, three-year 
license term and allowed applicants to apply for two consecutive terms, 
during the first

[[Page 49028]]

applications window, for a total of six years. We continue to 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.'' We set forth several arguments in favor of these findings 
in the 3.5 GHz R&O and CTIA has not provided any new information that 
would cause us to alter our analysis. Indeed, the arguments raised by 
CTIA and supporting parties are similar to those raised by commenters 
in response to the FNPRM. These arguments were already thoroughly 
considered by the Commission in the 3.5 GHz R&O. As such, we continue 
to believe that three-year, non-renewable license terms strike the 
proper balance of interests for the 3.5 GHz Band.
    44. We also continue to believe that the current rules will 
effectively incentivize network investment. As we found in the 3.5 GHz 
R&O, the rules governing the 3.5 GHz Band work in concert to promote 
shared access to the band, foster innovation, and ensure that Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users are able to efficiently target their use 
of the 3.5 GHz Band to their specific needs. Non-renewable, short-term 
licenses are an essential component of this overall framework. They 
allow operators to obtain PALs when and where Priority Access to the 
band is needed while permitting periodic, market-based reassignment of 
these rights in response to changes in local conditions and operator 
needs. The technical rules and band-wide operability requirement ensure 
that operators can easily utilize both Priority Access and GAA spectrum 
in their networks and seamlessly switch between tiers without 
purchasing additional equipment. In addition, our decision not to 
impose specific construction requirements for PALs further increases 
the flexibility and fungibility of these licenses and reduces the 
barriers to fluid movement between service tiers. These unique features 
of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service effectively negate the risk of 
stranded investment for operators and incentivize efficient network 
deployments.
    45. CTIA asserts that deploying a network takes ``several years,'' 
and that six years is not a sufficient time period to build a network 
and obtain the financial return an operator would need to justify 
making such investments. But CTIA offers no support for its assertion 
that ``several years'' must be more than six years to do so or that a 
PAL is necessary to facilitate network construction. Nor does it 
address our conclusion, as WISPA notes, that, even for larger carriers, 
the economics and upgrade cycles for small cell use may resemble those 
for Wi-Fi deployments rather than traditional macro cell deployments. 
Furthermore, PAL Licenses Areas are significantly smaller, and 
therefore require less network deployment, than market areas for other 
wireless services. Given the differences in the nature and scope of 
service in this shared band, we continue to believe that three-year, 
non-renewable PAL terms along with the opportunity to acquire two 
consecutive three-year licenses during the initial PAL auction 
reasonably balance the stated interests of different users of this 
shared band. This approach will promote competition, spur innovation, 
and encourage rapid network deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band.

B. Assignment of PALs

    46. Background. 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 in this band 
(47 U.S.C. 309(j)(1)-(2), (j)(6)(E)). In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we found that 
mutual exclusivity exists when multiple applicants elect to bid on more 
PALs than exist in a given census tract. We also found that, consistent 
with previous spectrum auctions, mutual exclusivity will be determined 
based upon the Commission's acceptance of competing applications. 
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.
    47. 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. 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.
    48. CTIA, Jon Peha, and Motorola Solutions seek reconsideration of 
the Commission's method for determining mutual exclusivity for PALs. 
Federated Wireless, UTC, and WISPA support these petitions. Petitioners 
assert that the Commission should make PALs available even if only one 
applicant applies for a PAL in any given census tract and that the 
number of available PALs should not depend on the number requested by 
applicants. Petitioners claim that prospective licensees may have need 
for exclusive access to spectrum in the 3.5 GHz Band and those needs 
are not dependent on other parties. In addition, Motorola Solutions, 
Federated Wireless, and UTC contend that the Commission's rule would 
have negative effects on critical infrastructure industries that may 
have an interest in exclusive spectrum access. Federated Wireless, UTC, 
and WISPA argue that the Commission's approach to determining mutual 
exclusivity is likely to have a disproportionate negative effect on 
applicants in rural areas, where demand is likely to be sparser than in 
more densely populated urban and suburban areas.
    49. John Peha argues that the Commission has the legal authority to 
auction PALs even when all applications in a given License Area are 
received from the same source. WISPA and Motorola solutions suggest 
that the Commission should set a reasonable licensing or administrative 
fee if a single applicant applies for a PAL in a given census tract. 
Federated Wireless and CTIA argue that PALs should be assigned on a 
non-auctioned basis when there is only one applicant in a given License 
Area.
    50. Discussion. After review of the record, we largely affirm our 
decision in the 3.5 GHz R&O and deny the petitions for reconsideration 
of our determination not to assign PALs in the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service in geographic areas for which there is only one applicant, with 
one limited exception. We modify our original decision to address the 
limited case of applicants in Rural Areas that may exhibit lower demand 
than other areas. Specifically, in the absence of mutually exclusive 
applications, if there is a single applicant for one or more PALs in a 
License Area within a Rural Area, as defined in section 96.3 (47 CFR 
96.3), we will allow for the assignment of one PAL in that License 
Area. We believe that this narrow exception is appropriate to create an 
opportunity for operators that provide broadband services to Rural 
Areas to secure assured exclusive access to spectrum, regardless of 
competitive demand. As described below, other than this very limited 
exception, we affirm our decision to issue PALs only through 
competitive bidding.

[[Page 49029]]

    51. Given the unique features of this band, we concluded in the 3.5 
GHz R&O that our approach is consistent with the Commission's statutory 
authority and precedent, and best serves the public interest. 
Specifically, we found that if 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.
    52. We continue to believe that the approach adopted in the 3.5 GHz 
R&O fulfills our statutory mandate because it establishes an auction 
process that promotes ``efficient and intensive use'' of this spectrum, 
it allows for the ``development and rapid deployment of new 
technologies, products, and services for the benefit of the public, 
including those residing in rural areas,'' and it ``recover[s] for the 
public . . . a portion of the value of the public spectrum resource 
made available for commercial use'' (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3), 309(j)(4)). 
This is a market-based approach that targets Priority Access rights 
where and when there is actual market demand. None of the petitioners 
presented new evidence to cause us to reconsider the conclusion that 
this approach drives greater productivity and efficiency in spectrum 
use and promotes innovation and the development of the next generation 
of shared spectrum technologies by providing ample opportunities for 
both GAA and PAL operations.
    53. Petitioners indicate that there may be certain types of users 
or applications that will require PALs for their operations, regardless 
of whether there are competing users filing applications in a given 
census tract. The fundamental benefit of a PAL is the right to 
exclusive use of 10 megahertz of spectrum in a given census tract. In 
the absence of competition for the spectrum, exclusivity is 
unnecessary. Further, since there is no difference in the technical 
rules governing GAA and Priority Access devices and users, the 
permissible use cases for each tier of service are the same. In the 
absence of multiple competing applications that exceed the supply of 
PALs in a geographic area, there should be ample GAA spectrum available 
for interested parties, thereby obviating the need for exclusive 
rights. To the extent that petitioners advocate for the assignment of 
PALs in geographic areas for which there is only one applicant because 
a particular PAL applicant might anticipate operations that it believes 
will require the interference protection that is associated with those 
authorizations, we decline to revise the hybrid framework we adopted in 
the 3.5 GHz R&O. In balancing competing public interest objectives, as 
we often must, that framework was designed to select the best approach 
to spectrum management based on local supply and demand. Accordingly, 
where competitive rivalry for spectrum access is low, we determined to 
allow the GAA tier to provide a low-cost entry point to the band. Where 
rivalry for spectrum access is high, an auction will resolve mutually 
exclusive applications for PALs in specific geographic areas. We 
further adopted finite-term licensing to facilitate evolution of the 
band and an ever-changing mix of GAA and Priority Access bandwidth over 
time. As we explained in the 3.5 GHz R&O, 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. By adopting rules that provide for 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.
    54. We reject WISPA's assertion that our approach ``substitutes the 
Commission's business judgment about shared spectrum use over an 
applicant's business decision that may favor exclusive spectrum use.'' 
Whether or not a business desires exclusivity is independent of whether 
there is a market-based need for exclusivity caused by rising demand 
for the spectrum. The Commission's approach does indeed promote shared 
spectrum use--a fundamental feature of the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service since its inception--while providing for prioritized access in 
areas with heightened demand. In fact, the Commission's approach relies 
purely on market demand to both trigger an auction and allocate PALs 
according to that demand, consistent with long-standing Commission 
practices that efficiently assign spectrum licenses via auction. Any 
method that would allow PALs to be assigned absent competing 
applications would not, as WISPA suggests, ensure ``a marketplace 
decision,'' but rather one likely to encourage speculation, reduce 
spectrum availability, and discourage innovation in the band.
    55. After review of the record, we do however conclude that it 
would serve the public interest to allow providers in Rural Areas to 
have limited PAL access, even in the absence of mutually exclusive 
applications in that area. Petitioners assert that, in the absence of 
mutually exclusive PAL applications accepted for a geographic area, the 
approach adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O will have a disproportionate 
negative effect on rural providers, utilities, and critical 
infrastructure facilities. Petitioners claim that such users may have a 
need for the ``high quality of service and interference protection that 
can only be afforded through acquisition of a PAL.'' We note that many 
of these entities--including utilities and rural WISPs--currently 
utilize the 3650-3700 MHz band (and other bands including 2.4 GHz, 5 
GHz, and 900 MHz) on a non-exclusive basis without the option of 
acquiring priority rights. These entities should be able to provide 
similar services in the 3.5 GHz Band operating on a GAA basis with the 
added option of purchasing a PAL if and when demand from more than one 
party exists in a given geographic area. In addition, as described in 
this section and section III(A), there is no type of service that is 
permitted with a PAL that would not be technically allowed or viable 
under a GAA authorization--the only variable is the ability to exclude 
others from the use of the spectrum to ensure interference protection, 
a need which has not been fully supported in the scenario of a single 
PAL applicant in a geographic area.
    56. However, given that demand for PALs may well be lower in less 
populated areas--particularly early in the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service deployment cycle--some Rural Areas may not have multiple 
applicants for PALs. While we believe that rural service providers can 
and will provide a variety of robust broadband services in these areas 
on a GAA basis, we believe that the public interest would be served by 
ensuring that a PAL is available to a provider in these Rural Areas in 
the unlikely event that there is a single PAL applicant in a given 
area. Under this limited exception we will allow for one PAL in a 
License Area located in a Rural Area in which mutually exclusivity does 
not exist. If the Commission receives only one application that is 
acceptable for filing for a License Area located in a Rural Area, the 
Commission will issue a Public Notice cancelling the auction for this 
license and establishing a date for the filing of a long-form 
application, the acceptance of which would trigger the relevant 
procedures permitting petitions to deny. We believe that granting this 
limited exception to

[[Page 49030]]

our decision not to assign PALs in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
in License Areas for which there is only one applicant is an 
appropriate balance that will serve the public interest by allowing for 
the opportunity for a rural service provider to acquire exclusive 
spectrum use in a Rural Area where such access may facilitate its 
ability to provide innovative services to customers in more remote 
locations. However, recognizing the unique nature of this exception, 
the Commission reserves the right to review and reconsider this 
approach at a later date. We do not believe there is any reason to 
change any other aspect of the PAL licensing scheme for Rural Areas or 
any other use case.
    57. We also note that the opportunity to purchase PALs 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. Therefore, as 
the band develops, our approach provides mechanisms to make PALs 
available in response to changing market conditions.
    58. While we could issue PALs on a non-auctioned basis--as 
suggested by Federated Wireless and CTIA--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, except for the 
limited exception described above. As part of its proposal that we 
assign PALs in a license area with only one applicant, Motorola 
Solutions asserted that the ``interested party would be expected to pay 
a reasonable licensing/administrative fee for such PAL use, and may be 
expected to pay a reasonable fee to a SAS database provider for 
interference protection.'' Neither Motorola Solutions nor WISPA put 
forward any theory as to how we would assess this fee under our 
statutory authority, or how it could replicate a mechanism reflecting 
the spectrum's fair market value. We believe the record on this issue 
is insufficient to support Motorola's proposal. We continue to believe 
the adopted rules are the best way to ``encourage the larger and more 
effective use of radio in the public interest'' and nothing in the 
record supports reconsideration of this determination.

C. SAS and CBSD Response Time

    59. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission adopted section 
96.15(a)(4) (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4)), which requires that, for CBSDs 
operating in the 3550-3650 MHz band, ``[w]ithin 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.'' The Commission adopted identical requirements for CBSDs 
operating in the 3650-3700 MHz band. The Commission also requires that 
``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.''
    60. Motorola Solutions, Nokia Solutions, and WinnForum petition the 
Commission to increase the first of these two intervals (SAS 
reconfiguration response time in section 96.15) from 60 seconds to 600 
seconds. WinnForum contends that this increase is necessary to ensure a 
smooth handover of CBSDs to new frequencies or bands. They emphasize 
the complexity of optimizing these transitions among a number of 
different SASs and network operators. WinnForum also argues that some 
critical infrastructure and emergency use cases may need a longer time 
to effect a seamless transition from the affected frequencies. However, 
they acknowledge that most CBSDs could probably be cleared after only 
300 seconds. Nokia Solutions also suggests that the reconfiguration 
time be increased to 600 seconds and indicates that, even in a best 
case scenario, a complex network cannot be suspended or relocated 
within 60 seconds. Google and WISPA also support WinnForum's Petition.
    61. Google notes that there is a tension between the SAS 
reconfiguration rule and the second of these two intervals (the 
reconfiguration requirement in section 96.39 that requires CBSDs to 
cease operations or move to a non-interfering frequency within 60 
seconds of receiving instructions from the SAS) (47 CFR 96.39). 
According to Google, in practice, the combination of these two rules 
would be to effectively require CBSDs to take action in less than 60 
seconds. Google contends that, to resolve this tension, the Commission 
should increase the interval for SASs to respond to ESC directions but 
retain the 60-second timeframe for CBSDs to respond to SAS commands.
    62. SIA argues that the 60-second response time in section 96.39 
(47 CFR 96.39) for CBSDs to move or discontinue operations is too long 
and asks that the Commission reduce that timeframe. SIA argues that 
even a one-minute delay could cause significant damage to incumbent 
satellite systems. SIA asserts that, since the CBSD response time is in 
addition to any additional time needed for the SAS to process 
information from the CBSD and communicate with the device, interference 
could continue for longer than 60 seconds in practice. SIA asserts that 
the petitions for increases in SAS response time only reinforce their 
concerns about how quickly harmful interference into incumbent FSS 
earth stations can be addressed. Google asserts that SIA misunderstands 
the different types of commands addressed by the Commission's rules and 
the arguments made by petitioners. Google contends that nothing in 
petitioners' requests to increase the SAS reconfiguration timeframe in 
section 96.15 (47 CFR 96.15) casts doubt on the ability of CBSDs to 
respond to instructions from an SAS within the 60-second window 
established by section 96.39 (47 CFR 96.39).
    63. Discussion. After review of the record, we believe that the SAS 
reconfiguration time should be increased. Petitioners contend that 60 
seconds is an insufficient window for SASs and licensees to effectively 
reconfigure their networks in response to reported interference. 
Indeed, Nokia Solutions argues that it may be impossible to effect such 
changes even under ideal circumstances. These problems are likely to be 
more acute with networks consisting of a large number of CBSDs. While 
we take no position on the veracity of these claims, from the evidence 
presented, it appears that increasing the SAS reconfiguration timeframe 
will help to promote robust development and deployment of broadband 
networks in the 3.5 GHz Band.
    64. However, given the importance of the incumbent services present 
in the band, we do not believe that the 600-second SAS reconfiguration 
timeframe suggested by commenters is appropriate. Federal Incumbent 
Users must be assured that their mission critical operations will be 
protected from harmful interference and that any interference reported 
will be addressed in a timely manner. Therefore, we amend section 
96.15(a)(4) and (b)(4) of the rules (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4) and (b)(4)) and 
extend the SAS reconfiguration

[[Page 49031]]

timeframe to 300 seconds. Both Nokia Solutions and WinnForum indicated 
that, while not ideal, a 300-second reconfiguration window would be 
adequate for a majority of CBSDs to effectively cease transmitting or 
transition to a non-interfering frequency. They do not provide a basis 
for why as much as 600-seconds is needed, even for a large network. We 
also amend sections 96.15(a)(4) and (b)(4) (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4) and 
(b)(4)) to clarify that the 300-second reconfiguration window applies 
to notifications regarding federal use from the ESC or any other 
source, including federal Incumbent Users themselves. This modification 
is necessary to ensure that federal Incumbent Users are protected from 
harmful interference in all circumstances. However, the 300-second 
timeframe will not necessarily apply if the President of the United 
States (or another designated Federal Government entity) issues 
instructions to discontinue use of CBSDs pursuant to section 706 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 157), as amended (War Powers of 
President) (47 U.S.C. 606). In such cases, SAS Administrators must 
instruct CBSDs to cease operations as soon as technically possible (but 
no more than 300-seconds). We also note that at this time there is no 
indication of how the increase in the SAS reconfiguration time will 
impact federal radar systems. If it is demonstrated there is an 
operational impact to the federal radar systems, the Commission will 
review the SAS reconfiguration timeframe and will take appropriate 
steps to address the operational impact to federal radar systems.
    65. While some commenters claim that even this extended 
reconfiguration window may cause service interruptions in some cases, 
we believe that 300 seconds will ordinarily provide operators with 
sufficient time to smoothly discontinue transmissions or move to non-
interfering frequencies. Moreover, given the critical importance of the 
federal operations in the band, we must ensure that CBSDs are shut down 
as quickly as possible after the presence of federal operations is 
reported by an ESC or actual interference is reported by a federal 
user. This change also resolves the tension between sections 96.15 and 
96.39 (47 CFR 96.15(a)(4), 96.39(c)(2)) pointed out by Google. 
Therefore, we find that a 300-second response timeframe strikes the 
appropriate balance between protecting incumbent operations and 
facilitating commercial deployments in the band. In addition, given the 
technical capabilities of SASs and CBSDs, we believe that it is both 
reasonable and technically feasible to require Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users to comply with this modified response timeframe.
    66. We refuse SIA's request to shorten the 60-second CBSD 
reconfiguration timeframe in section 96.39 of the rules. As Google 
correctly notes, SIA's arguments on this point were considered by the 
Commission when the rule was adopted. SIA does not raise any 
substantive new arguments that would compel us to override our prior 
decision. To the extent that incumbent FSS earth station licensees may 
have specific, time-limited requests for protection during certain 
periods, we encourage FSS licensees to work with SAS Administrators to 
address these concerns. As detailed in section III(H)(2) and section 
96.17(f) (47 CFR 96.17(f)), SAS Administrators must develop procedures 
to receive and respond to such requests. Accordingly, in light of this 
requirement, we continue to believe that the 60-second CBSD 
reconfiguration timeframe in section 96.39 (47 CFR 96.39) is sufficient 
to ensure that federal and non-federal users are protected.

D. CBSD Power Limits

    67. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission found 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.'' To advance this goal, the Commission defined two 
categories of CBSDs--Category A and Category B--with parameters 
appropriate for different use cases. Category A and Category B CBSDs 
are differentiated primarily by their maximum permissible power and the 
rules governing their deployment. In addition, Category B CBSDs may 
only be authorized in the 3550-3650 MHz portion of the band after an 
ESC is approved and operational. GAA users and Priority Access 
Licensees may operate CBSDs in both categories and must operate in 
accordance with instructions from an SAS which, for interference 
prevention purposes, may authorize an operational power level below the 
maximum allowable power level (47 CFR 96.41, 96.43, 96.45).
    68. Category A CBSDs are limited to a maximum conducted transmit 
power of 24 dBm and a maximum EIRP of 30 dBm in 10 megahertz and may be 
deployed either indoors or outdoors (with antennas for outdoor 
deployments not exceeding 6 meters height above average terrain) (47 
CFR 96.41(b), 96.43(a)). These parameters are consistent with the 
baseline small cell use case proposed in the FNPRM and the phased 
federal-commercial sharing plan proposed by NTIA and adopted in the 3.5 
GHz R&O.
    69. Category B CBSDs, which may only be used outdoors, are 
permitted to operate at higher power than Category A, providing greater 
flexibility and ensuring ongoing compatibility with existing 3650-3700 
MHz band operations (47 CFR 96.41(b), 96.45). In non-rural areas, the 
conducted power limit is the same as Category A (24 dBm/10 MHz), but 
the EIRP limit is 40 dBm/10 MHz. In rural areas, the conducted power 
limit is increased to 30 dBm/10 MHz and EIRP to 47 dBm/10 MHz (47 CFR 
96.41(b)). The EIRP limit was set to encourage the use of higher gain 
antennas and directional transmission in urban areas to facilitate co-
existence of PALs and GAAs in spatially tight spectrum sharing 
environment. 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.
    70. CTIA, Motorola Solutions, Nokia Solutions, Verizon, and 
WinnForum petitioned the Commission to increase CBSD power limits. AT&T 
and Federated Wireless supported these arguments. Petitioners assert 
that the maximum power levels for Category A devices should be raised 
to 36 dBm EIRP. Petitioners contend that the Category A power levels 
adopted by the Commission are insufficient to provide significant 
indoor coverage. Nokia Solutions and WinnForum also contend that a 36 
dBm maximum EIRP would be consistent with levels the Commission has 
approved for unlicensed devices.
    71. Petitioners also argue that the maximum permissible EIRP for 
Category B CBSDs should be raised to 49 dBm for non-rural deployments 
and to 56 dBm for rural deployments. WinnForum contends that the 
proposed increases would bring the Commission's rules in line with the 
power levels of existing urban pico-cells. Verizon contends that the 
maximum EIRP that the Commission adopted for Category B CBSDs is well 
below the power levels of the small cells that are used in current 
licensed deployments. Verizon also argues that the existing rules would 
significantly limit the coverage that each cell could achieve, driving 
up network costs. Federated Wireless agrees and adds that ``Even at the 
increased EIRP limit, CBSDs will still operate at power levels no 
greater than those employed in typical small cell deployments.''
    72. Many petitioners also assert that the Commission should 
increase the flexibility for operators to deploy lower

[[Page 49032]]

gain antennas by relaxing the limitations on conducted power for 
Category A and B CBSDs. For example, Nokia Solutions and Verizon argue 
that the limitations on conducted power should be removed entirely to 
provide additional flexibility network operators in the 3.5 GHz Band. 
WinnForum proposes that the allowed conducted power be scaled up 1 dB 
for each 1 dB lost in antenna gain, up to the maximum of 40 dBm 
conducted power for Category B CBSDs. WinnForum argues that this 
approach would not preclude the use of omni-directional antennas while 
still maintaining adequate coverage areas for outdoor deployments.
    73. SIA opposes any increase in maximum EIRP for Category A or 
Category B CBSDs and, in fact, argues that they should be reduced to 
levels stated in the FNPRM. SIA contends that higher EIRP limits will 
increase the risks of interference with incumbent FSS earth stations 
and significantly increase the size of required separation distances 
around these stations. They also see risks associated with not limiting 
the antenna height for Category B CBSDs due to interference to 
incumbent in-band and out-of-band FSS receivers.
    74. WISPA argues that the Commission should not change the maximum 
allowable EIRP for Category B CBSDs. In WISPA's view, the Commission's 
rules strike the proper balance between various interests and encourage 
operators of outdoor networks to deploy more efficient, high-gain, 
sectorized antennas. Federated Wireless disagrees with WISPA and 
contends that increased EIRP and flexibility is essential to promote 
innovation and enable more efficient spectrum use.
    75. Discussion. After review of the record, we agree with 
commenters that contend that additional flexibility for non-rural 
outdoor CBSDs would promote deployment in the band and, accordingly, we 
increase the maximum allowable EIRP for non-rural Category B CBSDs from 
40 dBm/10 MHz to 47 dBm/10 MHz, making the power levels allowed for 
both non-rural and rural deployments the same. Category B CBSDs will 
continue to be authorized for use in the 3550-3650 MHz band only after 
an ESC is approved and commercially deployed consistent with sections 
96.15 and 96.67 (47 CFR 96.15, 96.67). We also eliminate the conducted 
power limits for all CBSDs. However, we also conclude that it would not 
be in the public interest to increase the maximum allowable EIRP for 
Category A CBSDs and rural Category B CBSDs beyond the levels 
established in the 3.5 GHz R&O. Combined, these changes will provide 
increased flexibility to all network operators without increasing the 
potential for interference in the 3.5 GHz Band.
    76. As we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, we are cognizant that the 
determination of power limits for all categories of CBSD must balance 
the consideration of several different public interest objectives. On 
the one hand, higher limits may provide more technical and operational 
flexibility for users of the band to increase coverage with fewer 
CBSDs, 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. Our 
determinations herein strive to balance these considerations to create 
a flexible regime suitable for a wide variety of use cases.
    77. With regard to Category B CBSDs, we agree with commenters that 
higher maximum EIRP may help promote more flexible use and reduce 
deployment costs in non-rural areas while not significantly increasing 
coexistence issues. Specifically, we increase the maximum EIRP for 
Category B CBSDs in non-rural areas to 47 dBm/10 MHz to match the 
maximum EIRP permitted in rural areas. Petitioners generally argue that 
higher power is needed to facilitate network deployment and decrease 
costs. Although we remain concerned about more substantial power 
increases in more congested areas, we agree that allowing non-rural 
CBSDs to match the EIRP of rural CBSDs is consistent with the 
Commission's goals for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service and is a 
modest increase that will not adversely affect the interference 
environment in the 3.5 GHz Band.
    78. However, we do not agree that the maximum EIRP for Category B 
CBSDs should be increased to 49 dBm/10 MHz in non-rural areas and 56 
dBm/10 MHz in rural areas as requested by several petitioners. While we 
see the merit in increasing the maximum power available to network 
operators using Category B CBSDs in non-rural areas, we believe that an 
increase to 47 dBm/10MHz to match the level permitted for rural CBSDs 
will adequately address the concerns raised by Petitioners without 
negative effects on the interference environment in the band. This 
change represents a significant increase in power for non-rural 
applications with a corresponding potential for more coverage area for 
each CBSD. This change will also simplify the rules by removing the 
distinction between rural and non-rural power levels, allowing for 
uniform development and deployment of Category B CBSDs. We also note 
that Category B CBSDs will continue to be authorized for use in the 
3550-3650 MHz band only after an ESC is approved and commercially 
deployed consistent with sections 96.15 and 96.67 (47 CFR 96.15, 
96.67).
    79. We continue to believe that the power limit that we adopted for 
Category A CBSDs in the 3.5 GHz R&O is appropriate for the baseline--
primarily indoor or at street level--small cell use case in the band. 
Moreover, the Exclusion Zones protecting federal radar systems that 
were studied by NTIA and adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O are based on a 
maximum EIRP of 30 dBm/10 MHz. Any change to the maximum EIRP for 
Category A CBSDs would require the Exclusion Zones to be reconsidered 
and expanded, preventing deployment in large portions of the country 
prior to the development and approval of an ESC.
    80. While we acknowledge that some petitioners would prefer that we 
increase the Category A power levels to allow higher power levels 
indoors, we believe that the rules appropriately balance the need for 
operational flexibility with the need to promote efficient spatial and 
spectral reuse of the band. Transmitting at higher power levels indoors 
and low outdoor elevations--especially in high traffic areas with 
multiple PALs and GAAs operating in the same or nearby locations--would 
likely present significant coexistence challenges. Higher power levels 
in dense indoor deployments would also increase the likelihood of 
interference from operators assigned to adjacent channels due to 
receiver blocking effects. Thus, given the interference risks 
associated with higher power levels, the delays in deployment of this 
new service that would result from revisiting the size of the Exclusion 
Zones prior to implementing an ESC capability, and the disruption to 
the balance between PAL and GAA use struck in the 3.5 GHz R&O, we 
conclude that the maximum EIRP for Category A CBSDs should remain 
capped at 30 dBm/10 MHz.
    81. We are also cognizant of the concerns raised by SIA regarding 
the need for greater protections for FSS earth stations in the presence 
of higher power CBSDs but note that the FSS interference protection 
criteria described in section IV(C)(1) addresses these concerns. We 
emphasize that the increase in allowable EIRP for non-rural Category B 
CBSDs is an increase in the maximum allowable EIRP and should not be 
construed as a guaranteed power level for CBSD deployments, whether

[[Page 49033]]

they are operated on a GAA or Priority Access basis. We note that CBSDs 
must still comply with the Commission's rules to prevent interference 
to Incumbent Users, including the requirements to operate only at power 
levels and in locations authorized by the SAS (47 CFR 96.39(c)). 
Indeed, given that the potential for co-channel and adjacent channel 
interference may increase at higher power levels, the SAS's 
responsibility to authorize lower maximum operational power limits, 
when and where needed to meet the interference protection requirements 
as defined in Commission's rules, will be even more important in light 
of the increased maximum power levels authorized herein.
    82. Finally, we find that removing maximum conducted power limits 
for all CBSDs will provide operators with additional flexibility for 
network deployments and encourage investment in the band. Several 
petitioners, including WinnForum, Verizon, and Federated Wireless, 
contend that the Commission's rules requiring Category B CBSDs to use 
sectorized, highly directional antennas in urban areas would lead to 
inefficient deployments. Notably, Federated Wireless contends that, 
since most CBSDs will be deployed below the clutter in urban areas, 
sectorized antennas would be unable to provide the coverage needed for 
urban deployment. In addition, since the Exclusion Zones and other 
protection contours in the band are based on EIRP, removing the 
conducted power limits should not increase the required protection 
areas around incumbent sites. Therefore, we agree with petitioners 
that, on balance, increased flexibility will serve the public interest 
and promote investment in the 3.5 GHz Band. We note that this has no 
impact on our OOBE requirements, which continue to be expressed in 
terms of conducted power. That is, although the rule changes described 
in this section will allow higher total conducted power, they do not 
allow higher OOBE power.
    83. In making this change to remove maximum conducted power limits 
for all CBSDs we also recognize that we must limit the peak to average 
power ratio (PAPR) of signals in the band so that excessive peak power 
levels do not cause transient interference into other systems. Many 
commenters have expressed interest in deploying LTE equipment in the 
3.5 GHz Band. We note that such signals use OFDM based modulation, 
which can have a large PAPR. NTIA recently published emission spectrum 
measurements for a 3.5 GHz LTE hot spot device shows that the peak to 
average ratio of such devices may range as high as 12-13 dB. Thus, 
based on these measurements and consistent with the Commission's rules 
in other licensed mobile broadband services, we are limiting CBSD PAPR 
to no more than 13 dB (47 CFR 24.232(d) and 27.50(a)(1)(B) and (d)(5)).
    84. Finally, SIA argues that unlimited antenna heights for Category 
B CBSDs will necessitate larger protection areas for FSS earth 
stations. SIA does not propose a specific remedy or alternate rule 
governing antenna heights. We note that Category B CBSDs are required 
to report antenna height as part of their CBSD registration under 
section 96.45(d) (47 CFR 96.45(d)) and SASs are required to take such 
antenna height (along with maximum power, location, antenna 
configuration, and other registered information) into consideration 
when calculating potential interference effects and protection 
distances (47 CFR 96.17(d), 96.45(d), 96.53, 96.55). Indeed, the 
protection criteria set forth in the rules may require an effective 
limit on Category B antenna elevation in some cases. We continue to 
believe that the SAS can utilize information reported by CBSDs to 
effectively coordinate operations in the 3.5 GHz Band and see no reason 
to impose restrictions on the height of Category B CBSD antennas at 
this time.

E. OOBE and Adjacent Channel Emissions Limits

1. OOBE and Adjacent Channel Emissions
    85. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we adopted emissions and 
interference limits that will further the Commission's goals and 
promote effective coexistence of different users in the band. 
Specifically, we adopted the following conducted OOBE limits for 
devices in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service:
     -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
    86. CTIA, Nokia Solutions, and SIA petition the Commission to 
change its OOBE limits. CTIA contends that the -40 dBm/MHz OOBE limit 
simply is too restrictive and is not necessary to protect operations in 
the adjacent band below 3530 MHz and above 3720 MHz. CTIA also asserts 
that, if the Commission determines that the -40 dBm/MHz limit is 
necessary to protect adjacent operations, the Commission should 
increase the transition gap to 40 megahertz to allow operators using 20 
megahertz LTE channels to operate at higher power. Qualcomm supports 
CTIA's comments and asserts that the FCC should not implement tighter 
OOBE limits at the 3700 MHz band edge for certain classes of devices to 
protect C-band FSS earth stations. According to Qualcomm, stringent 
OOBE limits will challenge equipment designs and likely force mobile 
devices to use significantly less power and/or operate well inside the 
3.5 GHz Band edges to comply. Google, T-Mobile, and WISPA also support 
relaxation of the OOBE limits.
    87. Nokia Solutions recommends that the Commission define OOBE 
limits that comply with 3GPP specifications and would allow the use of 
Bands 42 and 43 in the United States. According to Nokia only the 
requirement of -25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 MHz from the assigned channel edge 
down to 3530 MHz and up to 3720 MHz complies with the 3GPP 
specification.
    88. CTIA also argues that the Commission should adopt a limit of -
13 dBm/MHz from 0-20 megahertz outside the assigned channel edge and a 
limit of -25 dBm/MHz for frequencies more than 20 megahertz outside 
each assigned channel edge. Qualcomm agrees and contends that the 
emissions limits that apply outside of the channel of operation were 
designed around supporting 10 MHz-wide LTE channels, and thus would 
force 20 MHz LTE and 40 MHz LTE operations to use substantially lower 
transmit power than the level 10 MHz LTE operations are permitted to 
use. According to Qualcomm, such reductions will create coverage 
challenges and limit the band's ability to support wider bandwidth LTE 
operations. Similarly, T-Mobile argues that 20 megahertz LTE channels 
would have to be at least 20 megahertz from the channel-edge to meet 
the -25 dBm/MHz limit without significantly reducing power levels. The 
reduced power necessary to meet the -25 dBm/MHz limit would in turn 
reduce coverage of those 20 megahertz channels and would depress 
operators' desire to deploy those channels.
    89. On the other hand, SIA argues that more restrictive OOBE limits 
are needed to effectively protect C-Band FSS earth stations from CBSD 
transmissions. SIA also asserts that the OOBE limits adopted by the 
Commission were implemented without the required legal notice. 
According to SIA, under the Commission's current OOBE rules, separation 
distances between CBSDs and FSS earth stations could be more

[[Page 49034]]

than 15 km. GCI also argues that the Commission should implement more 
stringent OOBE limits at the upper edge of the 3.5 GHz Band. According 
to GCI, at a minimum, a -40 dBm/MHz limit should be implemented at the 
band edge to protect C-Band FSS earth station receivers.
    90. Some parties support the Commission's current OOBE limits. 
Notably, Verizon argues that the current OOBE limits are sound and 
oppose further OOBE restrictions. Federated Wireless also contends that 
the Commission need not reconsider the OOBE issue now.
    91. Discussion. After review of the diverse record on this issue, 
we deny the petitions for reconsideration that requested changes to the 
OOBE limits that the Commission adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O. We continue 
to believe that the existing OOBE rules properly balance the need to 
protect operations in adjacent bands--and in adjacent channels within 
the 3.5 GHz Band--with the need to create an environment that will 
promote robust deployment of broadband systems in the band.
    92. We also believe that, while the OOBE limits are more 
restrictive than those in other bands, they are wholly consistent with 
the capabilities of the equipment and services likely to be deployed in 
the 3.5 GHz Band. For emissions below 3530 MHz and above 3720 MHz, NTIA 
measurements show that the OOBE of commercial products that operate 
within the 3.5 GHz Band can be lower than -40 dBm/MHz at offsets higher 
than 20 megahertz. Thus, according to NTIA research, the approach 
adopted by the Commission appears to be practically realizable with 
existing state-of-the-art products at little or no added cost and will 
provide additional protection for incumbent systems while allowing for 
more extensive deployment of CBSDs in the 3.5 GHz Band.
    93. We disagree with CTIA and Qualcomm's argument that the 
Commission's OOBE limits should be changed since they would force 
operators using 20 megahertz channels to reduce power to comply with 
the rules. As we noted in the 3.5 GHz R&O, 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. While Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users are permitted to aggregate PAL channels 
or operate across wider bandwidths--consistent with section 96.31 (47 
CFR 96.31)--the technical rules required for effective coexistence 
between and among different users of the band do not change, regardless 
of the how much bandwidth is in use. We also note that power reduction 
may not be necessary if Citizens Broadband Radio Service users utilize 
robust filters or other alternative methods to address our OOBE limits. 
While the flexibility to aggregate spectrum is a key element of the 
Commission's licensing regime, reducing OOBE limits solely to 
accommodate wider bandwidths would not further the principles of shared 
access that are at the heart of this proceeding.
    94. Moreover, petitioners do not provide convincing evidence or 
technical analysis to support their claims regarding power reduction 
nor do they address the potential effects such changes could have on 
adjacent channel operations. We also expect to see more spectrally 
efficient commercial products enter the marketplace in the near future 
that will meet or exceed our requirements. The current rules support 
the development of such new and innovative technologies while ensuring 
a proper balance between the current and future users of the band.
    95. We also reject SIA's arguments that the strictest OOBE limits 
adopted by the Commission (-40 dBm/MHz) should have been set beginning 
at 3680 MHz, which is 20 megahertz below the lower edge of the adjacent 
C-Band, rather than at 3720 MHz. SIA argues that failing to do so will 
lead to impermissible interference into C-Band FSS earth stations. As 
we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, the -13 dBm/MHz OOBE limit at the band 
edge is consistent with Commission precedent both in this band and in 
other licensed spectrum bands. In addition, the transition gap that 
requires OOBE to drop to -25 dBm/MHz after a 10 megahertz offset and -
40 dBm/MHz above 3720 megahertz is significantly more stringent than 
limits in other bands or the limits that the Commission previously 
adopted for the 3650-3700 MHz Wireless Broadband Radio Service. The 
Commission adopted these more stringent limits in recognition of the 
need to provide additional protection for important operations in the 
C-Band. Indeed, as detailed above, several petitioners continue to 
object to these limits as too stringent for certain wireless broadband 
uses in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. After review of the 
record, we remain convinced that the OOBE limits adopted in the 3.5 GHz 
R&O strike the appropriate balance between the need to facilitate 
innovation and investment in the 3.5 GHz Band and the need to protect 
licensed C-Band FSS earth stations from interference.
    96. However, while we maintain the existing OOBE limits, we do 
acknowledge SIA's concerns regarding potential interference into C-Band 
receivers used for critical telemetry, tracking, and control (TT&C) 
operations at the band edge. Therefore, as detailed in section 
IV(C)(2), we adopt rules to provide additional protection for these 
facilities. We also adopt new rules to facilitate coordination between 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and licensed C-Band FSS earth 
stations to address any interference issues that may arise.
    97. Finally, we reject SIA's assertion that the Commission did not 
provide proper notice prior to adopting the current OOBE rules in the 
3.5 GHz R&O. As SIA itself notes, in the FNPRM, the Commission: (1) 
Proposed an OOBE limit of -13 dBm/MHz at the band edge and -40 dBm/MHz 
and 30 megahertz above and below the proposed band edges; (2) sought 
comment on both OOBE limits and the size of the transition gap; and (3) 
sought comment on extending the Citizens Broadband Radio Service to 
3700 MHz. Even prior to that time, the Licensing PN sought comment on 
``[w]hat provisions would need to be made for incumbent operators'' if 
the band were so extended. And in the 3.5 GHz R&O itself, the 
Commission determined to seek further comment on ``steps we can take 
over and above those we've already taken to preempt and mitigate the 
potential for interference'' to incumbent C-Band licensees, referring 
specifically to ``our baseline emission performance rule.''
    98. As SIA correctly states, ``a final rule need not be an exact 
replica of the rule proposed in the Notice, the final rule must be a 
`logical outgrowth' of the rule proposed.'' In this case, the 
Commission had sought comment on the need for interference protections 
relating to extension of the band edge from 3650 MHz to 3700 MHz. The 
OOBE limits later proposed in the FNPRM were clearly intended to apply 
to the upper and lower bounds of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
and the Commission made it clear that those bounds could extend to 3700 
MHz. Indeed, the Commission originally sought comment on extending the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service to 3700 MHz in the original NPRM 
released in December of 2012. Thus, the extension of the 3.5 GHz Band--
and with it the OOBE rules applicable at and beyond the band edge--was 
wholly foreseeable and a clear logical outgrowth of the Commission's 
proposals. In addition, the 3.5 GHz R&O itself provided parties with 
yet a further opportunity to comment on the

[[Page 49035]]

approaches that the Commission could utilize to protect C-Band FSS 
earth stations.
2. Emission Power Measurements and Testing Methodology
    99. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we adopted a rule that requires 
that emission power measurements be performed with a peak detector in 
maximum hold. CTIA objects to this testing methodology and asks the 
Commission to adopt a different measurement technique. Qualcomm, T-
Mobile, WinnForum, and WISPA support CTIA's request. CTIA contends that 
the use of an RMS detector to measure emissions would be wholly 
consistent with the Commission's rules governing most other commercial 
licensed and unlicensed services. In addition, CTIA states that the 
peak to average ratio for emissions from LTE signals can easily exceed 
10 dB and compelling Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to operate 
with that much less power would effectively cripple the band's ability 
to support mobile broadband operations. WISPA agrees and adds that, not 
only would measuring at peak power require mobile operations to operate 
at significantly less power, but this would similarly impinge upon the 
ability of fixed providers to operate at the maximum authorized power.
    100. In addition, WinnForum argues that 10+ dB signal strengths 
over average captured by the current rule would exist for less than 
0.01% of the time for any one signal. WinnForum also contends that 
requiring devices to be tested using a peak detector at maximum hold 
effectively requires that devices be certified at the maximum possible 
signal strength at any given time and is a very poor representation of 
actual interference impact. According to WinnForum, the part 96 
emission limits are already stringent, and become simply unattainable 
when adding over 10dB penalty through the peak detector/max hold 
requirement. WinnForum also claims that the effects would likely be 
similar for other wideband systems (Wi-Fi, WiMAX, etc.).
    101. SIA disagrees with WinnForum and argues that the Commission 
should retain the peak measurement test for OOBE. SIA states that 
ignoring peak emission levels in favor of reliance on average 
measurements would undermine the prophylactic objectives of the OOBE 
limits. SIA contends that, by CTIA's own admission, the change would 
allow power increases of 10 dB or more. According to SIA, because peak 
emissions can have significant interference effects, the Commission 
must continue to require use of a peak detector to determine OOBE limit 
compliance.
    102. Google supports WinnForum's filing and argues that SIA's 
claims should be rejected. Google asserts that all signals, including 
LTE, Wi-Fi, WiMAX, and even Gaussian thermal noise will have 
statistical variations in the instantaneous amplitude of the waveform 
and argues that, for this reason neither cellular, AWS, PCS, or 700 MHz 
emission are measured using peak hold. Google also asserts that, since 
the PAPR and signal statistics of LTE and Gaussian thermal noise are 
similar, the measurement of their interference potential should be 
treated in the same way. Accordingly, Google argues that if SIA insists 
on measuring CBSD emissions using peak values, the system noise of FSS 
receivers should be characterized in the same manner.
    103. Discussion. After careful review of the record, we conclude 
that emission power measurements may be performed using either RMS-
detection or peak-detection. We agree with petitioners that requiring 
the use of a peak detector operating at maximum hold to test emission 
limits does not serve the public interest. As WinnForum argues, 
requiring the use of peak measurements may effectively prevent the 
development and deployment of equipment in the band. Moreover, the 
decision to allow the use of RMS measurements is consistent with 
existing Commission rules for several other licensed services in the 
past, including the AWS bands 47 CFR 27.50(b)(11), (c)(11), (d)(6), 
(h)(4)(i), 24.132(d)-(f). In other services, the Commission has adopted 
the emission power measurement by giving the option of detecting peak 
value or average value 47 CFR 27.53(a)(7), (h)(3)(iii). This decision 
will provide the measurement lab with a great deal of flexibility to 
select the appropriate detection type during the certification process.
    104. RF power measurement is a function of the receiver bandwidth 
and detection method whether the signal is detected using a peak or 
average technique. LTE signals are using OFDM based modulation in 
downlink which are known to have large PAPRs which may be beyond the 10 
dB margin. Google also points out that the PAPRs and signal statistics 
of LTE and Gaussian thermal noise are generally similar, and thermal 
noise is typically evaluated using mean measurements. Recent NTIA lab 
measurements of emission spectrum for a commercial LTE hot spot device 
operating in the 3.5 GHz Band has shown PAPRs of up to about 12-13 dB. 
The PAPR for an LTE signal is a random value that fluctuates over a 
wide range and depends on modulation type and number of sub-carriers 
used.
    105. We reject SIA's argument that retaining the peak detector at 
maximum hold measurement requirement is necessary to prevent harmful 
interference into C-Band FSS earth stations. SIA contends that this 
measurement approach is necessary because ``peak emissions may have 
significant interference effects.'' However, the issue is not what is 
commonly referred to as ``peak power'' but rather extremely short 
duration transient signals that typically have little energy and, 
therefore, generally do not reflect interference potential. In effect, 
requiring devices to be tested using a peak detector at max hold 
requires devices to be certified at their ``worst case'' configuration 
which would present an unrealistic view of the actual interference 
potential of any given device. This approach is inconsistent with our 
oft stated rejection of worst case approaches to measurements and 
interference protection analysis. Moreover, as Google notes, SIA's 
assertion that CBSD emission levels should be measured using a peak 
detector, while their own system noise levels are exempt from such a 
requirement, is logically inconsistent and mathematically unsound.
    106. In addition, WinnForum argues that, since incumbent 
protections in the 3.5 GHz Band will be calculated using aggregate 
interference from multiple CBSDs, certifying CBSDs using a peak 
detector at max hold will compound the effects of these worst case 
certifications, yielding an unrealistic picture of the RF environment. 
On the other hand, calculating aggregate interference effects based on 
average measurements will present a more realistic picture of the 
actual RF environment for the purpose of determining protection of 
incumbent systems, including FSS earth stations. We agree with CTIA, 
Google, and WinnForum that maintaining the peak detector at maximum 
hold requirement would be unnecessary, particularly in light of the cap 
on peak-to-average emissions we adopt below. Maintaining this approach 
would also be inconsistent with the Commission's goals for the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service and would not promote spectral efficiency and 
co-existence among various users in the 3.5 GHz Band and adjacent 
bands.
    107. It is also typically easier to measure emissions using the 
peak detected signal as part of standard

[[Page 49036]]

measurements. Accordingly, under our revised rules, if the device 
passes the peak detection requirements, no further RMS-detection is 
needed to meet the OOBE conditions; otherwise, the RMS-detection method 
can be applied. However, in order to circumvent any effect of peak 
power spikes, as indicated in the CBSD power requirement section, we 
will also require that the PAPR of the transmitter output power not 
exceed 13 dB consistent with the Commission's previous rules in other 
licensed mobile broadband services 47 CFR 24.32(d), 27.50(a)(1)(B) and 
(d)(5). NTIA lab measurements on LTE hot spot devices also support our 
finding that a 13 dB margin is reasonable for industry to achieve.
    108. We believe the combination of changing the requirement to 
include the use of RMS detection for emission measurement, along with 
setting the PAPR limitation, will diminish the potential for 
interference between and among Citizens Broadband Radio Service users 
and Incumbent Users while promoting efficient use of the band. We 
disagree with SIA's assertions and note that RMS measurement is 
commonly used by the Commission and, in fact, is commonly used in other 
bands. Indeed, allowing such flexible measurement techniques here will 
help promote the next generation of shared spectrum technologies, and 
will drive greater productivity and efficiency in spectrum usage.

F. Device Geo-Location

1. Location Accuracy and Alternative Measurement Approaches
    109. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O we required 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) 
(47 CFR 96.39(a)). We found that, for the SAS to accurately predict and 
evaluate interference and channel availability, it must receive and 
store accurate location information for all CBSDs.
    110. Motorola Solutions, Nokia Solutions, and WinnForum filed 
petitions for reconsideration requesting that Commission relax the 
existing accuracy requirements and suggest, alternatively, that the 
Commission allow the SAS to play a role in estimating CBSD location. 
Google and Federated Wireless also support alternative approaches to 
ascertaining the location of CBSDs. Specifically, Federated Wireless 
explains that there are a variety of methods the SAS could use to 
verify location, such as coordinating with downstream infrastructure or 
reference to its power levels and other measurements. Google suggests 
that even if devices cannot meet the specific requirements established 
by the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission should permit an SAS to calculate 
spectrum availability based on the geolocation reported by the device, 
making appropriate adjustments for differences in specificity. Google 
argues this would incentivize manufacturers to improve location 
accuracy.
    111. WinnForum proposes that the SAS should estimate CBSD elevation 
and ground level using detailed terrain databases based on the device's 
reported operating location. Further, WinnForum states that while the 
ability to meet the horizontal accuracy requirement is readily 
achievable, the elevation accuracy requirement significantly exceeds 
the capability of standard GPS equipment, which will be utilized by 
both CBSDs and professional installers. WinnForum suggests that, in 
lieu of the vertical location accuracy requirements, for Category A 
CBSD's, professional installation reports should include the highest 
floor from which the device will operate and, for Category B CBSDs, the 
reports should include the antenna height above ground level.
    112. Nokia Solutions also recommends that the Commission establish 
separate vertical location accuracy requirements for outdoor and indoor 
installations. Nokia Solutions states that, since the primary method 
used by many equipment vendors for outdoor location is GPS-based, the 
vertical location accuracy requirement should be aligned to the US 
Government Position Accuracy standard for worst site conditions as 
stated in the Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service 
Performance Standard. Nokia Solutions argues that, since GPS does not 
work well or at all indoors, the Commission should eliminate the 
elevation reporting requirement for indoor installations, allowing the 
SAS to estimate the CBSD elevation, and require only the GPS location 
of the building for the horizontal location.
    113. SIA and NAB both stress the importance of reliable location 
accuracy necessary to protect incumbent operations. SIA recognizes that 
complying with the current requirements may be challenging, 
particularly with respect to indoor devices where GPS data may not be 
readily available and both SIA and NAB would support looser 
requirements so long as ``worst case'' assumptions are built into the 
calculations to account for the reduced accuracy. However, in regard to 
vertical location, simply relaxing the accuracy requirements and 
allowing the SAS to ``estimate'' or ``compute'' a device's elevation is 
not an acceptable solution, given the importance of a device's vertical 
position in calculating the potential for harmful interference. 
Therefore, NAB and SIA argue, the Commission must implement a larger 
separation distance to account for this uncertainty, if a device cannot 
meet the requirements or the SAS cannot independently verify a device's 
elevation.
    114. WISPA opposes the petitions that propose to relax or eliminate 
the existing vertical location accuracy requirements and argues that 
there is no current mechanism for CBSDs or an SAS to determine the 
antenna height above ground within the required accuracy. WISPA states 
the elevation of the CBSD becomes irrelevant for CBSDs installed using 
external antenna systems and that only the elevation of the actual 
antenna is relevant for interference mitigation purposes. According to 
WISPA, the only way for the SAS to ascertain the CBSD antenna system 
elevation is by using location information provided by a professional 
installer.
    115. Discussion. We maintain the location accuracy requirements 
established in the 3.5 GHz R&O and decline the Nokia Solutions and 
WinnForum Petitions insofar as they request that we modify these rules. 
We recognize that there are technological challenges to achieving 
indoor location accuracy. However, as we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, 
CBSD location is essential for coordinating interactions between and 
among users in the band and for protecting Incumbent Access users from 
harmful interference. Without accurate location data, SASs cannot 
fulfill their core functions in effectively instructing CBSDs to 
discontinue their operations or change frequencies to protect Incumbent 
Users.
    116. Further, we believe that the location accuracy requirements in 
the rules are achievable. First, CBSDs are fixed devices, simplifying 
the reporting of accurate geo-location information, either 
automatically or with the input of a professional installer. Second, 
automated reporting of geo-location to our location accuracy 
requirements may already be achievable in some conditions (e.g., 
outdoors with clear line of sight to GPS). In addition, at least one 
party has stated on the record that it has developed technology that 
can meet the indoor location accuracy rules set forth in the existing 
rules. Finally, as discussed in section III(F)(2),

[[Page 49037]]

professional installation will play an important role in ensuring the 
SAS can accurately locate devices while automatic location technologies 
that meet our requirements are tested and developed.
    117. Some commenters also suggest that location accuracy 
requirements could be met alternatively via SAS calculations. We 
anticipate that SASs will play a key role in verifying the geographic 
locations of CBSDs and, as technology continues to develop, we 
encourage SAS Administrators to offer functions to supplement and 
reinforce CBSD geo-location functions. However, the CBSD is the best 
source of its own location information, and such features will not 
discharge the CBSD from complying with our rules.
    118. Finally, regarding Nokia Solutions' suggestion that we allow 
operators to meet vertical location accuracy requirements at a certain 
confidence level, we decline to make changes to the existing rules. For 
the aforementioned reasons, the current rules ensure that the SAS can 
properly locate CBSDs in order to perform its core functions, and we 
believe them to be achievable over time.
2. Automated Geo-Location and Professional Installation for CBSDs
    119. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we concluded that Category A 
CBSDs may utilize either a technical geo-location capability or be 
professionally installed while Category B CBSDs must be professionally 
installed (47 CFR 96.39(a), 96.45(a)). We noted that, since CBSDs will 
be fixed installations, the professional installation option should 
allow for network deployment in the near term while automatic geo-
location technologies for this band are tested and developed that meet 
our accuracy requirements. We also strongly encouraged 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.
    120. NAB and SIA argue that the Commission should eliminate the 
option for professional installers to report the locations of CBSDs 
and, instead, require all CBSDs to include a geo-location capability. 
NAB contends that the Commission's rule is analogous to a similar 
professional installation requirement adopted in the White Spaces 
proceeding. NAB argues that, in that proceeding, it identified several 
errors in device registrations made by professional installers and that 
such errors prove that the professional installation option is not 
acceptable in either the White Spaces or the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service. NAB contends that professional installation is not necessary 
for indoor deployments, citing both technological advances and a 
compromise approach that it submitted in the White Spaces proceeding. 
NAB also claims that the professional installation is inherently flawed 
and cannot be rehabilitated by a certification process. SIA agrees with 
NAB and contends that, regardless of the safeguards adopted, it will be 
impossible to remove the risk of human error from installations. In 
addition, on February 26, 2016, the Commission adopted a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking and Order (81 FR 15210, March 22, 2016) that 
proposed to require automated geo-location capabilities in White Spaces 
devices, consistent with an agreement between NAB and several White 
Spaces device manufacturers.
    121. Federated Wireless, Google, T-Mobile, and WISPA disagree with 
NAB and SIA and argue that the Commission should permit professional 
installation of CBSDs in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Google 
contends that: (1) Discussions of individual records in the White 
Spaces proceeding are not relevant to this proceeding and that, in any 
case, the White Spaces entries may have been good faith test cases; (2) 
the record demonstrates that professional installers can protect 
Incumbent Access users; and (3) the industry is working collaboratively 
to develop an effective framework for certifying professional 
installers in the band. Federated Wireless agrees and argues that, 
given the requirements of the band, SAS Administrators and Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users will be incentivized to ensure that all 
geo-location information provided to the SAS is accurate. Federated 
Wireless also notes that professional installation has been used 
successfully in a number of other licensed services--including two-way 
satellite broadband.
    122. Discussion. We deny NAB and SIA's petitions for 
reconsideration of the professional installation rule. We also decline 
to mandate automated geo-location capabilities for CBSDs. As described 
in the 3.5 GHz R&O, accurate CBSD location information is essential for 
coordinating interactions between and among users in the band and for 
protecting federal and non-federal Incumbent Users from harmful 
interference. However, we also noted that, while we expect location 
accuracy technology to continue to develop, in many circumstances, 
automated reporting of geo-location information that complies with our 
accuracy requirements will be challenging in this band given currently 
available technology. Professional installation is intended to fill 
that gap and facilitate deployment of CBSDs with accurately reported 
geo-location information while the next generation of automatic geo-
location technology is developed.
    123. Based on the record, we are not convinced that the 
capabilities of today's equipment and technology are sufficiently 
developed to ensure that CBSDs will be able to perform automated geo-
location functions in order to reliably meet the location accuracy 
requirements for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. As a result, 
limiting CBSDs to automated geo-location as the only way to meet these 
requirements would deter near-term deployment on any reasonable scale 
in the 3.5 GHz Band. As discussed in detail above, several petitioners 
highlighted the difficulties associated with attaining an accurate 
vertical reading within +/- 3 meters. Federated Wireless also argues 
that, while current technology may be sufficient to provide the SAS 
with a CBSD's location at the requisite degree of accuracy in some 
outdoor situations, such readings may not be currently possible for a 
variety of indoor deployments in this band. Since we expect much of the 
deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band to be indoors, the inability of a CBSD 
to provide its location indoors would be fatal to many potential use 
cases for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. While we are encouraged 
by iPosi's claim that its technology can provide indoor accuracy 
readings that meet or exceed or requirements, it has not yet been used 
commercially in the 3.5 GHz Band, so it is yet to be determined if this 
technology is appropriate--or economically viable--for all use cases at 
this time. Thus, while the accuracy of geo-location technology is 
improving, integrated geo-location technology may not be a viable 
option for all potential network deployments in the 3.5 GHz Band at 
this time.
    124. We also find unconvincing NAB and SIA's reliance on NAB's 
claims regarding inaccurately entered location information in the White 
Spaces databases. NAB and SIA assert that, since professional 
installers allegedly entered inaccurate locations of devices in White 
Spaces databases, the entire notion of a professional installation 
regime is inherently flawed. Indeed, NAB claims that professional 
installation has proven to be inherently unreliable and that it cannot 
be rehabilitated through any kind of certification regime. NAB and SIA 
reach

[[Page 49038]]

these conclusions despite the fact that no SASs have been approved or 
CBSDs deployed in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service and, as such, 
there is no evidence of actual harm or impropriety in the band to 
support their claims. Moreover, these parties have provided no 
convincing evidence that a professional installation option in this 
band presents any significant potential for such harm. The alleged 
failures of a dissimilar, uncertified professional installation regime 
in another service do not warrant eliminating the professional 
installation option for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
    125. The Commission noted that the recent changes proposed in the 
White Spaces NPRM, which included a proposal to eliminate the 
professional installer option for fixed White Space devices, were 
``based upon the circumstances specific to fixed white space devices 
and white spaces databases.'' In the White Spaces service, the 
Commission determined not to ``define the qualifications of a 
professional installer in the rules.'' Here, in contrast, as explained 
in the 3.5 GHz R&O and detailed below, the Commission will require 
professional installers to be trained and certified using an 
established industry-led process.
    126. NAB and SIA unfairly dismiss the importance of a robust 
industry certification process for professional installers. By relying 
on such a certification process here, as the Commission has in a 
variety of other contexts, the rules provide an important protection 
against the prospect that ``any purchaser of a device'' could serve as 
a professional installer. We reiterate that industry-led professional 
accreditation processes have been used by the Commission and have, in 
fact, proven successful in other similar situations. In the 3.5 GHz 
R&O, we recognized the importance of accurate geo-location information 
and we strongly encouraged prospective SAS Administrators and Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users to develop programs for accrediting 
professional installers and associated technical best practices. 
WinnForum announced that, consistent with the Commission's wishes, its 
members are developing a set of professional installation standards to 
be implemented by SAS Administrators. Any certification regime 
developed by WinnForum--or any other entity or organization--must 
ensure that registered CBSDs comply with the Commission's geo-location 
rules. WTB and OET will review the SAS's ability to implement and 
verify the information submitted by professional installers as part of 
the SAS approval process.
    127. Most importantly, the White Spaces service itself is not 
directly analogous to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. While both 
White Spaces devices and CBSDs rely on the White Space databases and 
SASs, respectively, to protect incumbent services, White Space devices 
are unlicensed and have no expectation of interference protection. On 
the other hand, the Citizens Broadband Radio Service is a licensed 
service in which SASs must be able to effectively coordinate CBSD 
interactions (both PAL and GAA) to prevent interference between and 
among the three tiers of users and ensure a stable spectral environment 
for commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz Band. In other words, in the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service the accuracy of the information is 
important both to protect incumbent services and to protect and enable 
every other user. This licensed nature of the service coupled with 
industry certification requirements for professional installers 
provides a higher degree of accountability for Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service users and SAS Administrators, ensuring that CBSD locations are 
accurately reported and verified. In addition, all Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users have the rights and obligations incumbent on all 
Commission licensees, which include serious consequences for violation 
of Commission rules, including potential revocation and license 
qualification issues. The Commission has extensive mechanisms available 
to it to ensure that licensees comply with its rules.
    128. In addition, as the Commission has stated on several 
occasions, approved SASs will have capabilities and responsibilities 
that exceed those of White Spaces database administrators. Drawing on 
the lessons learned from the White Spaces proceeding, the Commission 
will expect SAS Administrators to take appropriate steps to 
authenticate and verify information that is submitted by professional 
installers and to immediately correct any inaccurate information in 
their databases (47 CFR 96.53(d), 96.57(a), 96.63(f)). 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 (47 CFR 95.55). Federated Wireless also notes that there 
are a variety of ``quality control methods'' that an SAS Administrator 
may employ--including IP validation, Wi-Fi assistance, and downstream 
infrastructure coordination--to help verify a CBSD's location. We 
expect SAS Administrators to develop and implement technological 
safeguards appropriate to ensure the integrity and accuracy of location 
data submitted by CBSDs, and we will carefully review proposals from 
prospective SAS Administrators to determine whether they have 
demonstrated the capability to do so.
    129. While we believe that professional installation is necessary 
and appropriate for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service at this time, 
future technological developments may obviate the need to rely on 
professional installation to ensure the accuracy of CBSDs' location 
information in some circumstances. Accordingly, we direct WTB and OET 
to seek input on developments in geo-location technology for CBSDs and 
the status of the professional installation regime in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service no later than April 28, 2020.
3. End User Device Requirements
    130. Background. In its petition, SIA seeks reconsideration of the 
Commission decision not to mandate that End User Devices include geo-
location capabilities. SIA argues that such a mandate is necessary so 
that an SAS is aware of the location of End User Devices and without 
such a requirement, the SAS calculations to protect FSS earth stations 
must be based on worst-case assumptions about location. SIA states 
these assumptions would include the maximum operational distance 
between the End User Device and CBSD and the maximum number of End User 
Devices that could be served by the CBSD. In the alternative, the 
Commission could define a maximum deployment radius. However, SIA 
argues, ``the use of such worst-case assumptions would result in fewer 
End User Devices being authorized--and therefore less efficient 
utilization of the spectrum--than if the SAS had actual location data 
for each device.''
    131. Google and WISPA expressly oppose mandating End User Devices 
to include geo-location technology. Google argues that a geo-location 
requirement would unnecessarily limit the types of devices available to 
consumers, as Wi-Fi dongles and other miniature broadband devices are 
so small that adding geo-location technology would fundamentally alter 
the form of the device. Both WISPA and Google claim that such a 
requirement is not needed to protect users from interference, as the

[[Page 49039]]

SAS can take into account the ``cloud'' of End User Devices associated 
with a particular CBSD when calculating interference protection and the 
Commission requires End User Devices to positively receive and decode 
authorization signals from CBSDs.
    132. Rajant states that while it is not opposed to requiring geo-
location in End User Devices, it would add additional costs to 
operation in the band. Further, Rajant states that it plans to deploy 
in places such as enclosed stadiums and underground mass transit 
tunnels where it would be difficult to obtain GPS location data and 
while GPS simulators are available, they would be burdensome and hinder 
flexibility. Therefore, Rajant argues that the Commission should not 
require geo-location for consumer devices and limit such a requirement 
to devices intended for industrial, public safety, or commercial use in 
confined, managed sites.
    133. Discussion. We deny SIA's request to mandate geo-location 
technology in all End User Devices and find that such a requirement is 
not necessary to ensure compliance with our location accuracy rules or 
to effectively mitigate interference into incumbent systems. We 
recognize that FSS earth station licensees are concerned about 
interference from End User Devices and, indeed we sought comment on how 
to address these issues in the Second FNPRM. However, we agree with 
Google and WISPA that it is not necessary to mandate that End User 
Devices include automatic geo-location capabilities to effectively 
protect Incumbent Users from interference. In addition, such a 
requirement would unnecessarily limit the types of consumer devices 
that may be deployed and utilized in the 3.5 GHz Band.
    134. Indeed, the rationale we articulated in section III(F)(2) for 
not requiring automatic geo-location reporting by CBSDs is even more 
compelling in the case of End User Devices. End User Devices operate at 
a much lower power than even Category A CBSDs, lowering their potential 
interference effects and reducing their range of operation. End User 
Devices are also inherently limited in their area of operation by the 
coverage of a given CBSD or network of CBSDs. Moreover, since End User 
Devices will likely include mobile devices--as opposed to fixed CBSDs--
reporting their location to the level of accuracy required by our rules 
would likely exceed the limits of current technology in many locations.
    135. Further, the SAS is responsible for managing CBSDs, not End 
User Devices. Requiring End User Devices to report their locations to 
the SAS and requiring the SAS to track and manage these devices would 
greatly exceed the limits of the SAS's responsibilities. As such, it is 
not appropriate to include End User Devices in our location accuracy 
rules. However, as noted by WISPA, the rules do require End User 
Devices to ``positively receive and decode an authorization signal 
transmitted by a CBSD, including the frequencies and power limits for 
their operation,'' (47 CFR 96.47(a)) and any device to be certified by 
the Commission must meet these requirements. Both Google and WISPA also 
state that WinnForum is reviewing how to treat End User Devices in 
interference calculations, which will further supplement the SAS's 
ability to account for End User Device locations. WTB and OET will 
review any such approaches submitted during the SAS approval process.

G. PAL Protection Criteria

    136. Background. To ensure that Priority Access operations are 
protected from harmful interference, we adopted an aggregate received 
signal level at PAL license boundaries to be at or below an average 
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 (47 CFR 96.41(f)). We also permitted Priority Access 
Licensees to agree to an alternative limit other than -80 dBm/10 MHz at 
their Service Area boundaries and communicate it to an SAS. In 
addition, we noted that these signal level requirements would not apply 
to adjacent census tracts held by the same Priority Access Licensee.
    137. WinnForum asks that the Commission modify its PAL protection 
criteria to more effectively reflect real world interference concerns 
and protect Priority Access Licensees. WinnForum contends that the PAL 
protection rule creates several problems that the Commission did not 
consider in developing the 3.5 GHz R&O. According to WinnForum, these 
problems include: (1) The requirement would place a significant burden 
on the SAS by requiring it to calculate point-to-line interference 
along a lengthy border; (2) border protections may not effectively 
protect interior portions of a Priority Access Licensee's Service Area; 
(3) high elevation census tracts will have a disproportionate effect on 
CBSD deployments; and (4) the requirement will unnecessarily block co-
channel devices. WinnForum suggests that the SAS implement an alternate 
protection scheme whereby the SAS would protect an operator-defined 
contour around Priority Access CBSDs to a protection level of -80 dBm/
10 MHz anywhere within the contour. WinnForum claims that this revised 
approach addresses all of the concerns raised in its Petition. 
Federated Wireless, Google, and Motorola Solutions support WinnForum's 
Petition. WISPA also agrees that the -80 dBm criterion is inadequate 
for the reasons described by WinnForum.
    138. Discussion. We agree with WinnForum's Petition in part and, 
accordingly, we revise the rule. Under the revised rule, allowable 
interference will be calculated for the area within the PAL Protection 
Area (47 CFR 96.3) described in detail in section IV(A) below rather 
than along the borders of a Priority Access Licensee's Service Area (47 
CFR 96.3). To protect CBSDs authorized to provide service on a Priority 
Access basis, the SAS must not authorize other CBSDs--whether Priority 
Access or GAA--on the same channel in geographic areas and at maximum 
power levels that will cause aggregate interference in excess of -80 
dBm/10 MHz channel within a PAL Protection Area. Consistent with our 
approach elsewhere in this Order, the aggregate co-channel interference 
level will be defined by a common models utilizing common inputs and 
assumptions. These models, inputs, and assumptions--including the 
propagation model and any clutter or terrain assumptions--will be 
determined during the SAS approval process. This approach is also 
consistent with the methods that will be used to model and measure the 
aggregate interference to protect incumbent FSS earth stations and 
incumbent federal radar systems.
    139. Several commenters, including Federated Wireless, Google, 
Motorola Solutions, and WinnForum support a protection methodology 
based on modeled aggregate interference protections within the area 
served by a Priority Access Licensee rather than along the border of a 
given Service Area or census tract. Notably, Google and WinnForum 
contend that a protection methodology that utilizes point-to-area 
interference models to calculate aggregate interference into a Priority 
Access Licensee's service area will be relatively simple and 
inexpensive for SASs to implement. Motorola Solutions, WinnForum, and 
Google also highlight several negative unintended consequences of the 
Commission's rule requiring CBSDs to meet an aggregate interference 
threshold along the border of a Service Area.

[[Page 49040]]

    140. We find the evidence presented by Petitioners compelling and 
modify section 96.41(d) (47 CFR 96.41(d)) to address the concerns 
raised in their filings. We note that there were no objections to the 
protection level of -80 dBm/10 MHz and, indeed, several petitioners 
supported this interference protection level. Therefore, under the 
revised rule, the SAS must assign CBSDs such that the modeled aggregate 
power of co-channel CBSDs is no greater than -80 dBm/10 MHz within the 
PAL Protection Area. Consistent with our approach to geographic guard 
bands, described in section IV(A), we conclude that the SAS may not 
consider adjacent channel interference when calculating these 
protections and assigning CBSDs. We believe that the stringent out-of-
channel emission limits set forth in section 96.41 (47 CFR 96.41) are 
sufficient to make adjacent channel interference unlikely, particularly 
for synchronized systems and Category A CBSDs.

H. FSS Protection

    141. In its petition, SIA asked the Commission to reconsider or 
clarify several of its rules regarding the protection of in-band and 
out-of-band FSS earth stations. These issues included: (1) The status 
of new FSS earth stations in the band; (2) interference notification 
procedures; (3) protections for international FSS earth stations; (4) 
FSS registration requirements; and (5) clarification of protections 
afforded to in-band and out-of-band earth stations. Specific protection 
methods for in-band and out-of-band FSS earth stations were raised by 
the Commission in the Second FNPRM and, as such, are addressed in 
section IV(C) below. SIA's other requests are addressed in this 
section.
1. Status of New In-band FSS Earth Stations
    142. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission adopted a 
change to the Table of Allocations limiting co-primary FSS earth 
stations in the 3600-3650 MHz band to those authorized prior to, or 
granted as a result of an application filed prior to the effective date 
of the 3.5 GHz R&O, and constructed within 12 months of the initial 
authorization (47 CFR 2.106, note US107). This rule is consistent with 
proposals made in the NPRM and FNPRM as well as the licensing freeze 
imposed concurrently with the NPRM and sunsetted in the 3.5 GHz R&O.
    143. SIA contends that new in-band FSS earth stations should be 
authorized on a co-primary basis like grandfathered earth stations. 
They assert that existing limits on FSS operations in the 3600-3650 MHz 
band and the relatively limited number of recent applications 
demonstrate that allowing new stations to operate on a co-primary basis 
will not have a negative effect on the spectrum ecosystem. SIA also 
argues that restoring the co-primary authorization will further the 
public interest by allowing FSS licensees to meet the evolving needs of 
new customers. SIA requests that, at a minimum, the Commission make it 
clear that existing licensees can replace their equipment while 
maintaining their current co-primary authorization.
    144. Discussion. We reject SIA's petition for reconsideration of 
the status of new 3600-3650 MHz earth stations. SIA's arguments echo 
the arguments made by the organization in response to the NPRM, 
Licensing PN, and FNPRM. The Commission took these arguments into 
consideration when it adopted the changes to the Table of Allocations 
and found that the changes were necessary to ensure the ongoing 
stability of the band and facilitate widespread access to the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service. SIA has not presented any new evidence that 
would compel us to change our conclusions.
    145. However, we agree with SIA's assertion that existing FSS earth 
station licensees should be permitted to replace antennas and other 
equipment associated with their licensed earth stations. Such changes 
may be necessary to ensure continuity of service for existing 
licensees. Therefore, we find that it is in the public interest to 
amend our rules to explicitly permit equipment replacement that is 
otherwise compliant with the Commission's rules (47 CFR 2.106, note 
US107). Licensees must update their registrations submitted pursuant to 
section 96.17 if such replacements change any of the parameters 
included in the registration to continue receiving accurate 
interference protection under section 96.17 (47 CFR 96.17(d)).
2. Notification of Interference
    146. Background. SIA contends that, while the SAS may be able to 
resolve interference disputes under the rules, the Commission does not 
establish specific procedures to address interference complaints from 
FSS licensees. SIA argues that the Commission ``must determine to whom 
interference complaints should be addressed, and should put in place 
procedures that require immediate suspension of CBSD operations pending 
investigation. In addition, the Commission should set strict time 
deadlines for ultimate resolution of an interference complaint.''
    147. Discussion. We agree with SIA that SASs should be capable of 
receiving and responding to interference complaints from FSS earth 
station licensees and we amend our rules to require SASs to accommodate 
such complaints. One of the core functions of the SAS is to ensure that 
all registered users operate according to the Commission's rules, 
including the rules protecting non-federal Incumbent Users (47 CFR 
96.17, 96.21, 96.53(h)). This includes enforcing the protection 
criteria set forth in sections 96.17 and 96.21 (47 CFR 96.17, 96.21) 
and, under the modified rule, processing and responding to reports of 
harmful interference or special coordination requests from non-federal 
FSS licensees (47 CFR 96.17(f)). As with all coordination and 
interference mitigation efforts in the 3.5 GHz Band, we encourage the 
parties to work collaboratively to resolve any interference issues that 
may arise. Although we expect the parties and the SAS to resolve most 
interference issues among themselves, the Commission retains ultimate 
authority over the licensees in the band (and the SAS Administrators), 
as well as the responsibility for enforcing the rules to resolve 
interference issues in the band.
    148. However, we do not believe that it is in the public interest 
to establish fixed timeframes for investigation and resolution of such 
issues or to require immediate suspension of CBSDs pending 
investigation. Rather, each SAS will have to demonstrate the ability to 
promptly respond to reports of interference during the SAS approval 
process. We also recognize that different interference cases may be 
more complex than others and SAS response times may differ depending on 
the unique circumstances of any given case. In addition, requiring 
immediate shutdown of CBSDs after any complaint from an FSS licensee 
would establish an unfair presumption that the complaint is true prior 
to any investigation. We encourage SAS Administrators and incumbent FSS 
earth station licensees to work together to establish effective 
protocols for receiving and responding to complaints of interference.
3. Protection for International FSS Earth Stations
    149. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we adopted a rule that 
explains that operations in the 3.5 GHz Band are subject to current and 
future agreements with the governments of Canada and Mexico and 
requires SAS Administrators to implement the terms

[[Page 49041]]

of any such agreements. As we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, this is 
approach is consistent with our usual practice for new services.
    150. SIA argues that the Commission should impose more strict 
restrictions on deployments near the Canadian and Mexican borders 
absent agreements between the countries. Specifically, SIA suggests 
that the Commission impose similar restrictions to those included in 
section 90.1337 for 3650-3700 MHz licensees authorized under part 90 of 
the Commission's rules (47 CFR 90.1337).
    151. Discussion. We reject SIA's petition for reconsideration of 
the Commission's rules governing Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
operations near international borders. SIA raised similar objections 
when the Commission proposed this approach in the FNPRM and the 
Commission considered those arguments in reaching its decision. As 
noted above, this approach is consistent with our usual practice for 
new services. SAS Administrators will be required to comply with 
existing agreements and also 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 once 
such agreements are completed. We continue to believe that this 
approach will ensure that CBSD deployments near international borders 
comply with all applicable international agreements as those agreements 
are finalized with respect to this band.
4. FSS Registration
    152. Background. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission adopted 
measures designed to protect incumbent in-band and adjacent C-Band FSS 
earth stations from interference. We sought further comment on 
additional protection measures for both in-band and out-of-band sites, 
addressed in detail below. In order to adequately implement these 
measures, the Commission required FSS earth station licensees in the 
3600-3650 MHz band and the neighboring C-Band seeking protection under 
the rules to submit an annual registration that includes certain 
technical information that will be made available to SAS Administrators 
(47 CFR 96.17(d) and (e)).
    153. SIA requests that the Commission eliminate the requirement 
that FSS earth station operators must register their stations annually, 
and if the Commission retains the registration rules, that we revise 
and clarify these rules. SIA suggests that the SAS obtain the 
registration information from the publicly available International 
Bureau Filing System (IBFS) and argues that an annual registration is 
an unwarranted administrative burden. However, if the Commission does 
not eliminate the registration requirement, SIA argues for the 
following changes to the rules: (1) Clarify that earth station 
operators can register a range of antenna azimuth and elevation angles; 
(2) explicitly state that new licensees will be protected; and (3) 
clarify the deadline for registration (47 CFR 96.17(d)). SIA also 
requests that the Commission revise its rule to clarify that the 
interference protection rights extend to unlicensed receive-only C-Band 
earth stations and replace the annual registration requirement with a 
one-time registration requirement.
    154. WISPA opposes SIA's request to eliminate or change the 
registration requirements, arguing that reporting information on a 
regular basis and after critical technical changes is necessary to 
ensure that the SAS can protect FSS earth stations from harmful 
interference. However, WISPA agrees with SIA that the Commission should 
harmonize registration requirements for C-Band earth stations so that 
the SAS can gather all of the information from one source and that the 
Commission should clarify that the protected area around an earth 
station to refers to the existing 150 km circular zone as specified in 
section 90.1331(a) (47 CFR 90.1331(a)).
    155. Google states that the registration requirements are 
reasonable and asks that the Commission reject SIA's request to 
eliminate this requirement. Google notes that the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service rules are designed to protect actual users and that the 
annual registration requirement achieves this objective. Google 
contends that SIA concedes that the basic technical information 
required by the registration is necessary to calculate interference 
protection, and argues that the earth station operators themselves are 
in the best position to provide such information. Google also requests 
that the Commission clarify that the registration requirement applies 
to grandfathered earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band.
    156. Discussion. We deny SIA's request to eliminate the annual FSS 
earth station registration requirement. However, we do make minor 
modifications to the existing rules governing earth station 
registrations. Specifically, we adopt changes to effectively implement 
the FSS earth station protection rules described in section IV(C) and 
further clarify that the registration rules apply to FSS earth stations 
in the 3650-3700 band after the transition period for Grandfathered 
Wireless Broadband Licensees. Management of sharing in a dynamic 
environment between three tiers of users requires as much accurate 
information as possible about the operation in each tier. In addition, 
as detailed in section IV(C), to provide additional protection for 
licensed C-Band FSS earth stations with TT&C responsibilities, we will 
allow these licensees to register for additional protection around 
these sites (47 CFR 96.17). Operators of these sites must provide the 
same registration information as in-band FSS earth station licensees 
seeking protection (47 CFR 96.17(d)) and, additionally, must affirm 
that each site is being used for TT&C.
    157. We decline SIA's requested changes and reaffirm our findings 
in the 3.5 GHz R&O. As stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, we adopted 
registration rules in order to ensure that the Commission and SAS 
Administrators have the accurate, up to date information necessary to 
protect incumbent licensed FSS earth stations (47 CFR 96.17(d)). In 
order for the SAS to adequately protect FSS incumbents, it must be able 
to access detailed information on the technical and operational 
characteristics of each FSS earth station seeking protection. If these 
characteristics change, the operator must update the relevant 
registration.
    158. Several parties indicated that the rules were unclear 
regarding how they apply to existing FSS earth stations in the 3650-
3700 MHz band. Section 96.21 (47 CFR 96.21) of the Commission's rules 
states that the existing protection criteria or in-band FSS earth 
stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band in part 90 of the Commission's rules 
(i.e., 150 km coordination zones around each earth station) (47 CFR 
90.1331(a)) would remain in place ``until the last Grandfathered 
Wireless Broadband Licensee's license expires within the protection 
area defined for a particular grandfathered FSS earth station'' (47 CFR 
96.21(c)). Thereafter, such earth stations would be protected under 
section 96.17 (47 CFR 96.17) using the same criteria applicable to 
``similarly situated earth stations in the 3600-3650 MHz band'' (47 CFR 
96.21(c)). We hereby modify the rules to clearly state that, after the 
expiration of the part 90 protection criteria, as set forth in section 
96.21 (47 CFR 96.21), grandfathered FSS earth station licensees 
operating in the 3650-3700 MHz band will be permitted to register for 
protection under the same terms applicable to FSS earth station 
licensees in the 3600-3650 MHz band (section 96.17(a)(1)).
    159. We agree with Google and WISPA that the SAS must have access

[[Page 49042]]

to accurate and up-to-date technical information in order to adequately 
protect licensed FSS earth stations. Operators must update the 
registration if this information changes so that the SAS is able to 
consistently verify this information to provide ongoing protection to 
individual sites. As we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, and noted by Google, 
the annual registration requirement allows us to balance the protection 
of incumbent FSS earth stations and greater Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service spectrum utilization instead of relying on a one-size-fits-all 
approach using worst-case interference assumptions. This aligns with 
the over-arching goal of protecting actual use in the 3.5 GHz Band to 
maximize capacity and coexistence of all users for the most efficient 
use of the band.
    160. We disagree with SIA's assertion that the registration 
requirement is overly burdensome and imposes unnecessary obligations on 
satellite providers. First, we agree with Google that operators are in 
the best position to supply accurate information to the Commission. 
Second, as SIA itself notes, earth station operators already provide 
much of this information to IBFS. As such, providing that information 
along with additional necessary information on the operational 
characteristics of FSS earth stations not included in IBFS, should not 
present a significant burden to FSS licensees but is critical for SAS 
Administrators to effectively perform their duties. We also note that 
registration requirements are not unique to earth station operators. 
Registration of operational features is a key means of managing 
interference in a shared use regime. Indeed, all Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service user must register the operational characteristics of 
their CBSDs prior to commencing operation and upon making changes to 
any operational parameters of their base stations (47 CFR 96.23(b), 
96.33(b), 96.39(c)).
    161. We also confirm that FSS earth station registration--and the 
protections it confers--do not extend to unlicensed in-band or out-of-
band FSS earth stations. SIA presents no argument that would compel the 
Commission to take the extraordinary step of protecting unlicensed 
sites from interference from licensed services.
    162. Finally, in regard to SIA's request that we clarify the 
registration deadline, we note that the Commission directed WTB to 
release a public notice describing the registration process. In a June 
2015 public notice, WTB announced that it would release this public 
notice in ``early 2016.'' We direct WTB to include the annual filing 
deadline in this public notice.

IV. Second Report and Order

    163. With this Second R&O, we address the three issue areas raised 
in the Second FNPRM. The Second FNPRM sought comment on how to: (1) 
Define ``use'' by Priority Access Licensees; (2) effectively facilitate 
secondary market transactions in the band; and (3) effectively protect 
in-band FSS earth stations and C-Band FSS earth stations.

A. Defining ``Use'' of PAL Frequencies

1. Background
    164. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we determined that allowing opportunistic 
access to channels not being used by Priority Access Licensees would 
serve the public interest by maximizing the flexibility and utility of 
the 3.5 GHz Band for the widest range of potential users. When PALs 
have not been issued (e.g., due to lack of demand) or the spectrum is 
not actually in use by a Priority Access Licensee, the SAS will 
automatically make that spectrum available for GAA use on a local and 
granular basis (47 CFR 96.25(c)). On multiple occasions prior to the 
3.5 GHz R&O, we sought comment on this ``use-it-or-share-it'' concept. 
While there was broad support in the record for some form of 
opportunistic GAA use, the record diverged greatly as to the proper 
methodology for defining and implementing a ``use-it-or-share-it'' 
framework. Therefore, in the Second FNPRM, we sought focused comment on 
particular options for defining ``use'' by Priority Access Licensees. 
Specifically, we sought comment on whether we should adopt an 
engineering definition, an economic definition, or a hybrid definition 
and how any such approach should be implemented.
    165. Several commenters advocated approaches that would rely on an 
engineering-based definition of ``use'' to allow GAA access when 
frequencies are not being used by Priority Access Licensees while 
protecting the areas actually utilized by such licensees. We asked 
proponents of an engineering definition of ``use'' to submit a detailed 
description of their methodology along with technical criteria and 
metrics that could be readily implemented by multiple SASs. We also 
asked them to address potential issues with the engineering approach, 
including: (1) Whether utilizing a vacant PAL channel as a guard band 
should constitute ``use;'' (2) how to prevent gaming the ``use-or-
share'' rules; and (3) whether an equitable approach to calculating 
aggregate interference can be implemented across multiple SASs.
    166. An alternative approach is to define ``use'' from an economic 
perspective for the purposes of determining GAA access to unused 
spectrum. William Lehr, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, argued that the Commission should ``view the PAL as an 
option to exclude GAA usage. PAL licensees would acquire the right to 
exclude GAA access.'' Under this approach, actual operation as a 
Priority Access Licensee would not be the trigger for excluding GAA 
use. Rather, the price paid by a Priority Access Licensee at auction 
would be divided into two parts. The first payment would be made after 
the licensee acquires its PAL at auction. After that, the licensee 
would have the right, but not the obligation, to exercise its option to 
exclude GAA access from the PAL by making a second payment. We sought 
comment on this approach and asked commenters to address potential 
issues with the economic approach, including: (1) Whether the framework 
would encourage hoarding of PALs; (2) how payments should be 
apportioned between the initial payment and the option ``strike'' 
price; and (3) how the economic approach would fit in with the 
Commission's auction authority and its prior experience conducting 
auctions. We also sought comment on whether a hybrid approach 
incorporating elements of the engineering and economic models would be 
preferable.
    167. Most commenters argue that the Commission should not adopt an 
economic definition of use and should, instead, implement some form of 
engineering-based approach. Commenters, including the Dynamic Spectrum 
Alliance, Federated Wireless, Google, the Information Technology 
Industry Council, Microsoft, Sony and WISPA specifically argue against 
the adoption of the economic approach. Google argues that, because an 
economic definition places no obligation on the Priority Access 
Licensee to actually deploy equipment or provide service in an area 
where it exercises its option to exclude GAA users, it would encourage 
licensees to bid on spectrum that they have no intention of using and 
increase the risk of warehousing. Federated Wireless and Microsoft 
argue that an economic definition of use will allow Priority Access 
Licensees to hoard spectrum and exclude legitimate GAA users. Sony 
contends that the economic approach would be inefficient and difficult 
to implement and would increase

[[Page 49043]]

uncertainty for GAA users. On the other hand, Key Bridge expresses 
enthusiasm for the economic approach and argues that the Commission 
should pursue a hybrid model that incorporates some of the ideas put 
forth by William Lehr.
    168. AT&T, CTIA, and Qualcomm argue for a definition of ``use'' 
that is not, strictly speaking, an economic or engineering approach. 
According to AT&T and Qualcomm, GAA use should only be allowed on 
channels assigned to a Priority Access Licensee until that Priority 
Access Licensee begins providing service or informs an SAS that it will 
be using the channel(s) in its Service Area. AT&T contends that a 
``bright line rule'', whereby GAA users are foreclosed from accessing 
spectrum once a Priority Access Licensee begins to offer service in a 
census tract is necessary to provide certainty to potential licensees 
and encourage investment in the band. CTIA agrees, arguing that both 
economic and engineering models would create uncertainty in the PAL 
marketplace, burden investment, and delay efficient use of the 3.5 GHz 
Band.
    169. Verizon and WinnForum argue that the best way to ensure 
quality of service and promote investment is for Priority Access 
Licensees to directly input their coverage contours into an SAS. 
According to Verizon, it is impossible for third parties to divine--and 
to design interference protections that respect--each Priority Access 
Licensee's specific uses and network configuration. Verizon also 
asserts that Commission oversight could prevent operators from seeking 
protection for overlarge areas and that legitimate operator-defined 
``use'' should include guard bands and reserve channels. According to 
Verizon, the Commission should accord Priority Access Licensees a 
rebuttable presumption that their coverage area showings are 
appropriate. WinnForum agrees with the proposal to allow operators to 
self-define their protected coverage areas.
    170. Google argues that the Commission should adopt an engineering-
based definition of use based on actual deployment conditions that 
would be implemented and enforced by the SAS. Google contends that 
Priority Access Licensees should be permitted to register their own 
protected coverage areas within their Service Areas and that Priority 
Access Licensees should be permitted to agree to alternative protection 
limits and communicate such agreements to the SAS. According to Google, 
PAL protection areas should be supported by engineering analysis of 
actual operations and that documentation of such analysis should be 
submitted by the Priority Access Licensee at the time that the 
protection is requested.
    171. Google elaborated on its arguments and provided examples of a 
proposed methodology in a February 2016 ex parte letter. In that 
letter, Google argues that, to confirm that the protection requested by 
Priority Access Licenses is based on reasonable technical 
considerations, the Commission should require all Priority Access 
Licensee coverage area claims to be measured against maximum service 
areas calculated by an SAS. Google also asserts that, to ensure that 
reasonable assumptions are used, SASs should be required to demonstrate 
that the methodology used in calculating claimed coverage areas is 
consistent with the methodology used to calculate protection areas for 
Incumbent Access users and other Priority Access Licensees in the band.
    172. Federated Wireless contends that utilizing an engineering 
definition is consistent with the goals set forth by the Commission and 
is technologically feasible. Under Federated Wireless's proposal, SASs, 
using data provided by Priority Access Licensees, would define a 
protection boundary, or protected service contour, around active CBSDs 
authorized to operate on a Priority Access basis. The SAS, in turn, 
would prohibit GAA user access to channels used by Priority Access 
Licensees where the corresponding interference threshold to the CBSDs 
in the protected boundary is exceeded. While Federated Wireless agrees 
with Google and Verizon that Priority Access Licensees are in the best 
position to determine where their operations are, they do not state a 
preference between the methodologies proposed by those two entities.
    173. Others, including Interdigital OTI/PK, the Wi-Fi Alliance, and 
WISPA argue for an engineering definition that incorporates both 
geographic and temporal elements to ensure that GAA use is only 
foreclosed when CBSDs are in active use. WISPA and OTI/PK argue that 
the Commission should require SAS administrators to calculate service 
contours using the reported technical parameters and geo-location of 
registered CBSDs. WISPA contends that the Commission should consider a 
PAL channel to be in use whenever it has received 300 or more end-user 
data packets within a five-minute interval. Wi-Fi Alliance argues that 
the definition of ``use'' should be based on actual transmission or 
reception of radio signals and, specifically, that ``[u]nless there is 
a current report that radiofrequency (RF) energy is being actively 
transmitted or received on PAL channels, those channels should be 
available for GAA use.'' OTI/PK agrees that the that the Commission 
should incorporate a temporal element of use that would prevent 
licenses from permanently foreclosing GAA access in a given geographic 
area for temporary or transient Priority Access uses such as pre-
deployment network testing and notes that it believes that WISPA's 
methodology is technologically feasible.
2. Discussion
    174. We find that a consistent, SAS-based engineering approach to 
determining when channels assigned to Priority Access Licensees are 
``in use'' will maximize the flexibility and utility of the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service and promote widespread deployment of broadband 
services in the 3.5 GHz Band. Specifically, we adopt a two pronged 
approach to determining ``use'' by Priority Access Licensees. First, 
Priority Access Licensees may report their PAL Protection Areas on the 
basis of their actual network deployments. Second, to establish an 
objective maximum PAL Protection Area, the SASs will use a consistent 
model to define a default -96 dBm/10 MHz protection contour (47 CFR 
96.25). We find that the two pronged approach provides licensees with 
the flexibility to self-report their protection areas while also 
providing an objective maximum. Further, we find that utilizing SASs to 
determine default protection contours around registered CBSDs that are 
authorized to operate on a Priority Access basis will provide an 
effective baseline protection criteria for Priority Access Licensees 
while allowing GAA users reasonable opportunities for additional access 
to the band. Default protection contours must be based on common inputs 
and engineering assumptions to ensure consistent results across SASs.
    175. In addition, we encourage Priority Access Licensees, working 
with SAS Administrators, to restrict their PAL Protection Areas to less 
than the -96 dBm/10 MHz default protection contour to reflect the 
actual needs and capabilities of their particular networks (within the 
boundaries defined by the default protection contours) to increase 
spectrum availability and further promote flexible use of the band and 
to self-report these contours to an SAS. We expect that, through 
ongoing technological innovation and industry collaboration, the 
default protection contours will be further refined in the future. As 
described in section III(G), SASs will also protect the PAL Protection 
Areas from aggregate interference from Priority Access and

[[Page 49044]]

GAA CBSDs using common assumptions and modeling that we will review 
during the SAS approval process. The PAL Protection Areas will be 
enforced by the SAS for registered CBSDs authorized to operate pursuant 
to a PAL.
a. Importance of Opportunistic Spectrum Access
    176. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we found that permitting opportunistic 
access to unused Priority Access channels would maximize the 
flexibility and utility of the 3.5 GHz Band. We also found that, by 
allowing GAA users to access bandwidth that is not actually in use by 
Priority Access Licensees, we would ensure that the band will be in 
consistent and productive use. We hereby reaffirm these findings and 
confirm that promoting flexible access to the 3.5 GHz Band for a 
diverse group of users is in the public interest.
    177. Consistent with these findings, we conclude that the proposals 
made by AT&T, CTIA, and Qualcomm regarding the definition of ``use'' 
are inconsistent with the Commission's goals for the band. AT&T, CTIA, 
and Qualcomm argue that the Commission should define a geographic area 
as ``in use'' whenever a Priority Access Licensee notifies an SAS of 
its intent to operate in a given area. They argue that this approach is 
needed to provide potential Priority Access Licensees with the 
regulatory certainty needed to invest in PALs and provide service in 
the band. As Federated Wireless and WISPA correctly note, these 
approaches are not actually engineering definitions of use and are 
directly contrary to the purpose of the Commission's rules. As we 
stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O and reiterated in sections I and III(A) 
above, the Citizens Broadband Radio Service rules are designed to 
facilitate shared--rather than exclusive--access to the 3.5 GHz Band. 
Adopting rules that would allow a Priority Access Licensee to foreclose 
access to its entire Service Area (or even a single census tract) with 
nothing but a notification of its intent to provide service--or 
transmission of an initial signal--would over-protect Priority Access 
Licensees, facilitate spectrum warehousing, and encourage inefficient 
use of spectrum resources. We believe that the ``use it or share it'' 
approach of our rules for this unique band also thus more reasonably 
accommodates the goals of section 309(j) of the Act, including ``to 
prevent stockpiling or warehousing of spectrum'' (47 U.S.C. 
309(j)(4)(B)).
    178. Moreover, contrary to the assertions made by AT&T, Qualcomm, 
and CTIA, we believe that adopting a true shared access model based on 
sound engineering principles will encourage investment in the band. A 
diverse group of commenters, including Google, WinnForum, Federated 
Wireless, WISPA, Microsoft, OTI/PK, and Verizon have submitted filings 
indicating support for some variation of a true ``use or share'' model 
based on engineering principles.
    179. We also agree with the diverse group of commenters that 
contend that an economic approach to defining ``use'' would not promote 
the most efficient use of the 3.5 GHz Band. We believe that shared 
access to the 3.5 GHz Band should be grounded in sound engineering 
principles to ensure that spectrum resources are equitably assigned 
between and among various users. However, we note that economic 
approaches may warrant further study and we encourage interested 
parties to continue to examine how such economic models may be applied 
towards spectrum sharing in the future.
b. Contour-Based Engineering Model
    180. Many commenters support some form of engineering-based 
methodology for determining whether channels assigned to Priority 
Access Licensees are actually ``in use'' in a given geographic area. We 
agree and find that a methodology based on sound, commonly applied, 
engineering principles will best ensure appropriate protection for 
Priority Access Licensees and equitable access to spectrum for GAA 
users while discouraging warehousing of spectrum resources. Several 
commenters also argue that Priority Access Licensees should have the 
flexibility to build and design their networks and to report the 
contours they need protected to the SAS. The approach we adopt 
incorporates both concepts by allowing Priority Access Licensees to 
report their network contours on the basis of their actual network 
deployments while also defining an objective default protection contour 
around CBSDs operating on a Priority Access basis.
    181. Self-Reporting by Priority Access Licensees. While we agree 
with Federated Wireless, Verizon, and WinnForum that Priority Access 
Licensees are uniquely positioned to determine their own network needs 
and communicate those needs to the SAS, we also believe that it is in 
the public interest to encourage stability and predictability in 
determining protections for CBSDs operating on a Priority Access basis 
and to maximize spectral efficiency by ensuring that all unused 
spectrum is available for GAA. Therefore, we will allow Priority Access 
Licensees to report their protection contours on the basis of the 
network deployment, so long as they are within the boundaries 
established by the objective default protection contour. A predictable 
and consistent approach to defining the maximum reach of PAL Protection 
Areas is important for network planning purposes and to ensure that all 
SASs protect Priority Access Licensees consistently and allow GAA users 
equitable access to unused channels. Priority Access Licensees are 
encouraged to work with SAS Administrators to tailor their self-
reported PAL Protection Areas to their particular needs within the 
boundaries defined by the default protection contours. This approach 
will provide flexibility to Priority Access Licensees while also 
creating an objective means of determining a maximum protection contour 
and minimizing the risk that Priority Access Licensees might claim 
protections beyond the extent of their actual network deployments.
    182. Under a system relying on pure self-reporting, we are 
concerned that Priority Access Licensees would be effectively 
encouraged to deploy their networks inefficiently and seek protection 
for extremely low signal levels or in areas without facilities that are 
in actual use. We agree with Public Knowledge, OTI/PK, and WISPA that 
allowing Priority Access Licensees to self-define their network 
parameters without reference to a common set of engineering assumptions 
is likely to encourage warehousing and disincentivize efficient 
spectrum use. Under such a system, Priority Access Licensees would have 
no reason to deploy facilities or define their network parameters in a 
manner that would encourage sharing with GAA users.
    183. On the other hand, it is our hope that the approach we adopt 
herein will encourage Priority Access Licensees to use their unique 
knowledge of their own networks--in collaboration with SAS 
Administrators--to craft more tailored protection contours within the 
bounds of the default protection contours defined in section 96.25 that 
will encourage more spectral reuse by both Priority Access Licensees 
and GAA users (47 CFR 96.25). For example, we believe that a variety of 
economic factors will incentivize Priority Access Licensees to self-
report their protection contours so as to limit them to areas of actual 
use (i.e., to contours smaller than default contours). Specifically, it 
would be in the interest of the licensee not to overstate its PAL 
Protection Area to the extent that it plans to take advantage of the 
newly established secondary markets rules for this band. Claiming a

[[Page 49045]]

smaller protection area would make more area available to lease on the 
secondary market, as described in section IV(B). Our rules do not 
permit a PAL licensee to lease its spectrum in areas where it asserts 
actual use of the spectrum, i.e., within its PAL Protection Area (47 
CFR 96.32). Thus, by reducing the size of its PAL Protection Area, the 
licensee could signal to potential lessees that a significant portion 
of its Service Area is available for lease, on a short or long term 
basis, which could provide a greater financial benefit to this licensee 
than would be possible with a larger PAL Protection Area. In addition, 
a Priority Access Licensee that accepts a protection contour that is 
larger than needed to protect its operations could limit the ability of 
GAA users to access what is essentially an unused portion of the 
Service Area and, in turn, contribute to a collective action problem in 
which Priority Access Licensees and GAA users have little incentive to 
cooperate with each other. To the extent that a Priority Access 
Licensee also intends to make use of spectrum on a GAA basis, either 
within its Service Area or elsewhere, it is in the interest of that 
Priority Access Licensee not to seek to establish larger protection 
areas than needed, because establishing such protection where it is not 
needed may well encourage other Priority Access Licensees to do 
likewise. Nevertheless, we plan to monitor the operation of our rules 
in this novel sharing environment, to ensure that spectrum is utilized 
efficiently.
    184. We also note that Priority Access Licensees may alter their 
reported PAL Protection Areas freely throughout their license term. As 
set forth herein, PAL Protection Areas are reported or calculated based 
on the registered characteristics of a Priority Access Licensee's 
active CBSDs and, as such, they may change depending on the licensee's 
network deployments or business decisions.
    185. Default Protection Contour Boundaries. The default protection 
contour will be defined and modeled by the SAS as a -96 dBm/10 MHz 
contour around each CBSD operating on a Priority Access basis. If the 
contours modeled around each individual CBSD overlap, the SAS will 
combine them into a single contour boundary. The precise shape of the 
contour will be modeled by the SAS using the characteristics of CBSDs 
provided pursuant to sections 96.41, 96.43, and 96.45 of the 
Commission's rules and commonly applied technical assumptions as 
determined during the SAS Approval Process (47 CFR 96.41, 96.43, 
96.45). The default protection contour is the outer limit of the 
maximum area that any Priority Access Licensee may claim as its PAL 
Protection Area. Any area within the PAL Protection Area will be 
protected from interference from other CBSDs, consistent with section 
96.41(d) (47 CFR 96.41(d)). To ensure consistent protection, the 
default protection contours and, by extension, the maximum PAL 
Protection Areas, must be consistent across all SASs.
    186. While the Commission's rules are technologically neutral, we 
believe that, given the likely uses of the 3.5 GHz Band, it is 
appropriate to use a reasonable reference sensitivity for LTE 
technologies as the basis for the modeled default protection contours. 
For example, 3GPP has defined two LTE bands that overlap the 3.5 GHz 
band, Band 42 from 3400 MHz to 3600 MHz, and Band 43 from 3600 MHz to 
3800 MHz. For both of these bands, the reference sensitivity in a 10 
MHz bandwidth is -96 dBm indicating that below this value the signal 
becomes too weak relative to the noise floor for adequate reception. 
Thus, we find that defining the default protection contour by reference 
to a signal strength of -96 dBm/10 MHz is appropriate for existing and 
expected use cases, technologies, and network deployments in the band.
    187. We believe that this level of protection is appropriate for 
the types of dense, relatively low power deployments that we expect in 
the band. Equipment in such deployments typically operate at levels 
above those defined in the standard and we expect that to hold true 
here too. Thus, using a default protection contour referenced to -96 
dBm/10 MHz offers a degree of protection sufficient to protect the most 
common likely use cases in the band without over-protecting Priority 
Access licensees to an unreasonably low signal level and thereby 
precluding GAA use of the spectrum. Moreover, we believe that a contour 
referenced to -96 dBm/10 MHz is technologically neutral and will 
provide appropriate protection for a variety of current and future 
technologies. Given the unique licensing model used for PALs (e.g., 
short term licenses, no renewal expectancy, census tract license areas, 
no specific build out requirements) and the technical 
interchangeability of GAA and Priority Access authorizations, we 
believe that this approach to determining Priority Access use will 
effectively discourage warehousing and ensure that Priority Access 
Licensees receive protection only in areas that are in active use.
    188. Calculation of Default Protection Contours. While we do not 
mandate a specific propagation model to determine the default 
protection contour, we do believe that it is in the public interest to 
ensure that all SASs operate from a common set of assumptions and 
methodologies for determining the default protection contours. 
Operating from a common set of assumptions and a common propagation 
model will provide a predictable interference landscape for potential 
licensees, encouraging rapid deployment of network elements and 
promoting investment in the band. Moreover, we believe that, at this 
time, these assumptions should be as simple and easily implementable as 
possible to promote rapid deployment in the band. These assumptions and 
methodologies will be reviewed--and common models and assumptions will 
be approved--by WTB and OET as part of the SAS approval process. We 
expect that the assumptions and the implementation within SASs will 
evolve over time to build off of the collective learned experience and 
expertise of SAS Administrators and Priority Access Licensees. WTB and 
OET will review revised approaches and assumptions as they are 
developed.
    189. WTB and OET will consider the consistency and ease of 
implementation of proposed methodologies when reviewing proposals from 
prospective SAS Administrators. As such, we encourage prospective SAS 
Administrators to consider proposing a simple, easily implementable 
model (e.g., Cost-231, NTIA model, extended HATA). The end-result of 
any model should be a simple contour that is more realistic than models 
that rely on worst case assumptions (such as free space path loss) or 
worst case parameters (such as assuming all CBSDs are at the maximum 
allowed height and power). The model may be updated or modified in the 
future--after review by WTB and OET--as new data is collected from 
actual deployments in the band.
    190. This approach to propagation, terrain, and clutter modeling is 
consistent with the approach adopted in section IV(C)(1)(d) for 
protection of FSS earth stations and general propagation 
determinations. At this time, we believe that allowing SAS 
Administrators to adopt proprietary approaches to propagation, clutter, 
and terrain modeling for purposes of determining default protection 
contours would be overly complex and would lead to inconsistent--and 
possible contradictory--results. A simple, easily implementable model 
applied across all approved SASs is in the public interest as it is 
more likely to promote robust, rapid investment in the band.

[[Page 49046]]

    191. It is important to note that the assumptions and modeling 
methodologies that are approved as part of the SAS approval process are 
only the first step of an iterative process. We expect to further 
refine these models based on the real-world experiences of SAS 
Administrators and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. We encourage 
Priority Access Licensees, GAA users, SAS Administrators, and other 
interested stakeholders to work collaboratively to improve the initial 
default protection contours and leverage their technological 
capabilities to develop revised sharing models over time. Such 
improvements may be implemented at a later date.
c. Temporal Criteria
    192. We will require the SAS to enforce the PAL Protection Areas, 
consistent with section 96.25 and 96.41(d). We believe that the public 
interest will be best served by ensuring that all such CBSDs are 
protected so long as they continue to operate under a PAL but that the 
SAS should not be responsible for ensuring that CBSDs are actually 
transmitting at any specific time. Thus, we require that, if a CBSD 
ceases to operate on a Priority Access basis--or discontinues service 
for more than seven days--it must inform the SAS of this change in 
status and the SAS must alter the PAL Protection Area accordingly. If a 
CBSD discontinues service and is later reactivated on a Priority Access 
basis, the SAS must expeditiously re-establish the PAL Protection Area 
around that CBSD (47 CFR 96.39(c)(2)).
    193. Pursuant to section 96.39(c) of the Commission's rules, a CBSD 
must register with and be authorized by an SAS prior to its initial 
service transmission and must update the SAS if any registration 
information changes (47 CFR 96.39(c)(2)). Registration information must 
include the requested authorization status (GAA or Priority Access) for 
each CBSD (47 CFR 96.39(c)(2)). We also require all CBSDs to inform the 
SAS of any changes in operational parameters or registration 
information, including requested authorization status (47 CFR 
96.39(c)(2)). In addition, to ensure that only operational Priority 
Access authorized CBSDs are protected, we adopt a new rule that 
requires each CBSD to inform the SAS if it will cease providing service 
on a permanent basis and requires the SAS to discontinue the PAL 
Protection Area for any CBSD that does not contact the SAS for more 
than seven days (47 CFR 96.25(c)(1)(ii)). As OTI/PK correctly argues, 
without some requirement limiting protections for registered Priority 
Access CBSDs to periods of actual use, Priority Access Licensees may be 
incentivized to deploy CBSDs as ``license savers'' to foreclose GAA use 
in areas without active service. We agree with OTI/PK that CBSDs 
``regularly contact the SAS and provide (or could provide) basic 
information on whether they are actively transmitting.'' Thus, the 
notification requirement is wholly consistent with our stated goal of 
protecting the actual service contours of Priority Access Licensees and 
making unused spectrum available for GAA use.
    194. While we agree with OTI/PK, Wi-Fi Alliance, and WISPA that it 
is important to ensure that CBSDs are only protected from interference 
when they are in actual use, we do not believe that implementing a 
technical methodology to measure active use is necessary or 
appropriate. The proposals put forth by Wi-Fi Alliance and WISPA--and 
supported by OTI/PK--would require the SAS to affirmatively track data 
packets or active RF transmissions on individual CBSDs and allow GAA 
access whenever the benchmarks for active transmission are not met. If 
implemented, such a requirement would place a significant new burden on 
SAS Administrators, increasing the technological complexity of the SAS, 
and complicating enforcement and oversight for the Commission. Even if 
the level of oversight envisioned by WISPA and Wi-Fi Alliance is 
technologically viable, we believe that providing SAS Administrators 
with a higher level of granular oversight over individual CBSDs would 
hinder investment in PALs and disincentivize widespread deployment in 
the band. Moreover, WISPA and Wi-Fi Alliance's proposals would not 
actually prevent warehousing or the deployment of ``license-saver'' 
CBSDs since any CBSD could simply be directed to transmit null data 
packets at intervals sufficient to satisfy the proposed requirements.
    195. We also disagree with those commenters that argue that 
Priority Access Licensees should be permitted to reserve portions of 
the band (by time, frequency, or geography) as ``guard bands.'' While 
we acknowledge that such guard bands could offer additional protection 
for Priority Access Licensees, we do not believe they are necessary in 
light of the technological and regulatory features implemented in this 
band. Moreover, allowing guard bands would run counter to the 
Commission's goals for equitable shared use of the 3.5 GHz Band. As we 
stated above, the three-tier authorization framework is designed to 
facilitate true, shared access to the band between and among a wide 
variety of users. Foreclosing access to an unused portion of the band 
as a protective measure does not advance these goals and, indeed, would 
be likely to encourage warehousing and inefficient spectrum utilization 
by Priority Access Licensees.
    196. Our approach to temporal sharing appropriately balances the 
need to provide a degree of certainty for prospective Priority Access 
Licensees and the need to ensure that portions of the 3.5 GHz Band are 
made available for GAA users whenever frequencies are not actually 
utilized by higher tier users. In addition, consistent with our usual 
policies, the rules place the responsibility for accurately reporting 
use--and the associated penalties for non-compliance--on Priority 
Access Licensees. We believe that this approach will encourage 
investment in both the Priority Access and GAA tiers, facilitate 
efficient and widespread spectrum use, and promote innovation in the 
3.5 GHz Band.
d. Congestion Metric and Advanced Planning
    197. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we noted that, as technology develops, 
advanced techniques such contention-based protocols, ``congestion 
metrics,'' and other advanced techniques could be used by the SAS to 
coordinate power levels in high-density areas among GAA users. We noted 
that we intend to continue an informal dialog with stakeholders on 
these topics and suggested that such approaches might be appropriate 
areas of work for a multi-stakeholder group. Federated Wireless 
contends that such a ``congestion metric'' could ``be used to define 
the conditions to which the SAS will manage GAA uses to ensure a 
consistent level of service can be achieved as congestion occurs.'' 
Federated Wireless suggests that such techniques could be used to 
ensure that a definition of use based on aggregate interference 
criteria does not cause unfair treatment to GAA users and that specific 
techniques should be developed by a multi-stakeholder group. Federated 
also suggests that technologies that employ contention-based protocols 
or other mechanisms to enable coexistence could help to facilitate 
equitable use of the band by GAA users.
    198. The Commission has consistently emphasized the importance of 
ensuring that GAA users have consistent, equitable access to the 3.5 
GHz Band. We are pleased that industry stakeholders continue to work 
towards the development of innovative approaches to the issue of GAA 
co-existence. We encourage these efforts--by both independent actors 
and multi-

[[Page 49047]]

stakeholder groups--and encourage interested parties to continue to 
inform us of new developments. We also direct WTB and OET to review any 
approaches to GAA coexistence submitted as part of the SAS approval 
process.

B. Secondary Markets

1. Background
    199. In the FNPRM we sought comment on appropriate secondary market 
rules for the 3.5 GHz Band. Many commenters addressed secondary markets 
issues and generally supported a framework that would allow secondary 
market transactions involving PALs.
    200. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on specific aspects of 
the secondary markets rules and requested detailed proposals for 
implementing any required rule changes. In particular, we requested 
comment on any necessary changes to our Part 1 rules to facilitate the 
development of a secondary market for PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band. 
Notably, we asked whether partitioning and disaggregation of PALs 
should be permitted and sought comment on the costs and benefits of 
allowing such transactions. We also sought comment on the potential use 
of spectrum exchanges to facilitate the transfer of PALs in the 
secondary market and whether such exchanges should be mandatory or 
could be allowed to develop voluntarily under current rules. Finally, 
we sought comment on the legal, technical, and logistical issues that 
should be considered, particularly in regard to modifications to our 
rules that could reduce transaction costs and allow increased 
automation of transfer and lease applications.
    201. We also sought comment on the application of our spectrum 
aggregation limits for Priority Access Licensees, both in the context 
of secondary markets and in the context of initial licensing of PALs, 
and we inquired as to how the unique characteristics of PAL auctions 
should be taken into account. Further, we asked whether we should apply 
the attribution standard used in our existing rules to transactions 
involving mobile wireless licenses for commercial use, and we inquired 
how this standard could reflect the need for a streamlined process, 
potentially through a database administrator, for transactions 
involving PALs (47 CFR 20.22).
    202. Several commenters responded to these questions with a variety 
of suggested approaches to secondary markets rules for the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service. There is near uniform support in the record 
for allowing access to the 3.5 GHz Band through secondary markets. 
Commenters including AT&T, CTIA, Federated Wireless, Google, 
Information Technology Industry Council, PCIA, Rajant, Verizon, 
WinnForum, and WISPA agree that permitting access to PAL spectrum 
through secondary markets will increase flexibility and encourage 
efficient use of spectrum in the 3.5 GHz Band. AT&T further argues that 
flexible secondary markets will promote investment and innovation in 
this band. Most commenters urge the Commission to apply its secondary 
markets rules to the 3.5 GHz Band, and some go further, recommending 
that the Commission apply a more streamlined and flexible system to 
allow secondary use of PAL spectrum, instead of its traditional 
secondary market rules. Verizon, for example, advocates forbearance 
from prior approval of PAL leases (and also license transfers) under 
section 310(d) of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 310(d)). Similarly, 
Federated Wireless argues that permitting access to PAL spectrum on the 
secondary market ``does not warrant formal Commission approval any more 
than does opportunistic GAA use of PAL spectrum.'' Rajant points out 
that there is inherent liquidity due to the nature of the PALs, in 
particular due to their short license terms and small geographic areas, 
and that establishing a streamlined process to allow access to 
secondary markets will bolster this liquidity.
    203. Only Microsoft and the Wi-Fi Alliance state that a secondary 
market is unnecessary and potentially contrary to the public interest. 
They both state that the SAS will enable GAA access to PAL spectrum 
that is not in use, obviating the need for secondary markets in this 
band. Microsoft further argues that allowing a secondary market will 
encourage companies to speculate on PALs, profiting by obtaining more 
PALs than they need in order to make this spectrum available in the 
secondary market. Both Key Bridge and Cantor Telecom address this 
concern, stating that given the short license terms, small geographic 
coverage areas and ample availability of GAA spectrum, it would be 
nearly impossible for licensees to speculatively warehouse spectrum.
2. Light-Touch Leasing for Priority Access Licensees
a. Background
    204. Key Bridge and Federated Wireless both state that the existing 
spectrum leasing procedure is designed for traditional wireless service 
in traditionally licensed bands, which does not apply to the 3.5 GHz 
Band, particularly since any number of GAA users can access and share 
unused PAL spectrum. Federated Wireless and Rajant both state that 
certain entities need the assured use of protected PAL spectrum for 
only a short period of time, such as for a special event, to provide 
service to targeted areas, such as transit rail lines and venues. 
Spectrum Bridge argues that the time and expense associated with the 
Commission's traditional approach to transaction review in other 
licensed bands would make it difficult or impossible for a secondary 
market to develop in the 3.5 GHz Band.
    205. A number of commenters endorse a spectrum leasing procedure 
similar to the one suggested by Federated Wireless whereby the 
Commission would first formally certify lessees to use PAL spectrum and 
then upon entering a leasing arrangement with a PAL, the licensee would 
notify the SAS, rather than obtaining prior approval by the Commission 
for each PAL secondary market transaction. Federated Wireless suggests 
a standardized electronic certification process could be established so 
that PAL licensees can provide users with electronic consent, perhaps 
with a secure verification key or certificate, and the user can then 
submit the electronic consent and verification key to the SAS. Cantor 
Telecom states that a precertification process permitting rapid trades 
in the secondary market will result in significant efficiency, which is 
especially beneficial given the tremendous number of potential PALs 
available over more than 74,000 census tracts.
    206. Both Google and Federated Wireless state that the SAS can 
easily manage secondary use of PAL spectrum without extra complexity, 
as SASs will be designed and scaled to manage many thousands of PAL and 
GAA assignments and deployments. Key Bridge suggests that the SAS can 
help ensure transactions do not raise public interest risks.
    207. Rajant and WISPA support a notice-only process. Rajant 
describes how certain entities need the assured use of PAL spectrum and 
argues that a notice-only process will most effectively allow such 
service to emerge in a secondary market. WISPA states that by requiring 
notification to the SAS and not the Commission, the agency would have 
very few administrative burdens.
    208. Key Bridge and Cantor Telecom suggest that the Commission 
assign all unsold PALs to the secondary market for resale. Key Bridge 
argues that reverting unsold PALs to GAA use creates artificial 
scarcity and starves the

[[Page 49048]]

secondary market. Instead, Key Bridge states, the Commission could 
foster economic innovation through a single auction that will enable 
commercial operators of all size and type to innovate at their own 
pace. Cantor Telecom supports a similar approach but suggests that the 
PAL remain available for GAA use until acquired on the secondary 
market.
b. Discussion
    209. We believe there are significant benefits to a robust 
secondary market for PAL spectrum. While our existing part 1 rules 
already provide for substantial flexibility in this regard, we amend 
those rules to include a streamlined spectrum manager leasing process, 
based on the current spectrum manager leasing rules, tailored for the 
PAL leasing context. We expect there will be a demand for Priority 
Access rights for a wide variety of use cases. We believe that a 
robust, flexible, and lightly regulated secondary market through these 
band-specific spectrum manager leasing rules will incentivize efficient 
spectrum use, promote innovation, and encourage the rapid deployment of 
broadband networks in the 3.5 GHz Band. We will also permit de facto 
transfer leasing under the existing part 1 rules.
    210. The focus of our secondary markets policy for the 3.5 GHz Band 
will be to permit Priority Access Licensees to enter into a spectrum 
manager lease under the ``light-touch leasing'' regime we establish 
herein for any portion of their licensed geographic area for any 
bandwidth or period of time within the scope of the PAL but outside of 
its PAL Protection Area. We also believe that the principles underlying 
the streamlining of our rules for assignments and transfers of control, 
as well as for de facto transfer leasing, for licenses of other 
Wireless Radio Services (WRS), including our section 310(d) (47 U.S.C. 
310(d)) forbearance determinations that enabled us to introduce 
significant streamlining into the approval process for such 
transactions involving WRS common carrier licensees, apply with even 
greater force here, given the relatively short license terms and small 
License Areas of PALs. We believe that further changes in our rules 
governing these types of transactions are not warranted at this time. 
Moreover, as noted below, in order to achieve a balance between 
promoting a significant amount of flexibility for PALs and enabling the 
Commission to adequately enforce its rules related to ownership and 
control, we decline to permit PAL licensees to engage in assignments, 
transfers of control, or de facto transfer leasing agreements that 
result in partitioning or disaggregation of their licenses in this 
band.
    211. The light-touch leasing framework for PAL spectrum manager 
leases builds off the Commission's existing spectrum manager leasing 
rules and will provide Priority Access Licensees the ability to lease 
certain spectrum usage rights pursuant to a highly streamlined process, 
while also preserving the Commission's ability to fulfill its oversight 
and enforcement responsibilities. With respect to the Commission's 
ability to fulfill these responsibilities, we conclude that the 
immediate processing procedures under the existing spectrum manager 
leasing rules (set forth in section 1.9020(e)(2)) (47 CFR 1.9020(e)(2)) 
would present certain challenges due to the high numbers--often for 
very short-term durations--of spectrum manager leases that we expect to 
see in this service. Given the diverse range of deployments and 
services that the Citizens Broadband Radio Service is expected to 
support--coupled with the large number of PALs that we expect to issue 
and their relatively small License Areas--we see the potential for many 
thousands of leases in the 3.5 GHz Band. We expect that a significant 
percentage of these leases will cover a short period of time or even a 
single event. Under the existing immediate processing procedures, such 
transient lease terms would render any reasonable degree of Commission 
oversight exceedingly difficult to maintain during the lifetime of the 
lease. Therefore, to facilitate development of a robust secondary 
market, we believe that it is critical to employ a highly streamlined 
regulatory approach for handling the spectrum manager leasing process. 
In particular, given that PALs are limited to three-year, non-renewable 
license terms, it is clear that any sort of prolonged leasing process 
would be especially inefficient.
    212. To address both the need for a streamlined process and the 
Commission's obligation to maintain its ability to fulfill its 
oversight and enforcement responsibilities, we are modifying the 
existing spectrum manager lease rules--which are designed for 
traditionally licensed, exclusive use bands--to create a process 
tailored to this band. Specifically, we are establishing a procedure, 
based on the immediate processing procedures in the Part 1 spectrum 
manager leasing rules, to permit parties contemplating spectrum manager 
lease agreements with Priority Access Licensees to submit the required, 
non-lease specific certifications to the Commission at any time prior 
to reaching a spectrum manager lease agreement with a Priority Access 
Licensee. Potential lessees must update their certification if any of 
the required information changes, including ownership information, and 
the Commission may request verification of any information contained in 
the certifications at any time. The Commission will process these 
certifications expeditiously in order to provide the SASs with 
confirmation that the future lessee meets the corresponding eligibility 
criteria for a spectrum manager lease. With this confirmation in hand, 
the SAS will be positioned to expeditiously complete a notification 
process for any spectrum manager lease involving that lessee and a 
Priority Access Licensee, once the licensee notifies the SAS of the 
leasing agreement. The SAS can then rapidly: (1) Confirm that the 
lessee meets the non-lease-specific basic qualifications criteria (as 
evidenced by the Commission's prior verification of this fact) and that 
the parties meet the lease-specific eligibility requirements; and (2) 
notify the Commission that the parties to the spectrum leasing 
agreement have satisfied the requirements for invoking the immediate 
processing procedures. Once the SAS provides that confirmation to the 
licensee and lessee, the lessee may immediately begin exercising leased 
spectrum usage rights under the lease agreement.
    213. In sum, the lessee's ability to provide the required non-lease 
specific certifications to the Commission in advance for its future 
spectrum manager leases in this service, enables the lessee to take 
advantage of a similar form of expedited processing and use procedures 
offered under the section 1.9020(e)(2) (47 CFR 1.9020(e)(2)) spectrum 
manager leasing rules for other Wireless Radio Services, while ensuring 
that the lessee makes the necessary certifications with the Commission 
regarding its qualifications to enable the Commission to fulfill its 
oversight and enforcement obligations.
    214. The following bullets highlight the essential elements of this 
light-touch process for Priority Access spectrum manager leases, and 
the discussion that follows provides additional details:
     The lessee must certify with the Commission that it meets 
the basic qualifications for holding a license authorization.
     The licensee must notify the SAS of the leasing 
arrangement.
     The SAS must be able to confirm that: (1) The lessee has 
provided the required certification to the Commission; (2) the lease 
will not

[[Page 49049]]

violate the 40 megahertz Priority Access spectrum aggregation limit for 
the given geographic area; and (3) the lease area is within the 
lessor's Service Area but outside of its PAL Protection Area.
     On a daily basis, the SAS will provide the Commission with 
an electronic report of the leasing notifications received from 
Priority Access Licensees.
     The Commission will release a weekly Public Notice listing 
the leasing arrangements.
    215. Applicability of Existing Spectrum Leasing Rules to Priority 
Access Licensees. Priority Access Licensees may enter into spectrum 
manager leases in accordance with section 1.9020 (47 CFR 1.9020(e)(2)) 
of the Commission's rules, as amended in this order, and pursuant to 
the rules adopted herein. As required by section 1.9020 (47 CFR 
1.9020(e)(2)), Priority Access Licensees must retain de facto and de 
jure control of the license. Under the de facto control standard, both 
Priority Access Licensees and their lessees must comply with all 
applicable Commission service and technical rules, and the Priority 
Access Licensee is ``directly and primarily responsible for ensuring 
the spectrum lessee's compliance.'' The Priority Access Licensee 
remains responsible for all interactions with the Commission and must 
be the sole point of contact for such interactions.
    216. Consistent with these requirements for retaining de facto 
control, the licensee will notify the SAS of any spectrum manager 
leasing arrangement and continue to be directly and primarily 
responsible for maintaining its own eligibility to hold a Commission 
license and for ensuring the lessee's compliance with Commission rules, 
including operation in conformance with applicable technical and use 
rules as well as the lessee's own eligibility. The SAS will function 
and communicate with CBSDs in the same manner it would in the absence 
of a lease. Thus, consistent with the rules governing CBSD 
authorization and coordination, the SAS will communicate directly with 
all CBSDs, regardless of whether they are operated by a licensee or 
lessee, thereby facilitating a lessee's compliance with technical and 
service rules and safeguarding other users. For example, if the SAS 
determines that a lessee's CBSD is causing interference, the SAS will 
relocate the CBSD to an unencumbered channel or deauthorize its 
operation without the need for licensee involvement.
    217. As stated above, we will permit parties that contemplate 
becoming lessees in the 3.5 GHz Band to certify with the Commission in 
advance of entering into a leasing arrangement that they meet the basic 
qualifications for holding a license authorization (other than those 
qualifications that can only be determined on a license-specific 
basis), similar to the suggestions of Cantor Telecom and Federated 
Wireless. Basic qualifications that can be certified through this 
advance processing include, for example, the applicable foreign 
ownership eligibility criteria, character and other qualification 
requirements criteria applicable to the licensee, and eligibility under 
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Would-be lessees that already hold 
PALs will automatically be deemed to meet this requirement, as they 
have already demonstrated that they are qualified to be a Commission 
licensee. WTB will establish a process for entities that do not hold 
PALs to provide such certification to the Commission electronically and 
issue a Public Notice detailing this process. The Commission will 
maintain a publicly available list of all entities that have made the 
requisite advance certifications, and those listed parties may enter 
into leasing arrangements with Priority Access licensees and commence 
leased operations when the SAS provides the required confirmation. The 
foregoing approach balances the Commission's oversight obligations 
while still permitting an efficient leasing process that places lessees 
in a position to offer service upon confirmation from the SAS. This is 
particularly important given that multiple parties have expressed an 
interest in using secondary market transactions to acquire Priority 
Access spectrum rights for specific, time-limited events.
    218. SAS Notification Procedure. Separate from the lessee's 
certification with the Commission, Priority Access Licensees will be 
required to submit the following information about each spectrum lease 
to any SAS that accepts leasing notifications: (1) Necessary 
information on the identity of the spectrum lessee (including necessary 
contact information) and its eligibility to lease spectrum as 
demonstrated by appearing on the certification list; (2) the specific 
spectrum leased (in terms of amount of bandwidth and geographic area 
involved), including the call sign affected by the lease; and (3) the 
length of the lease. The licensee must also certify that its ownership 
information is current and update its ownership information, if 
necessary. After the licensee has provided this information and the SAS 
has provided confirmation that the notification has been received and 
the lease meets the qualifications set forth in section 96.66 (47 CFR 
96.66), the lessee may commence operations. This is consistent with our 
current practice of allowing immediate processing for certain spectrum 
manager leasing arrangements, while ensuring that the Commission has 
adequate time in advance of what may be very short-term event leasing 
to confirm that potential lessees are qualified under our rules. 
Leasing parties may extend the leasing arrangement beyond the initial 
term, by providing advance notification to the SAS, and they may 
terminate the arrangement early by providing notification to the SAS no 
later than ten days after the early termination.
    219. The SAS Administrators must provide an electronic report of 
these notifications to the Commission on a daily basis. The Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau will then issue a weekly informational Public 
Notice listing the leasing arrangements. As with all spectrum manager 
leases, the leasing notifications are subject to post-notification 
review by interested parties or the Bureau within 30 days, and by the 
Commission within 40 days. As under our existing spectrum manager 
leasing rules, the Commission retains the right to investigate and 
terminate any such leasing arrangement if it determines, post-
notification, that the arrangement constitutes an unauthorized transfer 
of de facto control, is otherwise in violation of the Commission's 
rules, or raises foreign ownership, competitive, or other public 
interest concerns.
    220. SAS Responsibilities Regarding 3.5 GHz Band Spectrum Manager 
Leasing Arrangements. An SAS Administrator may choose whether it will 
accept leasing notifications and support leasing arrangements. However, 
regardless of whether an SAS accepts leasing notifications, it is 
responsible for meeting the core functions established in the 3.5 GHz 
R&O and in the Commission's rules, including obtaining and storing 
sufficient information to recognize and protect lessees CBSDs 
authorized by other SASs. SASs that do choose to accept and support 
leasing arrangements must, at a minimum: (1) Accept and store the 
information required in a licensee's notification; (2) verify whether 
the lessee has made the required certification with the Commission; (3) 
verify that the lease will not result in the lessee holding more than 
the 40 megahertz of Priority Access spectrum in a given License Area, 
and that lessee operation will not extend beyond the licensee's Service 
Area or within its PAL Protection Area;

[[Page 49050]]

(4) inform the licensee as to whether the notification has been 
received and verified; and (5) provide the Commission with electronic 
reports of the leasing notifications it received on a daily basis. Upon 
receipt of confirmation from the SAS, the lessee may commence operation 
consistent with the rules governing Priority Access Licensees set forth 
in section 96.25 (47 CFR 96.25).
    221. Assigning Unsold PALs for Resale. In response to Key Bridge 
and Cantor Telecom's suggestion that the Commission automatically 
assign all unsold PALs from the auction for resale on the secondary 
market, we believe this runs contrary to the three-tier system which 
already permits access to this spectrum through GAA use. Key Bridge and 
Cantor argue that resale of PALs will foster innovation, but operators 
of all types can still innovate through GAA use. Further, if there is 
market demand, we will hold another auction before three-year license 
expiration, creating another opportunity to access PAL spectrum.
    222. Filings. The licensee retains the responsibility to engage in 
all interactions with the SAS and Commission, including the submission 
of requisite filings that are directly related to the use of spectrum 
by the licensee or lessee.
    223. Regulatory Status. Priority Access lessees are free to select 
their regulatory status, regardless of the licensee's status. In the 
3.5 GHz R&O we allowed both Priority Access Licensees and GAA users to 
choose whether to provide service on a common carrier or non-common 
carrier basis and for the same reasons, we allow lessees to do the 
same. As noted in the 3.5 GHz R&O, this will encourage the ability of 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users' ability to use the same 
equipment interchangeably and avoid hindering a potential lessee's 
ability to use spectrum based on a Priority Access Licensee's 
regulatory status.
3. Partitioning and Disaggregation
a. Background
    224. The Commission has permitted partitioning and disaggregation 
on a service-by-service basis, in order to allow licensees to transfer 
the right to use a portion of the spectrum (disaggregation) or a 
portion of the geographic license area for that spectrum (partitioning) 
to parties that value it more highly. In so doing, the Commission is 
able to promote such goals as more efficient use of and greater access 
to spectrum, fewer barriers to entry, greater competition, and 
increased services to consumers. The Commission has allowed 
partitioning and disaggregation for many services, including Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MDS), General Wireless Communications Services 
(GWCS), 800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR), 39 GHz 
fixed point-to-point microwave, the Wireless Communications Service 
(WCS), PCS, the 700 MHz Band, and the AWS-3 Band.
    225. As these examples make clear, the Commission has permitted 
partitioning and disaggregation in services with license areas that 
range in size from CMAs and BTAs (with 734 units and 496 units, 
respectively) to the much-larger EAs and REAGs (with 176 units and 12 
units, respectively). In so doing, the Commission has provided greater 
flexibility for licensees to meet market demand. For example, when the 
Commission proposed partitioning and disaggregation for PCS, it stated 
such a policy would speed service to rural areas and allow market entry 
by entities that only have the ability to serve a limited population. 
When the Commission later established rules to allow AWS-3 Band and 700 
MHz Band licensees to partition and disaggregate their spectrum, it 
reiterated that this would allow market entry by new entrants and 
provide flexibility. In each of these services, the Commission also 
adopted specific construction requirements to ensure the spectrum was 
put to use. However, the Commission has also limited or prohibited 
partitioning and disaggregation in bands that permit different services 
to share the spectrum in order to prevent interference and promote 
shared use.
    226. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether 
to allow partitioning and disaggregation of PALs in the 3.5 GHz Band 
and stated that its initial view was ``to prohibit such further 
segmentation of PALs given their relatively small size (census tracts) 
and short license terms (three years) as well as the availability of 
significant GAA spectrum.'' Many commenters, including AT&T, Cantor 
Telecom, CTIA, Information Technology Industry Council, Qualcomm, 
WinnForum, and WISPA, support partitioning and disaggregation in the 
3.5 GHz Band and argue it will increase liquidity in the secondary 
market. In response to concerns regarding license size, WISPA states 
that while census tracts in non-rural areas may be small, that is not 
always the case for rural areas. Further, AT&T notes that there are 
numerous scenarios where smaller areas benefit from partitioning and 
disaggregation, such as when a licensee wants to make its spectrum 
available in a specific portion of its license area (e.g., a hospital 
or university) while maintaining use for the rest of this area, and it 
observes that such arrangements are easy to administer. Cantor Telecom 
and WISPA both state there are business cases that cannot be achieved 
only through GAA use, as it does not provide the same level of 
protection, but WISPA recognizes that leasing can be used to achieve 
the same results. The Information Technology Industry Council suggests 
that concerns regarding administrative burdens can be alleviated by 
permitting secondary markets without requiring prior Commission 
approval.
    227. Other commenters, however, do not agree that partitioning and 
disaggregation are needed for successful spectrum utilization in this 
band, or argue that it should be handled through significantly 
different administrative procedures. Key Bridge argues that secondary 
market transactions involving transfers (as opposed to leases) should 
be promoted by the Commission. In particular, Key Bridge contends that 
traditional rules for transactions do not apply well to the 3.5 GHz 
Band and it therefore recommends that the Commission minimize 
transaction costs by allowing for immediate processing of certain 
transactions, including transactions that would normally fall under 
rules specified in section 1.913 (47 CFR 1.913). Although CTIA states 
that to the extent that Priority Access Licensees find value in 
partitioning and disaggregation, it should be permitted, CTIA notes the 
already splintered nature of census tract licensing raises questions 
about the utility of partitioning and disaggregation. In its initial 
comments, Federated Wireless states that partitioning and 
disaggregation of PALs would prove both administratively burdensome and 
unnecessary due to the relatively small size of PALs and their limited 
three-year licenses terms. In its reply comments, Federated Wireless 
clarifies that this opposition was based on the fact that ``pursuant to 
Commission rules [partitioning and disaggregation] processes would 
entail applying for, and obtaining, Commission approval to formally 
segment PALs into smaller service areas or blocks of spectrum smaller 
than 10 MHz.'' Federated Wireless further clarifies that it objects to 
the administrative burden and not the ability to move spectrum to 
parties that value it more highly, as summarized in its reply comments: 
``[I]f commenters merely are advocating for secondary

[[Page 49051]]

uses of PAL spectrum for less than a full census tract (partitioning) 
or less than the full 10 MHz of PAL spectrum (disaggregation), by using 
a certification or notice procedure rather than submission of formal 
Commission applications for partitioning or disaggregation, then 
Federal Wireless agrees.''
b. Discussion
    228. The light-touch leasing process adopted herein can achieve the 
objectives sought by the majority of commenters to make the spectrum 
use rights held by Priority Access Licensees available in secondary 
markets without need for the Commission oversight required of 
partitioning and disaggregation. Under the light-touch leasing rules, 
Priority Access Licensees are free to lease any portion of their 
spectrum or license outside of their PAL Protection Area. This has the 
same effect--lessees can provide targeted access to geographic areas or 
quantities of spectrum--without additional administrative burden. 
Coupled with the availability of 80 MHz or more of GAA spectrum in each 
License Area, these rules will provide the necessary flexibility to 
service specific or targeted markets. In response to WISPA's concern 
that census tracts are larger in rural areas, making targeted service 
more difficult without holding multiple PALs, we expect GAA spectrum to 
be particularly abundant in those rural areas, making such services 
achievable through GAA use.
    229. In addition, we note that he reasons for permitting 
partitioning and disaggregation in more traditionally licensed bands 
are not prevalent or are absent in the 3.5 GHz Band, which has much 
different characteristics. The Commission's primary reason for allowing 
partitioning and disaggregation in other bands was to promote key 
policy goals such as access to spectrum and flexibility of use, which 
in turn can result in greater service to consumers. In contrast to more 
traditional licensing governing other bands, the existing 3.5 GHz Band 
rules inherently provide this flexibility. As such, the Commission 
allowed partitioning and disaggregation to increase competition and 
expedite the provision of service in the near term. For example, the 
rules governing 700 MHz band licenses, which service rules do allow 
partitioning and disaggregation (47 CFR 27.15), include a ten-year 
license term and larger license areas. However, in the 3.5 GHz Band, 
relatively short license terms and small license areas should 
facilitate faster deployment of service and allow providers to target 
smaller populations, meeting the same goals. Further, lower power 
limits, the ability to dynamically share spectrum, and the absence of 
construction obligations offer licensees the ability to experiment with 
different business models and serve niche markets, another basis for 
allowing partitioning and disaggregation in other services. This 
flexibility is further bolstered by the rules adopted herein to permit 
secondary market transactions.
    230. Finally, the Commission cannot easily address administrative 
burdens associated with partitioning and disaggregation through a pre-
approval process, as Information Technology Industry Council suggests. 
Unlike leases, parties seeking approval for partitioning and 
disaggregation must file an application for partial assignment or 
transfer of control of a license, even if the transaction does not 
require prior Commission approval (47 CFR 1.948). While certain 
assignments and transfers of control do not require prior Commission 
approval, the assignor must file an application for Commission approval 
regardless (47 CFR 1.948(c)).
4. Spectrum Exchanges
a. Background
    231. The majority of commenters advocate that Commission should 
permit spectrum exchanges for PALs. Cantor Telecom states that a 
spectrum exchange would permit qualified participants to gain immediate 
access to PAL usage rights along with additional benefits, including 
enhanced price discovery, transparency, and paperwork and cost 
efficiencies, thereby improving access to available bandwidth and 
significantly increasing the liquidity of the spectrum. AT&T, Verizon, 
and WISPA, also support voluntary spectrum exchanges. Alternatively, 
Federated Wireless states that spectrum exchanges would add complexity 
and are unnecessary because they serve functions already authorized to 
be performed by the SAS. Further, Federated Wireless claims that only a 
fully functional SAS will have sufficient knowledge to confirm whether 
a secondary transaction meets the conditions necessary to operate. 
However, Cantor Telecom responds that an SAS's main purpose is to 
function as a geolocation database, while a spectrum exchange focuses 
on facilitating secondary market access to PALs.
    232. Other commenters address whether the SAS should act as a 
spectrum exchange. Verizon asks that the Commission not only permit, 
but encourage SAS Administrators to establish spectrum exchanges. AT&T, 
Google, and WISPA state that the Commission should neither prohibit not 
require an SAS to operate as a spectrum exchange. AT&T also states that 
if an SAS does act as a spectrum exchange, these functions should be 
separable from the core functions of the SAS.
b. Discussion
    233. The rules that govern the 3.5 GHz Band do not explicitly 
address spectrum exchanges, and we take no action to establish or 
prohibit spectrum exchanges, nor do we take action to favor any 
particular type of private market exchange mechanism. In keeping with 
the operational flexibility we have created for the 3.5 GHz Band, we 
agree with WISPA that market mechanisms should drive the creation of 
spectrum exchanges, instead of Commission rules. This approach is 
consistent with the Commission's general approach of relying on market 
processes where possible in regard to secondary markets. If a market 
demand develops for spectrum exchanges in the 3.5 GHz Band, it is in 
the public interest to allow such exchanges to respond to this demand 
consistent with the requirements of the Communications Act and our 
rules.
    234. In regard to whether an SAS should be permitted to also act as 
a spectrum exchange, again we will let market forces determine the role 
of the SAS, and as such, stand-alone exchanges or SAS-managed exchanges 
are permitted. As suggested by Google, there may be SAS Administrators 
who decide that it is economical to operate a spectrum exchange as a 
function of the SAS. We also acknowledge Federated Wireless' concern 
that spectrum exchanges will add unnecessary complexity to band 
management. However, the Citizens Broadband Radio Service rules already 
require an SAS to track Priority Access, GAA and Incumbent Access 
operations and, as such, we do not believe tracking PAL ownership or 
coordinating with an independent spectrum exchange would be overly-
burdensome. Moreover, our rules do not require individual SAS 
Administrators to act as spectrum exchanges or to work with any third-
party spectrum exchanges that may develop. Rather, they provide the 
flexibility for SAS Administrators to provide these services at their 
option to meet market demand. Similar to offering leasing, the option 
to operate a spectrum exchange is voluntary and so long as SAS 
Administrators can fulfill their core duties and comply with Commission 
rules, an SAS may also operate a spectrum exchange.

[[Page 49052]]

5. Spectrum Aggregation and Attribution in the 3.5 GHz Band
a. Background
    235. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission adopted a spectrum 
aggregation limit that would allow licensees to hold no more than four 
PALs in one census tract at any given time (or no more than 40 
megahertz out of the 70 megahertz allocated to PALs). The Commission 
concluded that this limit of 40 megahertz would facilitate competition, 
innovation, and efficient use of the 3.5 GHz Band, ensuring that it 
would be allocated in a manner that serves the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity. However, for a variety of reasons, the 
Commission decided it would not include the 3.5 GHz Band in the 
spectrum screen. The Second FNPRM sought comment on the application of 
our spectrum aggregation limits in the context of the initial licensing 
of PALs, whether to use the Commission's existing attribution standard 
for these purposes, and how any unique characteristics of PAL auctions, 
such as the need for streamlined processing, should be taken into 
account.
    236. The majority of commenters do not directly address spectrum 
aggregation limits but those that do urge the Commission to refrain 
from adopting spectrum aggregation rules. AT&T believes that the 
Commission should not stifle secondary markets by adopting spectrum 
aggregation rules for this band, as the 3.5 GHz Band is nascent and no 
competitive issues have arisen that suggest a need for regulation. For 
the same reasons, AT&T opposes applying the attribution standard in 
existing rules to PALs, and no other commenters address the application 
of our attribution standard. Federated Wireless also urges the 
Commission not to count PALs toward spectrum aggregation limits, 
stating this would not be equitable since by its nature, PALs will 
likely not be in use full time by the licensee. The Information 
Technology Industry Council requests that the Commission consider 
allowing a Priority Access Licensee to hold more than four PALs (i.e., 
40 megahertz) of spectrum in one census tract, even for a limited 
duration or geography.
b. Discussion
    237. As noted above, we do not include 3.5 GHz Band in the 
Commission's spectrum screen, as PALs are not suitable and available 
for the provision of mobile telephony and broadband services in the 
same manner as other bands that are currently included in the 
Commission's spectrum screen applied to secondary market transactions. 
This finding was based on the unique characteristics of the band, 
including multiple tiers of many users and short license terms. We do 
not revisit this finding here and there is no support on the record for 
doing so.
    238. In the 3.5 GHz R&O, the Commission also addressed a spectrum 
aggregation limit within the Priority Access tier and concluded that 
one licensee many not hold more than 40 megahertz of the maximum of the 
70 megahertz of Priority Access spectrum in each License Area. As the 
Commission decided in the order, this spectrum aggregation limit will 
promote diversity by ensuring the availability of PALs to at least two 
users in those geographic areas where there is the greatest likelihood 
of demand, and will incentivize innovation and competition that will 
likely lead to more choices for the consumer, while still allowing for 
applications that require larger blocks of spectrum. The Information 
Technology Industry Council presents no additional arguments and we 
also decline to revisit the 40 megahertz spectrum aggregation limit.
    239. In light of the spectrum aggregation limit in our rules, these 
secondary markets rules must make clear to whom the limit should apply. 
Given the lack of record on attribution issues in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service context, we apply the attribution threshold as 
set forth in section 20.22 of the Commission's rules and referred to in 
the Second FNPRM (47 CFR 20.22). These controlling and non-controlling 
interests delineated in section 20.22 (47 CFR 20.22) shall be 
attributable to applicants for licenses and parties to leasing 
arrangements in the 3.5 GHz Band.

C. FSS Protection

1. In-Band Protection of FSS in the 3600-3700 MHz Band
a. Background
    240. The Commission has licensed FSS earth stations to receive on 
frequencies in the 3600-3650 MHz and 3650-3700 MHz bands. FSS use of 
the 3600-3650 MHz band is limited to non-federal international 
intercontinental systems (47 CFR 2.106). In the 3.5 GHz R&O, we adopted 
rules that require CBSDs to protect existing in-band FSS earth stations 
from interference (47 CFR 96.17). As described in section III(H), we 
also require FSS earth stations seeking protection under the rules to 
register with the Commission annually, or upon making changes to any of 
the parameters listed in Sec.  96.17(d) (47 CFR 96.17). The information 
included in these registrations will be used by the SASs to protect 
licensed FSS earth stations. We found that, while there were technical 
implementation details to be worked out, an SAS-based system should be 
an effective means of protecting licensed FSS earth stations and 
promoting broadband deployment in the band. We also noted that specific 
technical details and requirements may be developed as part of the SAS 
approval process and may be informed by the work of an industry-led 
multi-stakeholder group. Therefore, in the Second FNPRM, we sought 
comment on specific approaches to calculating and implementing FSS 
protections.
    241. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on: (1) Interference 
protection criteria appropriate for establishing FSS interference 
limits; (2) the methodology for calculating exclusion distances for 
CBSDs, and in particular, the applicability of the Commission's example 
methodology in the 3650-3700 MHz proceeding; (3) whether or not to 
establish default protection areas around FSS earth stations; (4) the 
RF propagation model(s) best suited for SAS protections of FSS; (5) 
policy and methods for adjudicating demands for increased spectrum use 
at a location that would result in the protection criteria for an FSS 
earth station receiver being exceeded; and (6) methods for ensuring 
that End User Devices do not interfere with FSS earth stations while 
avoiding a mandate for geo-location requirements on end user devices.
    242. Numerous commenters responded to the Second FNPRM, presenting 
a range of proposed approaches to the issues presented. Those comments 
are addressed in detail on a subject-by-subject basis below, including 
calculation of FSS protection areas; interference protection criteria; 
RF propagation models; and other issues. As with our efforts to address 
other sharing issues in the 3.5 GHz Band, the rules we have developed 
are designed to enable use of the band for new wireless services, while 
maintaining protection for the in-band FSS operations. We adopt 
specific in-band FSS protections below based on the characteristics of 
the FSS sites and modeled to a conservative level, and provide 
unprecedented protections for certain C-Band FSS sites.
b. Calculation of FSS Protection Areas
(i) Background
    243. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment as to whether we should 
establish default earth station protection areas based on assumed FSS 
earth station receiver characteristics, such

[[Page 49053]]

that CBSD operation outside of this area would be assumed not to cause 
interference to earth stations, and whether the geographic area could 
be adjusted by an SAS to accommodate actual FSS operating 
characteristics. We also noted that the Commission's example 
methodology set forth in Appendix D in the 3650-3700 MHz Band R&O could 
be a useful starting point for co-existence analysis, and we sought 
comment on the use of this methodology by an SAS to calculate exclusion 
distances for CBSDs with respect to individual FSS earth stations in 
the 3.5 GHz Band.
    244. Many commenters support protection of incumbent FSS earth 
stations from aggregate interference but assert that default protection 
areas are inefficient and utilizing worst case assumptions may lead to 
overprotection of FSS earth stations. Specifically, Dynamic Spectrum 
Alliance, Federated Wireless, Google, Information Technology Industry 
Council, Microsoft, Wi-Fi Alliance, and WinnForum argue against the 
imposition of default protection areas based on worst case assumptions. 
WinnForum claims that default areas are inherently inefficient, and 
almost inevitably, provide either too little protection to the 
incumbent, or overly restrict other operations. In addition, default 
protection zones may not account for aggregation effects and would have 
to be quite large to account for worst case aggregate interference. The 
Information Technology Industry Council also argues that for FSS, the 
Commission should not adopt default or generalized protection zones for 
all FSS earth stations. The Wi-Fi Alliance argues that the Commission 
should not over-protect FSS earth stations and SASs should be permitted 
to calculate protection areas based on terrain characteristics and FSS 
earth station operational parameters. Microsoft claims that it is 
possible to protect FSS earth stations without imposing large 
protection zones and that the size and shape of each protected area 
should be limited to that which is technically necessary to protect 
licensed satellite operations. Rajant argues for a fact-based approach 
to sharing spectrum with incumbent FSS and, from their deployments in 
the 3650-3700 MHz band, contends that much smaller coordination zones 
than 150 km are possible.
    245. Google also argues that the Commission should tailor FSS 
protections to actual conditions, rather than establishing a default 
protection zone for all FSS earth stations. According to Google, these 
protection zones should account for real world factors such as 
propagation, terrain, earth station pointing angles, and transmitter 
characteristics. They argue that utilizing worst case or near worst 
case assumptions for these elements would result in over protection of 
FSS earth stations, inefficient spectrum use, and diminished investment 
in the band. Google claims that an SAS can dynamically calculate an 
appropriate default protection area for each site, based upon local 
terrain, pointing directions for the FSS antenna, and other site-
specific considerations. Such protection areas could be based upon the 
antenna gain and receiving system noise temperature of the particular 
antenna for which the protection area is being calculated. However, a 
default protection area would only demarcate a region beyond which all 
CBSDs will be considered non-interfering. Within the protection area, 
CBSDs would be permitted to operate, provided that an SAS determines 
that aggregate interference does not exceed the interference 
thresholds.
    246. In its reply comments, Google proposes a seven step 
methodology for calculating interference protection for FSS earth 
stations. Google's approach, which accounts for individual FSS site 
characteristics and interference from individual, as well as aggregate, 
CBSD operations, includes calculations of FSS antenna gain in the 
direction of a CBSD requesting authorization to operate, CBSD power 
spectral density in the direction of the FSS antenna, path loss between 
the CBSD and FSS earth station antenna, the received interference power 
at the FSS antenna from the CBSD seeking authorization and the 
aggregate interference power from all CBSDs within a default protection 
area, and a comparison of the aggregate calculated power to an 
interference threshold. Under Google's proposal, SASs would only allow 
CBSDs to operate if the aggregate power of all CBSDs in the area falls 
below the permissible interference threshold.
    247. Regarding the applicability of the example methodology in 
Appendix D of the 3650-3700 MHz Band R&O, Google asserts that the 
Commission should not adopt the separation distance methodology in 
Appendix D because it contains latent assumptions that are not 
discernible from the information provided. Examples include assumptions 
regarding propagation models and interference objectives that are built 
into the equations. Electrodynamics states that their testing proves 
that the Appendix D methodology is insufficient because there is not an 
adequate basis for microclimate analysis to justify the methodology.
    248. WinnForum also recommends that the Commission adopt 
calculation methods to protect FSS earth stations that are based on 
actual deployment characteristics and public, scientifically reviewed 
propagation models. WinnForum believes that the geometric approach in 
Appendix D is an appropriate method for the SAS to use in calculating 
protections for FSS earth stations. Specifically, WinnForum contends 
that the operating parameters laid out in Table 1 of Appendix D--
including antenna gain parameters, system noise temperature, and 
bandwidth--are appropriate parameters for the SAS to use in protection 
calculations. These operating parameters also include the antenna 
reference pattern in section 25.209(a) (47 CFR 25.209(a)), system noise 
temperature of 142.8 K, polarization (linear or circular), and receive 
bandwidth (40 kHz-36 MHz).
    249. SIA argues that while some aspects of the Appendix D 
methodology such as the geometric analysis are useful elements for 
conducting co-existence analyses and calculating exclusion distances 
for CBSDs with respect to individual FSS earth stations, the Appendix D 
methodology is not sufficient to adequately protect FSS operations from 
interference from CBSDs. SIA claims that Appendix D has two major 
flaws. First, it does not provide a means to calculate separation 
distances required when there are multiple small cell interfering 
transmitters and therefore cannot be used to consider aggregate 
interference. Second, the separation distance formula does not consider 
critically important variable parameters such as the power of the in-
band interfering signal, the elevation profile from the earth station 
to the small cell location of the interfering in-band signal, the 
terrain profile for the specific location, the time variability of 
propagation path loss, and the earth station receiver noise 
temperature. Further, SIA states that, since Appendix D does not 
discuss the origin of the formula or the constants it uses, SIA lacks 
the information necessary to suggest appropriate modifications and 
additional data for adapting the formula for application to the 3.5 GHz 
Band.
    250. SIA supports the adoption of protection criteria that use 
worst-case assumptions rather than real-world deployment conditions. 
SIA claims that an approach based on a real-world interference 
protection system is misguided because it would be difficult to 
achieve, unduly burden FSS

[[Page 49054]]

operators, and raise significant confidentiality concerns. SIA argues 
that a real-world interference protection system would be challenging 
to implement because it would require design, development, 
installation, testing, and maintenance of carrier monitoring hardware, 
software, and communications links among the FSS earth stations and the 
SAS. According to SIA, such a system would impose unreasonable burdens 
on FSS operators who would have to report changes every time they 
occur. Moreover, the system would need to include highly commercially 
sensitive information such as frequencies, bandwidths, and carrier-to-
noise ratios.
    251. Federated Wireless contends that SIA's approach is far too 
conservative and, by stacking worst case assumptions atop one another, 
presents an unrealistic view of the interference environment in the 3.5 
GHz Band. Federated Wireless supports an approach based in real-world 
deployment characteristics and measured data. Federated Wireless notes 
that the Spectrum and Receiver Performance Working Group of the 
Commission's Technological Advisory Council (TAC) has endorsed a 
similar approach. Federated Wireless also proposes that active sensing 
of the radio environment in the vicinity of FSS earth station 
receivers, is technically feasible and could enhance the protection 
provided to incumbents. According to Federated Wireless, such an 
approach could be based on propagation models and providing real-time 
measurement of aggregate interference to the SAS as part of a closed 
loop system that ensures I/N levels do not exceed protection criteria, 
even during anomalous propagation conditions. It encourages field 
trials with the satellite community to demonstrate the effectiveness of 
SAS protections.
(ii) Discussion
    252. As we stated in the 3.5 GHz R&O, we believe that protections 
for FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band should be flexible and 
customized to the specific parameters of each earth station and the 
interference environment in the vicinity of each earth station. We 
agree with commenters that argue that the information submitted by 
registered CBSDs and FSS earth stations should be used to customize the 
protections afforded to FSS earth stations on temporal, spectral, and 
geographic bases and should not be based on worst case assumptions. In 
addition, as discussed below, while we do not mandate a specific 
methodology for determining such protection areas, certain assumptions 
used in Appendix D of the 3650-3700 MHz Band R&O are appropriate for 
determining FSS protections in the 3.5 GHz Band as well.
    253. We disagree with SIA's proposal to adopt static default 
protection zones based on worst case assumptions. As Google and 
Federated Wireless argue, such static protection zones are not 
reflective of the actual interference protection needs of individual 
FSS earth stations and will not promote efficient use of the band. The 
approach advocated by Google and Federated Wireless is consistent with 
the TAC's recommendation to the Commission, that ``. . . worst case 
analyses, when applicable, [should be used] only to determine the 
consequences of harmful interference, and tested statistical techniques 
to assess risk [should be used] to perform a thorough assessment of the 
impact of mixing different services in the same or nearby bands.''
    254. We agree that the adoption of static protection zones based on 
worst case assumptions would overprotect FSS earth stations at the 
expense of new Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and would 
effectively prohibit new deployment in some geographic areas without 
any demonstration that such deployments would actually cause 
interference to individual FSS earth stations. Such an approach would 
be inconsistent with the Commission's goals as it would be likely to 
impede innovation and erect barriers to efficient use of the band.
    255. We also disagree with SIA's assertion that an interference 
protection methodology based on real-world deployment factors would be 
difficult to achieve, unduly burden FSS operators, and raise 
confidentiality concerns. We address--and reject--SIA's arguments with 
regard to the potential burdens of registering and updating earth 
station criteria in section III(H) above. Moreover, we do not believe 
that the information that FSS earth stations are required to register 
with the Commission is likely to be commercially sensitive or 
confidential (47 CFR 0.459). Indeed, SIA itself notes that much of the 
information that FSS earth station licensees must register under 
section 96.17 (47 CFR 96.17) is already registered with the Commission 
in IBFS. We agree with those commenters, including Federated Wireless, 
Google, and WinnForum that state that, by using the information from 
FSS earth station registrations and CBSD registrations in the 
surrounding area, SASs will be able to enforce customized protection 
areas tailored to the specifications of each FSS earth station in the 
3.5 GHz Band. We believe that such an approach will effectively protect 
FSS earth stations, maximize spectral efficiency, and promote 
deployment in the band.
    256. We also believe that it is appropriate to establish an area 
around FSS earth stations over which SASs will calculate potential 
interference power levels from all CBSDs in that area to reduce the 
burden on SASs and narrow the field for interference calculations. 
CBSDs outside of this area are deemed to be too far away to cause 
interference. Reasonably defined areas will limit the number of CBSDs 
that SASs would have to account for in calculating protection areas 
without increasing the risk of interference to FSS earth stations. As 
such, we find that SASs should account for in-band, co-frequency 
interference from all CBSDs within 150 km of an FSS earth station when 
calculating protection distances. This distance is consistent with the 
150 km FSS protection distance established in the 3650-3700 MHz Band 
R&O. We also adopt 40 km as the distance for adjacent emission and 
blocking interference calculations based on the analysis presented in 
this proceeding by Alion. We emphasize that these are not default 
protection areas but merely the areas within which SASs must account 
for aggregate interference from CBSDs when calculating protections for 
individual FSS earth stations.
    257. Regarding the methodology used to calculate protection areas 
for FSS earth stations the 3.5 GHz R&O concluded that an analytic 
framework similar to the one detailed in the 3650-3700 MHz Band R&O 
would be applicable to the 3.5 GHz Band. We sought comment on the 
applicability and use of this methodology in the Second FNPRM. While 
some commenters agree with aspects of the Appendix D methodology, most 
encouraged us not to adopt the approach in its entirety for the 3.5 GHz 
Band. After review of the record, we agree that the Appendix D 
methodology includes some relevant components but it is not wholly 
suitable for an SAS-based protection system. For instance, in the 
Second FNPRM, we proposed that FSS earth station protection criteria be 
based on the FSS earth station off-axis antenna gain performance 
standard that was in section 25.209(a) of our rules at that time (47 
CFR 25.209(a)). Those rules specified an envelope of maximum FSS 
antenna gain as a function of the angle (in degrees) from the main lobe 
(47 CFR 25.209(a)(1) and (4)). The SAS can use this standard for the 
calculation of aggregate interference from CBSDs located at different 
angles and distances from the FSS antenna main beam. We agree with 
WinnForum that the

[[Page 49055]]

Commission's rules that allow earth stations to register pointing 
information along with its operating parameters would enable such 
geometric calculations. Specifically, we adopt the use of section 
25.209(a)(1) and (4) (47 CFR 25.209(a)(1) and (4)) FSS antenna gain 
envelopes in the methodology for calculating exclusion distances. We 
also agree with Google's suggestion that we adopt the FSS system noise 
floor value in Appendix D (142.8 K). This value was originally derived 
from SIA's filings in the 3650-3700 MHz proceeding. Since its adoption, 
we are unaware of any complaints related to the use of this system 
noise floor value in the 3650-3700 MHz Wireless Broadband Service.
    258. We are encouraged by the efforts of commenters to address the 
development and implementation of protection methodologies for FSS 
earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band. We believe that these approaches--
or elements thereof--may be used to establish consistent, flexible, and 
effective protections for FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band. 
However, in the interest of promoting technological and operational 
flexibility, we do not believe that the specific calculation approach 
in all aspects should be codified beyond the rules adopted in this 
section. We direct WTB and OET to address whether and how to do so 
during the SAS approval process, consistent with the approach adopted 
in this order.
    259. We encourage industry to further develop improvements to 
protection criteria standards and incumbent reliability requirements 
that are more transparent and reproducible, based on measurements and 
operational experience, using realistic deployment scenarios that are 
representative of real risk. We also encourage industry to continue to 
develop novel technological approaches to interference protection, 
including sensing techniques, which may be used to improve protection 
criteria in the future.
c. Interference Protection Criteria
(i) Background
    260. In the Second FNPRM, we agreed with commenters that responded 
to the FNPRM that FSS earth stations could be effectively protected by 
establishing a maximum aggregate power limit at each FSS earth station. 
We stated that an aggregate threshold level should be based on a 
theoretical thermal noise floor (Interference-to-Noise ratio; I/N) and 
account for earth station receiver performance degradation as a result 
of both desired and undesired signals (Carrier-to-Interference-plus-
Noise ratio; C/(I+N)). We proposed that signals from CBSDs at the 
output of the FSS antenna system be permitted up to this aggregate 
threshold 47 CFR 25.209(a). We also proposed that each SAS calculate 
the permissible separation distance for a CBSD requesting activation, 
using an appropriate calculation methodology and propagation model, and 
taking into account the registered parameters of the CBSD and FSS earth 
station. We sought comment on appropriate interference protection 
criteria and requested technical analyses and field studies to support 
any such submissions. We instructed commenters to assume the use of 
appropriate, commercially available earth station receiver input 
filters in compiling their analyses.
    261. SIA, Google, and the WinnForum propose to protect in-band FSS 
earth stations from aggregate interference using a protection criterion 
equal to an I/N of -12 dB. This value is derived from ITU-R S.1432-1. 
Google proposes that interference into FSS earth stations should not 
exceed 6% of the system noise temperature, corresponding to I/N of -12 
dB. WinnForum agrees and contends that in-band FSS earth stations 
should be required to accept no more than 6% of the noise floor (I/N = 
-12 dB) in aggregate interference. SIA also argues that interference 
protection criteria should be based on limiting the increase of an 
earth station receiver's noise floor to 6%, equal to I/N of -12 dB.
    262. Federated Wireless claims that I/N of -12 dB is overly 
conservative and that the real characteristics of FSS systems and 
potential interferers should be used for interference analysis. 
Federated Wireless goes on to say that at a minimum, the proper 
application of ITU-R S.1432 would result in the use of I/N of -12 dB 
criterion for long term effects, which suggests support for I/N of -12 
dB as an initial long term median value for protection, subject to 
future change and improvement as more evidence of the real 
characteristics of FSS systems and potential interferers becomes known. 
In a separate filing, Federated Wireless asked the Commission to take 
note of the approach to managing interference from End User Devices 
that was suggested in the final report of the Commerce Spectrum 
Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) Working Group 1(CSMAC Report). 
Federated Wireless argues that the CSMAC Report supports the use of a 
protection criterion equal to I/N of -10 dB as proposed in various ITU 
documents. iPosi also disagrees with SIA regarding the level of 
protection that should be afforded, and proposes an aggregate source I/
N of -6 dB, stating that while FSS link margins are small, the 
allowable aggregate interference must be measurable.
    263. Radio Soft & LS Telecom contend that interference criteria 
should be based on C/(I+N) because, as described in the FNPRM, noise 
floor itself is too pessimistic, considering that signals even a few dB 
above noise will allow dramatically improved access to CBSDs without 
any reliability degradation to an incumbent FSS. While proposing an I/N 
value of -12 dB, Google asserts that this value represents only 0.25 dB 
in noise floor degradation, and represents an even smaller portion of 
the carrier-to-interference plus noise (C/(I+N)) ratio. SIA argues that 
interference protection criteria should not be based on C/(I+N), 
explaining that the desired signal level at the FSS should not be a 
part of the calculation. SIA states that this would require the FSS to 
report signal level changes every time they occur, which would be 
unduly burdensome and has not been proposed in this proceeding.
(ii) Discussion
    264. Many commenters argue that protection of FSS earth station 
receivers from aggregate interference should be based on a received 
interference power limit at the FSS receiver. We agree that allowing 
the SAS to calculate protections based on an aggregate interference 
limit would be the most flexible and efficient means of protecting FSS 
earth stations and facilitating widespread deployment in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service. Accordingly, we require the SASs to utilize 
the received interference power to determine appropriate and consistent 
protections tailored to the actual deployment and operational 
parameters of FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band consistent with 
the approach described above.
    265. Commenters representing both satellite interests and new-
entrants contend that protection for FSS earth stations should be based 
on an I/N of -12 dB, as set forth in ITU-R S.1432-1 at the FSS earth 
station's receiver. As noted above, there are also some commenters that 
believe this criterion is overly conservative. Consistent with the 
majority of commenters on this issue, we find that using I/N of -12 dB 
as a long term median threshold will provide sufficient protection for 
in-band FSS earth stations. While we are basing our approach to FSS 
protection on this value, we note that some commenters believe that it 
may be more conservative than is necessary to protect FSS earth 
stations. We agree that this threshold may be conservative but we do 
not

[[Page 49056]]

believe that commenters provide sufficient evidence for us to adopt a 
less conservative I/N value for protection of FSS earth stations at 
this time. Nonetheless, we will monitor industry efforts to study the 
real world protection needs of FSS earth stations in the band as well 
as the effects of Citizens Broadband Radio Service equipment on such 
earth stations. We may revisit the interference threshold in the future 
if justified by future technical studies and real world observations.
    266. Consistent with these findings, we adopt a long term 
interference threshold for protecting FSS from in-band co-channel 
interference from CBSD fundamental emissions. We adopt a long term 
median aggregate protection limit based on I/N of -12 dB at the output 
of the FSS antenna system, with the FSS system noise, N, based on T = 
142.8 K as noted above. Thus, the long term median threshold is the 
thermal system noise floor of the FSS receiver raised by the acceptable 
added interference (-12 dB) relative to that system noise level, which 
equates to: I = -129 dBm/MHz (this is calculated using the equation in 
dBm/MHz; I = N + I/N = (k+T+B) + I/N = -198.6 dBm/Hz/K + 21.5 dB-K + 60 
dB-Hz/MHz + (-12 dB); where 21.5 dB-K is equivalent to 142.8 K; 21.5 = 
10log10(142.8)).
    267. We also reject SIA's proposal to apply the interference 
protection methodology described in ITU-R S.1432-1 in the 3.5 GHz Band. 
We note that SIA has argued in favor of utilizing ITU-R S.1432-1 in 
other proceedings and we have consistently refused to adopt all of its 
methods and assumptions. Notably, in the 3650-3700 MHz Band R&O, we 
found that the specifications in ITU-R S.1432-1 are design criteria for 
FSS earth stations, not interference protection criteria and, 
accordingly, rejected its specifications as suitable interference 
criteria in that proceeding. While ITU-R S.1432-1 utilizes the long-
term I/N of -12 that commenters support and we adopt, it also includes 
assumptions and approaches that are inapplicable to terrestrial mobile 
services. Indeed, ITU-R S.1432-1 specifically addresses degradations to 
FSS signals from time invariant interference and notes that there are 
currently no recommendations dealing with interference from co-primary 
allocated mobile systems into FSS systems, while the 3.5 GHz Band will 
likely be used for terrestrial mobile service. As a result, the 
assumptions and methods used in ITU-R S.1432-1 are not necessarily 
applicable to this band. The assumptions are based on an arbitrary 
allotment of time invariant interference and do not clearly define the 
time allowance corresponding to other sources of interference. 
Moreover, the assumptions are unsupported by either performance 
measurements or operational experience. Therefore, consistent with 
established Commission precedent, we find that the ITU approach is 
inappropriate for use with terrestrial mobile service and decline to 
adopt the methodology described in ITU-R S.1432-1 for this band.
    268. We believe that the long-term median interference limit 
adopted herein will effectively protect in-band FSS earth stations from 
interference. However, we encourage prospective SAS Administrators to 
consider the possibility of short-term interference while developing 
their protection models for submission during the SAS approval process 
and to work with FSS earth station licensees to resolve any reports of 
actual interference, consistent with section 96.17(f) (47 CFR 
96.17(f)).
    269. Reference FSS RF Filter. In the NPRM, we sought comment on 
methods of mitigating out-of-band interference from CBSDs. In the 
FNPRM, we specifically sought comment on the use of filters to reduce 
or eliminate interference from out-of-band sources. In the Second 
FNPRM, we instructed commenters to assume the use of appropriate, 
commercially available earth station receiver input filters when 
performing interference analyses. A diverse array of commenters 
addressed the efficacy of filters throughout this proceeding and 
utilized filtering assumptions in analyzing interference effects on FSS 
earth stations. After review of the record and consistent with the 
Commission's instructions in the Second FNPRM, we require that the SAS 
must utilize assumptions consistent with the capabilities of 
commercially available filters in determining interference protections 
for FSS earth stations.
    270. The Content Interests sponsored analyses by Alion have 
referenced a commonly available RF filter from Microwave Filter Co 
(Model 13961W) in their coexistence studies. The Content Interests 
sponsored analysis by Comsearch uses an FSS RF filter mask for a 
commercially available C-Band interference elimination filter that has 
similar characteristics. While these references are for commercial 
filters applied to the C-Band, we believe that these RF filter masks 
represent state-of-the art filter performance that would also be 
commonly found for protecting FSS earth stations in the 3600-3700 MHz 
band. As evidence of this, we find two examples of C-Band RF filters 
from Microwave Filter Co. with passband lower edges at 3600 MHz and 
3625 MHz, and a filter from Eagle Comtronics Inc. with a passband lower 
edge at 3600 MHz, all with similar rejection characteristics and low 
insertion loss.
    271. We expect that FSS licensees will take reasonable steps to 
protect their licensed band of operation with applicable RF 
interference rejection filters, and we therefore adopt a reference FSS 
RF filter mask with similar characteristics as those referenced here. 
Specifically, we adopt a reference RF filter to be considered for in-
band FSS protection with 0.5 dB insertion loss in the passband, 0.6 dB/
MHz attenuation to 30.5 dB at 50 MHz offset below the lower edge of the 
FSS earth station's authorized passband and 0.25 dB/MHz attenuation to 
55.5 dB at greater than or equal to 150 MHz offset below the lower edge 
of the FSS earth station's authorized passband. Based on the filings in 
the record regarding filter performance, we believe that these 
specifications represent common capabilities of filters that are 
commercially available in the band and should not be construed as an 
endorsement of any particular technology, filter type, or product.
    272. Blocking. As detailed above, throughout this proceeding, we 
have sought comment on the effects of aggregate interference on FSS 
earth station receivers (47 CFR 96.17). While much of the record has 
been focused on the effects of co-channel interference and OOBE on FSS 
earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band, some commenters have argued that 
receiver blocking effects due to strong signal effects from adjacent 
channel CBSD transmissions may also cause significant interference to 
FSS earth stations by overloading or blocking the RF front end of these 
receivers. Indeed, the Commission specifically sought comment on the 
point at which even significantly reduced OOBE limits would cease to 
provide additional protection benefits due to these blocking effects. 
Specifically, commenters have filed analyses with calculations of the 
maximum RF input power that can be fed to an FSS earth station's low 
noise block downconverter (LNB) from neighboring non-FSS transmitters 
operating outside of the FSS earth station's authorized passband, while 
still maintaining reasonable linear performance. They contend that RF 
input power from fundamental emissions outside of the FSS earth 
station's authorized passband that exceed this FSS input power limit 
can cause serious distortion and interference, called LNA/LNB 
overdrive, LNB saturation, or blocking. After

[[Page 49057]]

review of this information, we find that it is appropriate to limit 
fundamental CBSD emissions outside of the FSS earth station's 
authorized passband so that the aggregate RF power at the output of a 
reference FSS RF filter and antenna system would not exceed a median 
adjacent blocking interference threshold.
    273. SIA has filed a study of sharing considerations between small 
cells and geostationary satellite networks in the 3.4-4.2 GHz band. SIA 
references ITU-R M.2109 that analyzes the possibility of FSS LNA/LNB 
overdrive into non-linear operation at input power of -60 dBm. SIA 
states, ``There is a large variance between devices of this power 
level, with input power levels typically ranging anywhere from -44 dBm 
to -60 dBm. However, a median value of -55 dBm can be used as a 
representative number.'' Furthermore, SIA states ``The maximum input 
power that can be fed into the LNA/LNB and still maintain linear 
operation is unique to each device but is approximately 10 dB below the 
input power level associated with the 1 dB gain compression point (see 
Section 8.1.1 and Annex E of ITU-R M.2109). Accordingly, the maximum 
power that can be fed into the LNA/LNB and have the device remain in 
the linear mode of operation is approximately -65 dBm'' The large 
variance in input power limits and the median value of -55 dBm cited by 
SIA above are all represented without reference to specific 
manufacturer products or specifications. We have analyzed a specific 
product that we believe has typical performance characteristics. That 
filter, on which we base the blocking limit, has an input power limit 
of -54 dBm, which differs from the median value cited by SIA by only 1 
dB. Because we are basing the requirement on a typical filter and there 
is variance among filters that are commercially available, we believe 
that a more conservative 6 dB back-off from this input power limit, 
rather than the 3 dB recommended by SIA is appropriate. We therefore 
adopt -60 dBm RMS as the median blocking limit from aggregate adjacent 
CBSDs, at the output of a reference RF filter and antenna. We believe 
this results in a reasonable threshold that would effectively protect 
many devices but not necessarily the worst case weakest device with the 
lowest input power limit. Finally, we note that these specifications 
represent common capabilities of filters that are commercially 
available in the band and should not be construed as an endorsement of 
any particular technology, filter type, or product.
d. RF Propagation Models
(i) Background
    274. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on what propagation 
model(s) are best suited for SAS-based protections of FSS. We also 
requested measurement results to validate model parameters for short 
range and long range propagation scenarios involving urban clutter, 
environmental factors, and indoor-to-outdoor propagation. We 
tentatively concluded that each SAS must use the same propagation 
model.
    275. Commenters including AT&T and SIA recommend the use of a 
single propagation model or a uniform set of models to promote fairness 
and consistency. AT&T advocates the use of uniform models across SASs, 
vetted and validated by an expert international body. AT&T asserts that 
such models would produce the same results, simplify SAS administration 
by reducing the frequency in which SASs need to communicate with each 
other, and would prevent conflicting spectrum assignments between users 
served by different SASs. SIA urges the Commission to mandate the use 
of ITU propagation model ITU-R P.452-15. SIA argues that this model is 
well suited for point-to-point interference predictions and able to 
account for actual terrain variations between transmitter and receiver. 
SIA asserts that, to adequately protect FSS incumbents, the prescribed 
level of interference cannot be exceeded, and that any propagation 
model must measure how high the interference is, rather than how often 
some level is exceeded. SIA also argues that it is crucial that the 
propagation model be vetted by ITU Study Group 3 or an appropriate 
scientific body such as NTIA's Boulder ITS.
    276. Other commenters argue that the Commission should allow SAS 
Administrators to adopt varying propagation models to promote 
investment, innovation, and more intensive spectrum use in the 3.5 GHz 
Band. Google argues that variation in interference determination 
capabilities does not cause disparate protection requirements or 
operational inconsistencies because the inability to determine non-
interference is not the same as a determination of interference. 
According to Google, both results adequately protect incumbents, and 
they are not inconsistent--one simply employs methods that determine 
non-interference in a particular location with a higher degree of 
certainty. Moreover, Google argues that results of these interference 
determinations will be shared with other SAS Administrators, so all 
providers can make use of the most precise determination, without any 
additional operational complexity. Google also argues that while ITU-R 
P.452-15 can serve as a suitable baseline or safe-harbor propagation 
model, the Commission's certification process provides a means for 
vetting modified approaches followed by public testing. Dynamic 
Spectrum Alliance and OTI/PK also argue that the Commission should 
establish a baseline propagation model and allow SAS providers to 
differentiate themselves by offering more sophisticated modeling 
techniques.
    277. WinnForum members recommend that while such models are in 
development, the Commission should require SASs to use an existing 
public and reviewed interference prediction propagation model, such as 
ITU P.452-15, or the ITM model developed by NTIA. There is agreement 
among WinnForum members to use an interference prediction propagation 
model, however, there is no agreement as to whether different SAS 
implementations should be permitted to make use of different 
propagation models. As another alternative, iPosi proposes a 
conservative deterministic approach to FSS protection by using measured 
building loss coupled with free space path loss, arguing that clutter 
models are statistical and require a leap of faith as to their accuracy 
for the specific scenario.
(ii) Discussion
    278. After review of the record, we continue to believe that it is 
in the public interest for each SAS to utilize the same propagation 
model for FSS earth station protection. However, we also decline to 
impose a specific propagation model at this time and encourage industry 
to work collaboratively to develop a simple, easily implementable model 
(e.g., the ITM/Extended Hata model used to determine the coastal 
Exclusion Zones). This model may account for terrain and clutter, must 
be implementable by any SAS, and must not rely on proprietary 
information unavailable to all SAS Administrators. We direct WTB and 
OET, in coordination with NTIA and DoD, to review any such models 
submitted as part of the SAS approval process and to select an 
appropriate model prior to final approval of any SASs.
    279. We disagree with commenters that contend that each SAS 
Administrator should be permitted to

[[Page 49058]]

use its own propagation model to determine protection for FSS earth 
stations. Such an approach could result in inconsistent and, in some 
cases, incompatible protection determination between different SASs. 
While Google asserts that allowing for differentiated propagation 
models would not lead to inconsistent results between SAS 
Administrators, it has not presented sufficient evidence that would 
lead us to support such a counter intuitive conclusion. Moreover, even 
if Google's assertions are plausible, we believe that, especially at 
the outset, simplicity and consistency will serve the public interest 
more than additional flexibility for SAS Administrators. To effectively 
promote investment and ensure that FSS earth stations are protected, it 
is important for all users in the band--incumbents and Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service users alike--to have confidence that protection 
criteria will be applied uniformly by all SASs. This approach is 
consistent with our policies regarding federal incumbent protection and 
determinations of Priority Access use as set forth in section IV(A)(2). 
Consistency among SASs will promote predictable and stable spectrum 
assignments, assure uniform protection of FSS earth stations, and 
encourage robust deployment in the band. We therefore find that it is 
in the public interest for SASs to make use of the same propagation 
model for determining FSS protections.
    280. While we decline to impose a particular propagation model at 
this time, we disagree with SIA's assertions that the Commission should 
use a propagation model that protects against worst case interference 
scenarios. Utilizing a free space model or another model that does not 
account for real world propagation effects and conditions would 
unnecessarily overprotect FSS earth stations and impede deployment in 
the band. The Commission's goal is to ensure that Incumbent Users are 
protected consistent with real world applications and conditions and 
the propagation model used to protect Incumbent Users must reflect and 
further those goals.
    281. Finally, we recognize certain limitations of the models that 
have been suggested in the record, such as ITU-R P.452 and Longley-Rice 
ITM. We agree, for example, with the statement in ITU-R M.2109 that, in 
using the propagation model in ITU-R P.452, a smooth earth model that 
is representative of coastal areas and flat inland plain regions, is 
not representative of areas that have different physical 
characteristics and the use of such a model may result in the 
overestimation of the interference into a receiving FSS earth station. 
This is an example of the fact that one propagation model may not be 
suitable for all RF environments, and that multiple models (either in 
combination or applied individually in the circumstances for which they 
are best suited) may be appropriate in covering diverse environments 
with multiple characteristics (e.g., urban clutter, over sea and land, 
long distance rural paths, etc.). We also note that the Extended-Hata 
model was creatively used in conjunction with ITM by NTIA for analyzing 
interference protection zones to protect incumbent DoD Navy radar 
systems in this band. We believe that the limitations of any single 
model in covering diverse RF environments (including indoor and outdoor 
environments) and the need for accurate modeling to help determine 
protections, require more industry model development prior to selecting 
a default propagation modeling method for use in the 3.5 GHz Band. We 
encourage the industry to continue to pursue creative approaches to 
propagation modeling that accurately account for real world effects 
across a variety of terrains and deployment scenarios.
e. Other Issues
(i) Background
    282. Policy and Methods for Adjudicating Demands for Increased 
Spectrum Use. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on fair and non-
discriminatory methods of adjudicating requests for increased spectrum 
use at a location that would exceed the protection threshold for an FSS 
earth station receiver. We also sought comment on solutions that avoid 
caps on CBSD service deployment, while protecting FSS earth stations 
from harmful interference.
    283. WinnForum continues to study the issue of aggregate 
interference margin allotment and did not propose a specific 
methodology for addressing requests that could exceed the aggregate 
interference threshold for a particular FSS earth station. WinnForum 
members agree that aggregate interference protection for FSS earth 
stations is independent of the mechanism of application of those 
limits.
    284. SIA argues that protection of incumbent FSS is not possible 
with unconstrained interference growth and, as such, some maximum 
aggregate interference limit must be enforced. According to SIA, 
enforcement of such aggregate interference caps may result in a cap on 
CBSD deployment in a given geographic area or frequency range. Google 
argues that a variety of approaches to managing aggregate interference 
from multiple CBSDs may be suitable, and it is neither necessary nor 
beneficial to impose one particular method in the Commission's rules. 
According to Google, it may be appropriate to impose some level of 
power adjustment in cases of extreme congestion, but the methodology 
for doing so need not be universal and can be better addressed by the 
Commission through the SAS approval process. Google states that 
regardless of how the Commission chooses to protect aggregate effects, 
it is important for the Commission to do so.
    285. Methods for Ensuring That End User Devices Do Not Interfere 
with FSS. In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on reasonable methods 
for ensuring that the mobility, location, and orientation of End User 
Devices are managed effectively to avoid excessive interference to in-
band FSS earth stations, while avoiding a mandate for geo-location 
requirements on End User Devices. As discussed in detail in section 
III(E), commenters were sharply divided on the issue of mandatory geo-
location for End User Devices.
    286. Federated Wireless also submitted a comment asking the 
Commission to take note of the approach to managing interference from 
End User Devices that was suggested in the CSMAC Report. According to 
Federated Wireless, ``[i]n the CSMAC Report, the EIRP of each UE used 
to compute the aggregate interference level is randomly selected in 
accordance with the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) curves, 
generated through Monte-Carlo simulations based on realistic UE 
operating conditions.'' Federated Wireless asserts that this is a 
useful corollary to the methods that the SAS will use to calculate 
potential interference from End User Devices in the 3.5 GHz Band.
(ii) Discussion
    287. Policy and Methods for Adjudicating Requests for Increased 
Spectrum Use. We decline to adopt a specific policy for adjudicating 
demands for increased spectrum use. We agree with Google that that 
there are multiple methods and tools at the disposal of SAS 
Administrators (e.g., power control, GAA frequency reassignment, etc.) 
to ensure that the FSS protection criteria established in our rules are 
not exceeded. We believe that SAS Administrators should be permitted 
flexibility in addressing these issues within the framework established 
by the Commission's rules. We direct WTB and OET to carefully review 
any

[[Page 49059]]

such approaches submitted as part of the SAS approval process.
    288. Methods for Ensuring That End User Devices Do Not Interfere 
with FSS. As discussed in detail in section III(F), we will not adopt a 
mandate for geo-location of End User Devices. We believe that CBSDs--
which operate at significantly higher power levels than End User 
Devices--will be the primary sources of potential interference in the 
band and, therefore, they are the devices that should be monitored for 
interference protection purposes. However, we recognize that some 
commenters have raised concerns about potential interference from End 
User Devices. In light of the low power permitted for these devices, we 
do not believe that it is necessary at this time to adopt rules to 
directly address potential interference from End User Devices. However, 
we encourage the industry to develop standards for analyzing and 
modeling interference from End User Devices. Similarly, we encourage 
SAS administrators to take such models into account when developing 
interference protection strategies. We direct WTB and OET to review 
such approaches during and after the SAS approval process and take 
appropriate steps to address any such interference if it arises.
2. C-Band FSS Protection
a. Background
    289. As described in detail in section III(E) above, in the 3.5 GHz 
R&O, we adopted stringent out-of-band emission limits for protection of 
adjacent C-band FSS earth stations. In the Second FNPRM, we sought 
further comment on whether any measures in addition to the OOBE limits 
are needed to protect C-Band FSS earth stations from out-of-band 
interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and, if so, 
what those measures should be. We also sought comment as to whether the 
protection criteria for out-of-band FSS earth stations should be the 
same or different than for in-band FSS earth stations.
    290. SIA argues that C-Band earth stations should be protected from 
OOBE from CBSDs and End User Devices based on limiting any increase in 
the noise floor to no more than 1%, equivalent to I/N of -20 dB, 
consistent with ITU-R S.1432-1. GCI supports this position and argues 
that this strict protection criteria is necessary to protect critical 
services provided by C-Band users. As described in section III(C) 
above, SIA also argued in its petition for reconsideration that 
significant separation distances would be needed to protect FSS earth 
stations. As part of its petition, SIA submitted a technical analysis 
by RKF Engineering using an out-of-band interference criterion of I/N = 
-23 dB. In addition, SIA notes that C-Band satellites are required to 
locate their TT&C operations close to the 3700 MHz band-edge.
    291. Google argues that the Commission should reject SIA's 
suggestion that C-Band FSS earth stations be protected at a level 
equivalent to an I/N of -20 dB. Google argues that this approach would 
limit noise floor degradation to a virtually unmeasurable 0.04 dB and 
limit interference temperature to an amount equivalent to about ``half 
of the cosmic microwave background left over from the Big Bang.'' Put 
another way, Google claims that, using SIA's criterion, ``satellite 
earth stations will experience harmful interference if exposed to the 
amount of radiated emissions received by an omnidirectional antenna 
placed approximately 10 cm from a cup of coffee.'' According to Google, 
such grossly conservative interference thresholds would needlessly 
constrain deployment of CBSDs in the 3.5 GHz Band by restricting 
harmless emissions.
    292. The Content Interests also filed in support of expansive 
protections for C-Band FSS earth stations, in addition to the OOBE 
limits adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O. They contend that, since C-Band 
operations play a critical role in delivering television content to 
hundreds of millions of people, any parameters the Commission adopts 
for operations in the 3.5 GHz Band must be carefully analyzed to ensure 
C-Band operations do not experience interference. The Content Interests 
also submitted a study by Alion to update two previous studies 
submitted in this proceeding on the effects of Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service operations on C-Band FSS earth stations, to account for the 
technical rules adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O, including the OOBE limits 
adopted in that order. The new Alion study asserts that: Protecting a 
C-Band earth station from a single CBSD would require a protection 
distance of up to 9.63 km for Category A devices and up to 16.4 km for 
Category B devices (rural or non-rural). Alion contends that, in one 
scenario which looked at potential anomalous propagation effects, the 
required protection distance could be more than 125 km for Category B 
rural and non-rural devices. Thus, Alion concludes that future Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service operations must be coordinated with C-Band FSS 
earth stations to prevent harmful interference to C-Band operations. 
Alion also claims that the protection distances for multiple CBSDs 
could be significantly larger than for single-entry cases and that the 
addition of a few dozen CBSDs could double or triple the required 
protection distance. Alion asserts that SAS(s) must be sophisticated 
enough to know how many CBSDs are deployed in an area and appropriately 
extend the protection zone such that aggregated emissions do not 
violate the interference threshold.
    293. Federated Wireless agrees with the Content Interests on the 
importance of protecting incumbent C-Band operations from any harmful 
interference that may be generated by CBSDs. It states that both 
knowledge of specific propagation conditions and providing accurate 
CBSD and incumbent earth station radio configuration information to the 
SAS is vital for spectrum sharing and incumbent protection. However, 
Federated Wireless notes that the aggregate interference calculations 
will not be overly complex, because they need only to be focused on a 
discrete site. As such, Federated Wireless argues that the calculations 
needed to determine FSS earth station protections are simpler than the 
mechanisms that will be implemented to protect PALs which require 
protection around an entire contour. Federated Wireless also disagrees 
with the assumptions and engineering inputs applied in the Alion 
analysis. Federated Wireless contends that these assumptions and inputs 
are overly conservative and, while theoretically possible, in no way 
reflect expected operating conditions for either C-Band FSS earth 
stations or Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. Federated Wireless 
argues that the Alion analysis compounds worst-case assumptions that do 
not accurately reflect the likely interference environment in the 3.5 
GHz Band, leading to wholly unrealistic interference computations. 
According to Federated Wireless, these worst-case assumptions include: 
(1) Unclear application of the propagation model; (2) misleading 
application of I/N thresholds; (3) unrealistic FSS elevation angle 
assumptions; (4) excessive CBSD installation height; (5) flawed 
application of device emission masks; (6) worst-case CBSD operating 
frequencies; and (7) overly conservative interference thresholds. 
Federated also cites a warning recently expressed by the Commission's 
Technological Advisory Council of the pitfalls of employing worst-case 
assumption in interference analysis (i.e., ``Selecting single values, 
often extreme `worst case'

[[Page 49060]]

values, is not representative of actual risk'').
    294. Google also takes issue with the assumptions and methodologies 
put forth by the Content Interests and Alion. Google contends that the 
Content Interests and Alion's analysis depends on two mistaken 
presumptions: (1) That C-Band FSS earth stations are entitled to 
geographic protection in addition to the stringent OOBE limits 
established in the 3.5 GHz Order; and (2) that worst-case assumptions 
should be used to establish such protections. Google also questions the 
validity of the Alion report's conclusions based on the fact that C-
Band FSS earth stations are frequently deployed in close proximity to 
active 3650-3700 MHz band transmitters. Google argues that C-Band FSS 
earth stations are not necessarily entitled to geographic protection of 
their sites in addition to the OOBE limits adopted by the Commission 
and, if such protections are adopted, they should be based on known 
characteristics of FSS earth stations and CBSDs, not worst-case 
assumptions.
    295. There is no agreement among the members of the WinnForum on an 
appropriate protection level for C-Band FSS earth stations. However, 
consistent with its approach to the protection of in-band FSS earth 
stations, WinnForum opposes the imposition of default protection areas 
and supports a coordination approach based on terrain, clutter, and 
other real-world considerations.
b. Discussion
    296. As discussed in detail in section III(E), we continue to 
believe that our stringent OOBE limits will act as the primary means of 
protecting C-Band FSS earth station operations. Moreover, for reasons 
discussed below, we are not persuaded by the commenters who assert that 
measures in addition to those OOBE limits are needed to provide 
adequate protection from interference to C-Band FSS earth station 
operations, in most cases. However, we recognize that, in some 
situations, additional measures may be appropriate for earth stations 
performing critical TT&C functions. These protections will be 
determined consistent with the processes and protection levels used to 
determine protection areas for FSS earth stations in the 3600-3700 MHz 
band. In addition, as described in section III(H)(2), we adopt measures 
to facilitate communication and coordination among Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service users, C-Band FSS licensees, and SAS Administrators to 
effectively prevent and address any interference issues that may arise. 
Finally, we emphasize that any C-Band FSS earth station licensees 
seeking protection must submit an annual registration consistent with 
section 96.17 of the Commission's rules or upon making changes to any 
of the operational parameters listed in that section (47 CFR 96.17).
    297. We disagree with assertions made by SIA, GCI, and the Content 
Interests that all C-band FSS earth stations must be protected by 
geographic protection zones to prevent interference to the services 
provided by the operators of these earth stations. We address the 
concerns raised by these commenters about the potential for harmful 
interference into C-Band FSS earth stations with the stringent OOBE 
limits adopted in the 3.5 GHz R&O and affirmed in section III(E) above 
and with new rules protecting TT&C earth stations and facilitating 
coordination between Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and C-Band 
FSS licensees. We also note that creating mandatory geographic 
protection zones to protect FSS earth station licensees from co-primary 
commercial operations in an adjacent band would be unprecedented. 
Indeed, the Commission declined to extend such protections to licensees 
in the C-Band when it adopted rules governing the 3650-3700 MHz Band 
Wireless Broadband Service (47 CFR 90.1301 through 90.1338). 
Accordingly, consistent with Commission precedent, we will not require 
SAS Administrators to establish geographic protection areas for C-Band 
FSS earth station licensees.
    298. While we do not believe that geographic protections should be 
mandatory for all C-Band FSS earth stations, we do agree that it would 
be appropriate to extend additional protections to FSS earth stations 
used for TT&C using the same methods used to protect FSS earth stations 
in the 3.5 GHz Band. As SIA correctly notes, the Commission requires 
FSS operators to perform TT&C operations in band edge spectrum (47 CFR 
25.202(g)). As a result, according to SIA, C-Band satellites frequently 
rely on a telemetry carrier near 3700 MHz. We recognize the critical 
importance of these TT&C functions to ensuring the safe operation and 
control of C-Band satellite systems and, accordingly, we will require 
SAS Administrators to implement and enforce additional protection 
criteria for these earth stations. Consistent with our approach to 
protecting in-band FSS earth stations, SAS Administrators will be 
required to model protection areas based on a median I/N of -12 dB at 
earth stations with TT&C earth stations operating in accordance with 
section 25.202(g) (47 CFR 25.202(g)). We find that utilizing the same 
protection criteria for in-band FSS earth stations and C-Band TT&C 
earth stations is in the public interest and consistent with the 
Commission's goals for this band. In addition, because these TT&C 
functions are performed from relatively few C-Band earth stations, the 
additional protection we are providing should not present a significant 
impediment to deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band or a significant 
additional burden for SAS Administrators. C-Band earth stations used 
for TT&C functions will be protected using the same processes and 
technological assumptions used to protect earth stations in the 3600-
3700 MHz band, as described in section IV(C)(1). In light of our 
conclusions below on the potential for interference, we believe this 
approach strikes the appropriate balance between the concerns of C-Band 
licensees and the need to create an environment conducive to robust 
deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band.
    299. Though we find that C-Band earth stations used for TT&C should 
be afforded protection based on a maximum I/N at their receivers, we do 
not agree with the methodology or results of the Alion report. As 
Federated Wireless argues, the Alion report submitted by the Content 
Interests relies on a series of worst case assumptions and overly 
conservative protection thresholds in reaching its conclusions about 
the requisite protection distances for C-Band FSS earth stations. We 
also take note of the TAC's recent assertion, cited by Federated 
Wireless, that ``selecting single values, often extreme `worst case' 
values, is not representative of actual risk.'' We agree and believe 
that Alion's worst case assumptions combine to predict unrealistic and 
overly restrictive protection areas which would stifle investment and 
disincentivize new deployments. Protecting C-Band earth stations in the 
manner suggested by Alion would be inconsistent with our approach to 
in-band FSS protection and would lead to inefficient spectrum use. As 
such--just as with protection of in-band FSS earth stations--we are 
basing protection of C-Band FSS earth stations used for TT&C on real 
world deployment scenarios and operational conditions.
    300. As evidenced by our adoption of an interference limit equal to 
an I/N of -12 dB, we also find that SIA and GCI's request to protect 
adjacent band FSS based on an I/N of -20 dB would lead to 
overprotection of C-Band FSS earth stations and is not reflective of 
the actual, real world protection requirements of C-Band earth 
stations. Similarly, we reject SIA's modelling

[[Page 49061]]

approach which is based on an even more stringent I/N of -23 dB. We 
agree with Google that this level of protection is unnecessary and 
would likely overprotect C-Band FSS earth stations to a significant 
degree. Indeed, Google contends that limiting emissions at the earth 
station receiver to an I/N of -20 dB would limit noise floor 
degradation to a virtually unmeasurable 0.04 dB and limit interference 
temperature to an amount equivalent to about ``half of the cosmic 
microwave background left over from the Big Bang.'' From the record, it 
is unclear why adjacent band receivers should be protected to such a 
stringent degree. Indeed, we can see no compelling public interest 
reason to provide a greater degree of protection to services in an 
adjacent band than we provide to co-primary services in the same band. 
Accordingly, we find that the I/N limits advocated by SIA, GCI, and the 
Content Interests are excessive and would lead to over-protection of 
FSS earth stations in the C-Band. Such excessive protection would be 
inconsistent with the Commission's desire to promote sharing and 
encourage the robust development of innovative services in the 3.5 GHz 
Band. Rather, we find that earth stations eligible for additional 
protections under the rules (i.e., those with TT&C operations just 
above 3700 MHz) should be protected using the same I/N limit and 
methodology used to protect FSS earth stations in the 3.5 GHz Band.
    301. While we do not believe that the public interest would be 
served by requiring geographic protection of all C-Band FSS earth 
stations, elsewhere in this order we adopt additional measures that 
will help to address and mitigate the interference concerns raised by 
commenters. Specifically, as described in section III(H), we adopt a 
rule requiring SAS Administrators to accept and respond promptly to 
reports of interference or requests for additional protection from C-
Band licensees (47 CFR 96.17(f)). We encourage SAS Administrators to 
take appropriate steps to address any requests or complaints that they 
receive, and direct WTB and OET to review complaint receipt and 
resolution procedures during the SAS approval process. We emphasize 
that the Commission retains ultimate authority over and responsibility 
for addressing interference issues and conflicts between licensees. If 
interference issues are not addressed in a satisfactory matter, the 
Commission may impose additional requirements to ensure timely 
mitigation and resolution.
    302. Finally, we note that, consistent with the approach used to 
protect in band FSS earth stations described in section IV(C)(1), the 
Commission's rules assume the use of commercially available filters to 
mitigate interference from OOBE. C-Band FSS earth stations seeking 
protection under section 96.17 (47 CFR 96.17) of the Commission's rules 
should employ appropriate filters to mitigate interference issues. Any 
protections developed and implemented by SASs--whether mandatory 
protections of earth stations used for TT&C or protections developed by 
an SAS in response to a coordination request under section 96.17(f)--
will assume that such filters are in use (47 CFR 96.17(f)). While we 
acknowledge that filters may not address all interference issues, there 
is significant evidence in the record that filters are readily 
available at a reasonable price and can help alleviate interference 
concerns in many cases. We expect that, in an environment with multiple 
co-primary services in adjacent bands, the responsibility for 
interference mitigation and avoidance will be shared among the parties.
3. Device Authorization
a. Background
    303. In the Second FNPRM we sought comment on Google's suggestion 
that market incentives may be feasible to encourage industry to deploy 
radios with improved (lower) adjacent emissions. We sought comment on 
how such protection could be practically implemented without burdensome 
equipment authorization requirements, necessitating changes to our part 
2 rules (47 CFR 2.1, et seq.), and whether it could be achieved by 
defining a small number of classes of devices that are distinguished by 
increasingly stringent OOBE limits.
    304. In response, Google reiterated its argument that by allowing 
devices with better emissions performance to operate in closer 
proximity to FSS operations the Commission would foster investment in 
devices with improved OOBE characteristics. Google stresses that CBSDs 
would not be required to meet OOBE requirements that are more stringent 
than the ones set forth in part 96 but manufacturers should be given 
the option to build devices that outperform the baseline requirements. 
In turn, these devices could access spectrum in geographic areas not 
accessible to devices with standard OOBE performance.
    305. Google claims that adopting such an approach to OOBE will 
require only minor adjustments to the Commission's equipment 
certification framework and proposes specific changes to this process. 
According to Google, certification reports should: (1) Specify actual 
levels of OOBE; and (2) state the minimum level, in dB, by which the 
device is lower than the regulatory limits (47 CFR 96.41(e)). The test 
lab should also categorize the device within a class based on how much 
it reduces OOBE beyond what is required and the device's class should 
be included as a field in the FCC's certification database.
    306. Federated Wireless states that it notionally supports Google's 
proposal but urges the Commission to carefully review the proposed 
modifications to our equipment authorization rules before making 
changes that could hinder commercial development in the 3.5 GHz Band. 
However, Federated Wireless also contends that it is possible that 
Google's proposal for a process to categorize better performing devices 
could be achieved by modifying the part 96 rules to state that when 
equipment makers demonstrate conformance of CBSDs and end user devices 
pursuant to other rule parts, they should provide the supporting data 
to demonstrate conformance rather than just a pass/fail result.
    307. SIA and Qualcomm both address this issue, as well. SIA 
cautions that that ``relying on market incentives could undermine 
device quality, since competitive pricing can eliminate the price 
premium needed to achieve and maintain high quality in device 
production.'' Further, SIA states that regardless of whether 
manufacturers choose to market devices that perform better than is 
required by OOBE limits, the devices would still need to be certified 
to provide consumers with adequate assurances about a given device's 
performance. Qualcomm expressly asks the Commission to reject Google's 
proposal, arguing that since the OOBE limit ``just 20 MHz outside the 
band edges will force 3.5 GHz equipment, at least mobile devices, to 
implement power back-off, the FCC should not implement even tighter 
OOBE limits at the upper edge of the band for certain classes of 
devices to protect C-band FSS earth stations as described in the Second 
FNPRM.'' Qualcomm argues that developing multiple classes of devices 
would challenge equipment designs and likely force mobile devices to 
use significantly less power and/or operate well within the 3.5 GHz 
band edge to comply. Moreover, Qualcomm argues that should the 
Commission consider implementing classes of devices with tighter OOBE 
limits, it should first ``verify that satellite receiver blocking is 
`not' the actual limiting factor, in which case more stringent OOBE 
limits would not help and would be an unnecessary

[[Page 49062]]

regulatory burden.'' Google counters Qualcomm's arguments claiming that 
Qualcomm appears to misunderstand Google's proposal, because no CBSD 
would be required to meet more stringent OOBE requirements than set 
forth in part 96. Instead, manufacturers would have the option to build 
devices that outperform baseline requirements.
b. Discussion
    308. We decline to make changes to our existing equipment 
certification process or the rules governing OOBE power levels for 
CBSDs and End User Devices. We must balance our over-arching goal of 
encouraging innovation with the fact that the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service and the devices that will operate in the band are in the 
nascent stages of development. As such, the rules that govern them must 
not be overly complicated and must adequately protect incumbents. At 
this stage, we believe that Google's proposal would add unnecessary 
complication to our device authorization process, particularly in the 
early stages of testing equipment that will operate in the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service. Further, there is no specific data that shows 
this approach would not create a risk to incumbent operations and, as 
noted by Qualcomm, it may not be effective at all if satellite receiver 
blocking is more limiting than OOBE.
    309. We disagree with Google that its proposal would only require 
minor changes to our equipment authorization process or that such 
changes would be easily implementable. As noted by Federated Wireless, 
the suggested modifications could require the Commission to conduct an 
additional rulemaking. Such a rulemaking--and any new certification 
procedures adopted therein--could delay commercial deployment in the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Therefore, on balance, we find that 
it is in the public interest to proceed using the current device 
certification rules to ensure that service is made available quickly 
and without unintended consequences. However, we remain open to the 
possibility of variable device certifications for different OOBE 
capabilities and we may revisit this issue in the future.

V. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    310. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, the Commission included a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis in the Report and Order (see https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001755029.pdf).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    311. This Order on Reconsideration and Second 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. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment 
on how we might ``further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    312. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 
U.S.C. 603-604), 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 Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration 
(Second Order and Order on Reconsideration), as applicable. The 
Commission will send a copy of this Second Order including this FRFA, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA). In addition, the Second Order and Order on Reconsideration and 
FRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
    313. As required by the RFA, the Commission incorporated an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Order (NPRM), Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(FNPRM) and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) 
and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in the R&O. 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.

C. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    314. In this Second Order and Order on Reconsideration we finalize 
the rules governing the innovative Citizens Broadband Radio Service in 
the 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz Band). In the R&O, the Commission 
adopted rules for commercial use of the 3.5 GHz Band, including 
technical and use rules and interference protection measures, which was 
used for Department of Defense Radar services and commercial fixed 
Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations (space-to-earth) prior creation 
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.
    315. Facing ever-increasing demands of wireless innovation and 
constrained availability of clear sources of spectrum, the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service is an opportunity to add much-needed capacity 
through innovative sharing. The R&O represented 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. Through this Second Order, we finalize 
the regulatory scheme we created in 2015, putting in place the last 
rules necessary for this service to become commercially available. 
These rules address the definition of ``use'' by Priority Access 
Licensees, access to the 3.5 GHz Band via secondary markets, and FSS 
protection criteria.
    316. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service takes advantage of 
advances in technology and spectrum policy to dissolve age-old 
regulatory divisions between commercial and federal users, exclusive 
and non-exclusive authorizations, and private and carrier networks. The 
regulatory framework takes from recommendations from the President's 
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and substantial 
engagement and input from stakeholders representing a cross section of 
the communications, technology, and public interest realms.
    317. The comprehensive regulatory scheme adopted in the R&O 
included specific licensing, technical, and service rules to enable 
dynamic sharing between three tiers of users in the 3.5 GHz Band. The 
Spectrum Access System (SAS) is the advanced frequency coordinator (or 
coordinators) necessary to assign rights and maximize efficiency in the 
band. The SAS(s) will incorporate information from the Environmental 
Sensing Capability (ESC), which will be used to increase available 
spectrum in coastal areas while continuing to protect incumbent 
Department of Defense radar systems.
    318. In this Second Order and Order on Reconsideration, we reaffirm 
this regulatory scheme, and deny several petitions for reconsideration 
of various aspects of the R&O. We also grant certain requests for 
reconsideration, including the following: We increase the power limit 
for non-rural Category B CBSDs to that applicable in rural areas,

[[Page 49063]]

provide greater flexibility on how to measure and direct the power, 
revise our rules to make clear that SASs must be capable of receiving 
and responding to interference complaints from FSS earth station 
licensees, and allow a single PAL to be issued in License Areas located 
in Rural Areas without an auction. Finally, we define what PAL uses 
serve to preclude GAA uses, slightly modify our streamlined spectrum 
leasing and assignment procedures for application in the 3.5 GHz band, 
decline to permit partitioning and disaggregation in the band, and 
provide for interference protections for FSS earth stations in this 
band and the adjacent C-band. We developed a comprehensive approach 
intended to balance consideration of complex issues and competing 
considerations involved in creating a sharing regime in this band, and 
each rule is a necessary component. We reaffirm our commitment to add 
much needed capacity spectrum to the marketplace through innovative 
sharing rules and techniques, and believe the rules established in the 
R&O, as amended by the Second Order and Order on Reconsideration are 
the best means to do so.
    319. As a result of the Commission's actions in the R&O and Second 
Order and Order on Reconsideration, 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. Further, small businesses 
can access this spectrum on the secondary market. The Commission's 
actions in the Second Order and Order on Reconsideration thus 
constitute a significant benefit for small businesses.

D. Legal Basis

    320. 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.

E. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    321. 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. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    322. 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. As of 2010, there were 28.2 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.'' 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.'' 
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.
    323. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular 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. 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.
    324. 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. Under the 
``Other Telecommunications'' category, a business is considered small 
if it had $32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
    325. 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.
    326. 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

[[Page 49064]]

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. 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.
    327. While our rule changes may have an impact on both 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.
    328. 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. 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.

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

    329. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements resulting from the Second Order and Order on 
Reconsideration will apply to all entities in the same manner, 
consistent with the approach we adopted in the R&O. It is possible that 
small entities will need to hire attorneys and engineers on a contract 
basis to comply with the rules. We believe that while our proposals 
require small entities to 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 
will constitute a significant benefit for small business.
    330. Order on Reconsideration. Under the amended rules, FSS earth 
station licensees may request additional protection from SAS 
Administrators to prevent harmful interference and in order to provide 
additional protection for out-of-band earth stations with telemetry, 
tracking, and control (TT&C) responsibilities, we extend the annual 
registration requirement to these sites.
    331. Second Order. Under the new rules, Priority Access Licensees 
may transfer, assign, or lease their spectrum on the secondary market. 
In order to benefit from the streamlined approach to spectrum manager 
leasing applicable to the 3.5 GHz Band, lessees may seek certification 
from the Commission that they are qualified to act as a Commission 
licensee and licensees must notify the SAS of the leasing arrangement 
before the lessee commences service. This process is similar to the 
certification and notification requirements to invoke immediate 
processing under existing spectrum manager leasing rules. Further, we 
extend the current process for transfers, assignments, and de facto 
leases to the 3.5 GHz Band. The reporting requirements are no different 
from the reporting requirements already required for all other services 
to which our secondary market policies apply.
    332. Under the new rules, as part of the requirements for defining 
PAL Protection Areas, Priority Access Licensees must notify the SAS if 
a previously activated CBSD is no longer in use and may choose to self-
report protection contours smaller than the default protection contour 
to the SAS.

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

    333. 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.
    334. Order on Reconsideration. The reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements resulting from this order 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. All Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service Devices (CBSDs) must comply with the amended 
technical and operational requirements aimed at preventing interference 
to Incumbent Access and Priority Access users, including revised power 
limits non-rural Category B CBSDs and elimination of conducted power 
limits for all CBSDs and the revised method for defining a Priority 
Access Licensee's protection area. We believe changes will provide 
operational flexibility to Priority Access Licensees and GAA users, 
which, regardless of size, must operate CBSDs that meet these technical 
requirements.
    335. Second Order. The reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
compliance requirements resulting from the Second Order 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 definition of use adopted in the Second Order leverages advances in 
computing technology and economics to determine protection contours by 
adopting a SAS-based engineering approach, while allowing Priority 
Access Licensees to report their Protection Areas based on actual 
network deployment. Establishing a baseline protection criteria will 
allow General Authorized Access users reasonable opportunities for 
additional access to the band. We considered adopting an economic or 
hybrid economic/engineering definition of use but determined an 
engineering approach would promote the most efficient use of the band 
by all entities. Further, we permit access to the 3.5 GHz Band

[[Page 49065]]

through secondary markets and adopt a light-touch version of our 
leasing rules that will allow Priority Access Licensees to lease any 
portion of their spectrum or geographic area, outside of its PAL 
Protection Area, for any bandwidth or duration period of time within 
the terms of the license. We believe that this streamlined approach to 
leasing will benefit all entities, including small entities, by 
allowing them to gain immediate access to spectrum to implement their 
business plans with reduced regulatory delay and transaction costs.

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

    336. None.

I. Report to Congress

    337. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order 
and Order on Reconsideration, including the FRFA, in a report to 
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy the Second Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). A copy of this 
Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration and FRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register (5 U.SC. 
603(a)).

J. Congressional Review Act

    338. The Commission will send a copy of this Order on 
Reconsideration and Second 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).

VI. Ordering Clauses

    339. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
4(j), 5(c), 302, 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), 302, 303, 
304, 307(e), and 316, that this Order on Reconsideration and Second 
Report and Order in GN Docket No. 12-354 is adopted and the rules 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 document in the Federal 
Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.
    340. It is further ordered, pursuant to section 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and section 
1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that the petitions for 
reconsideration of the Report and Order and Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking are denied, except to the extent set forth in this 
Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order.
    341. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common 
carriers, Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 2

    Communications equipment, Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 96

    Telecommunications, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 2, and 96 as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. 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
2. Section 1.9005 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.9005  Included services.

* * * * *
    (p) The Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3550-3650 MHz band 
(part 96 of this chapter).
* * * * *

0
3. Section 1.9020 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.9020  Spectrum manager leasing arrangements.

* * * * *
    (e) Notifications regarding spectrum manager leasing arrangements. 
A licensee that seeks to enter into a spectrum manager leasing 
arrangement must notify the Commission of the arrangement in advance of 
the spectrum lessee's commencement of operations under the lease. 
Unless the license covering the spectrum to be leased is held pursuant 
to the Commission's designated entity rules and continues to be subject 
to unjust enrichment requirements and/or transfer restrictions (see 
Sec. Sec.  1.2110 and 1.2111, and Sec. Sec.  24.709, 24.714, and 24.839 
of this chapter) or restrictions in Sec.  1.9046 and Sec.  96.32 of 
this chapter, the spectrum manager lease notification will be processed 
pursuant to either the general notification procedures or the immediate 
processing procedures, as set forth herein. The licensee must submit 
the notification to the Commission by electronic filing using the 
Universal Licensing System (ULS) and FCC Form 608, except that a 
licensee falling within the provisions of Sec.  1.913(d) may file the 
notification either electronically or manually. If the license covering 
the spectrum to be leased is held pursuant to the Commission's 
designated entity rules, the spectrum manager lease will require 
Commission acceptance of the spectrum manager lease notification prior 
to the commencement of operations under the lease.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 1.9046 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  1.9046  Special provisions related to spectrum manager leasing in 
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service.

    (a) Scope. Subject to Sec.  96.32 of this chapter, a Priority 
Access Licensee, as defined in Sec.  96.3 of this chapter, is permitted 
to engage in spectrum manager leasing for any portion of its spectrum 
or geographic area, outside of the PAL Protection Area, for any 
bandwidth or duration period of time within the terms of the license 
with any entity that has provided a certification to the Commission in 
accordance with this section or pursuant to the general notification 
procedures of Sec.  1.9020(e).
    (b) Certification. The lessee seeking to engage in spectrum manager 
leasing pursuant to this section must certify with the Commission that 
it meets the same eligibility and qualification requirements applicable 
to the licensee before entering into a spectrum manger leasing 
arrangement with a Priority Access Licensee, as defined in Sec.  96.3 
of this chapter and maintain the accuracy of such certifications.
    (1) Priority Access Licensees, as defined in Sec.  96.3 of this 
chapter, are

[[Page 49066]]

deemed to meet the certification requirements.
    (2) Entities may also certify by using the Universal Licensing 
System and FCC Form 608.
    (c) Notifications regarding spectrum manager leasing arrangements. 
Prior to lessee operation, the licensee seeking to engage in spectrum 
manager leasing pursuant to Sec.  1.9020(e) must submit notification of 
the leasing arrangement to the Spectrum Access System Administrator, as 
defined in Sec.  96.3 of this chapter, by electronic filing. The 
notification shall include the following information:
    (1) Lessee contact information including name, address, telephone 
number, fax number, email address;
    (2) Lessee FCC Registration Number (FRN);
    (3) Name of Real Party in Interest and related FCC Registration 
Number (FRN);
    (4) The specific spectrum leased (in terms of amount of bandwidth 
and geographic area involved) including the call sign(s) affected by 
the lease; and
    (5) The duration of the lease.
    (d) Expiration, extension, or termination of a spectrum leasing 
arrangement. (1) Absent Commission termination or except as provided in 
paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section, a spectrum leasing arrangement 
entered into pursuant to this section will expire on the termination 
date set forth in the spectrum leasing notification.
    (2) A spectrum leasing arrangement may be extended beyond the 
initial term set forth in the spectrum leasing notification for an 
additional period not to exceed the term of the Priority Access 
License, as defined in Sec.  96.3 of this chapter, provided that the 
licensee notifies the Spectrum Access System Administrator, as defined 
in Sec.  96.3 of this chapter, of the extension in advance of operation 
under the extended term and does so pursuant to the notification 
procedures in this section.
    (3) If a spectrum leasing arrangement is terminated earlier than 
the termination date set forth in the notification, either by the 
licensee or by the parties' mutual agreement, the licensee must file a 
notification with the Spectrum Access System Administrator, no later 
than ten (10) days after the early termination, indicating the date of 
the termination. If the parties fail to put the spectrum leasing 
arrangement into effect, they must so notify the Spectrum Access System 
Administrator as promptly as practicable.
    (e) The Commission will place information concerning the 
commencement, an extension or an early termination of a spectrum 
leasing arrangement on public notice.

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

0
5. 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
6. Section 2.106 is amended in the footnote for US107 by revising 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  2.106  Table of frequency allocations.

* * * * *

United States (US) Footnotes

* * * * *
    US107 * * *
    (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 repair or 
replacement of equipment; changes in polarization, antenna orientation, 
or ownership; and increases in antenna size for interference mitigation 
purposes.
* * * * *

PART 96--CITIZENS BROADBAND RADIO SERVICE

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

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


0
8. Section 96.3 is amended by adding the definition for ``PAL 
Protection Area'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  96.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    PAL Protection Area. The area within the Priority Access Licensee's 
default protection contour, as calculated by the SAS in accordance with 
Sec.  96.25 (or smaller, self-reported protection contour). This area 
will be protected from interference in accordance with Sec. Sec.  96.25 
and 96.41(d).
* * * * *

0
9. Section 96.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(4) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  96.15  Protection of federal incumbent users.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Within 300 seconds after the ESC communicates that it has 
detected a signal from a federal system in a given area, or the SAS is 
otherwise notified of current federal incumbent use of the band, the 
SAS must either confirm suspension of the CBSD's operation or its 
relocation to another unoccupied frequency, if available. If the 
President of the United States (or another designated Federal 
Government entity) issues instructions to discontinue use of CBSDs 
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 606, SAS Administrators must instruct CBSDs to 
cease operations as soon as technically possible.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Within 300 seconds after the ESC communicates that it has 
detected a signal from a federal system in a given area, or the SAS is 
otherwise notified of current federal incumbent use of the band, the 
SAS must either confirm suspension of the CBSD's operation or its 
relocation to another unoccupied frequency. If the President of the 
United States (or another designated Federal Government entity) issues 
instructions to discontinue use of CBSDs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 606, SAS 
Administrators must instruct CBSDs to cease operations as soon as 
technically possible.

0
10. Section 96.17 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) and by adding paragraphs (d)(1)(vi) and 
(f) to read as follows:


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

    (a) FSS earth stations licensed to operate in the 3600-3700 MHz 
band listed at www.fcc.gov/cbrs-protected-fss-sites shall be protected 
from CBSD operation consistent with this section. The protections in 
this section shall only apply to registered FSS earth stations that are 
authorized to operate on a co-primary basis consistent with Sec.  2.106 
of this chapter.
    (1) FSS earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band will be afforded 
protection consistent with this section only after the conditions set 
forth in Sec.  96.21(c) are satisfied.
    (2) Co-channel. The aggregate passband radiofrequency (RF) power 
spectral density at the output of a reference RF filter and antenna at 
the location of an FSS earth station operating in the 3600-3700 MHz 
band, produced by emissions from all co-channel CBSDs (within 150 km) 
operating in the Citizens Band Radio Service shall not exceed a median 
root mean square (RMS) value of -129 dBm/MHz. The reference antenna 
system requires SAS to calculate antenna gain using Sec.  25.209(a)(1) 
and (4) of this chapter, and a reference RF filter between the feed-
horn and low noise amplifier (LNA)/low noise block

[[Page 49067]]

downconverter (LNB), with 0.5 dB insertion loss in the passband.
    (3) Blocking. The aggregate RF power at the output of a reference 
RF filter and antenna at the location of an FSS earth station operating 
in the 3600-3700 MHz band, produced by emissions from all CBSDs (within 
40 km), shall not exceed a median RMS value of -60 dBm. The reference 
antenna system requires an SAS to calculate antenna gain using Sec.  
25.209(a)(1) and (4) of this chapter, and a reference RF filter between 
the feed-horn and LNA/LNB, with a filter mask of 0.6 dB/MHz attenuation 
to 30.5 dB at 50 MHz offset below the lower edge of the FSS earth 
station's authorized passband, and 0.25 dB/MHz attenuation to 55.5 dB 
at an offset greater than or equal to 150 MHz below the lower edge of 
the FSS earth station's authorized passband.
    (b) Registered FSS earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band listed 
at www.fcc.gov/cbrs-protected-fss-sites shall be protected from CBSD 
operation in accordance with this section. Only licensed FSS earth 
stations used for satellite telemetry, tracking, and control (TT&C) 
operations will be protected under this section. Other licensed 3700-
4200 MHz earth stations may be protected consistent with Sec.  
96.17(f).
    (1) Out-of-band emissions into FSS. The aggregate passband RF power 
spectral density at the output of a reference RF filter and antenna at 
the location of a TT&C FSS earth station operating in the 3700-4200 MHz 
band, produced by emissions from all CBSDs (within 40 km) operating in 
the Citizens Band Radio Service shall not exceed a median RMS value of 
-129 dBm/MHz. The reference antenna system requires SAS to calculate 
antenna gain using Sec.  25.209(a)(1) and (4) of this chapter, and a 
reference RF filter between the feed-horn and LNA/LNB, with 0.5 dB 
insertion loss in the passband.
    (2) Blocking. The aggregate RF power at the output of a reference 
RF filter and antenna at the location of a TT&C FSS earth station 
operating in the 3700-4200 MHz band, produced by emissions from all 
CBSDs (within 40 km), shall not exceed a median RMS value of -60 dBm. 
The reference antenna system requires SAS to calculate antenna gain 
using Sec.  25.209(a)(1) and (4) of this chapter, and a reference RF 
filter between the feed-horn and LNA/LNB, with a filter mask of 0.6 dB/
MHz attenuation to 30.5 dB at 50 MHz offset below the lower edge of the 
FSS earth station's authorized passband, and 0.25 dB/MHz attenuation to 
55.5 dB at an offset greater than or equal to150 MHz below the lower 
edge of the FSS earth station's authorized passband.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) Whether the earth station is used for satellite telemetry, 
tracking, and control (for earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band).
* * * * *
    (e) CBSDs may operate within areas that may cause interference to 
FSS earth stations, in excess of the levels described in Sec.  96.17(a) 
and (b), 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.
    (f) FSS earth station licensees in the 3600-3700 and 3700-4200 MHz 
bands may request additional protection from SAS Administrators to 
prevent harmful interference into their systems. SAS Administrators 
must establish a process to receive and address such requests, 
consistent with Sec. Sec.  96.53(o) and 96.63 and shall make good faith 
efforts to address interference concerns, consistent with their other 
responsibilities under this part. In addressing such requests, SASs 
shall assume that 3700-4200 MHz earth stations are utilizing filters 
with the characteristics described in Sec.  96.17(a)(3) or (b)(2) as 
appropriate for the 3600-3700 or 3700-4200 MHz band.

0
11. Section 96.21 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (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 47 CFR part 90, subpart Z, 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 FSS earth stations in the 3600-3700 MHz band shall apply.

0
12. Section 96.25 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  96.25  Priority access licenses.

* * * * *
    (c) PAL Protection Areas. PAL channels shall be made available for 
assignment by the SAS for General Authorized Access use only in areas 
outside of PAL Protection Areas consistent with this section and Sec.  
96.41(d).
    (1) A CBSD will be considered to be in use for purposes of 
calculating a PAL Protection Area once it is registered and authorized 
for use on a Priority Access basis by an SAS consistent with Sec. Sec.  
96.39, 96.53, and 96.57.
    (i) Priority Access Licensees must inform the SAS if a previously 
activated CBSD is no longer in use.
    (ii) Any CBSD that does not make contact with the SAS for seven 
days shall not be considered in use and will be excluded from the 
calculation of the PAL Protection Area until such time as contact with 
the SAS is re-established.
    (2) The default protection contour will be determined by the SAS as 
a -96 dBm/10 MHz contour around each CBSD. The default protection 
contour will be calculated based on information included in the CBSD 
registration and shall be determined and enforced consistently across 
all SASs.
    (i) The default protection contour is the outer limit of the PAL 
Protection Area for any CBSD but a Priority Access Licensee may choose 
to self-report protection contours smaller than the default protection 
contour to the SAS.
    (ii) If the PAL Protection Areas for multiple CBSDs operated by the 
same Priority Access Licensees overlap, the SAS shall combine the PAL 
Protection Areas for such CBSDs into a single protection area.
    (3) The PAL Protection Area may not extend beyond the boundaries of 
the Priority Access Licensee's Service Area.

0
13. Section 96.29 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  96.29  Competitive bidding procedures.

* * * * *
    (d) Except in Rural Areas, 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. In Rural Areas, 
when there is only one application for initial Priority Access Licenses 
in a License Area, that applicant will be granted a PAL if otherwise 
qualified under the Commission's rules.

0
14. Section 96.31 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 49068]]

Sec.  96.31  Aggregation of priority access licenses.

    (a) Priority Access Licensees may aggregate up to four PAL channels 
in any License Area at any given time.
    (b) The criteria in Sec.  20.22(b) of this chapter will apply in 
order to attribute partial ownership and other interests for the 
purpose of applying the aggregation limit in paragraph (a) of this 
section.

0
15. Add Sec.  96.32 to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec.  96.32  Priority access assignments of authorization, transfers of 
control, and leasing arrangements.

    (a) Priority Access Licensees may transfer or assign their licenses 
and enter into de facto leasing arrangements in accordance with part 1 
of this chapter.
    (b) Priority Access Licensees may not partition or disaggregate 
their licenses or partially assign or transfer their licenses nor may 
they enter into de facto leasing arrangements for a portion of their 
licenses.
    (c) Priority Access Licensees may enter into spectrum manager 
leasing arrangements with approved entities as prescribed in Sec.  
1.9046 of this chapter. Priority Access Licensees may only enter into 
leasing arrangements for areas that are within their Service Area and 
outside of their PAL Protection Areas.

0
16. Section 96.35 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


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, consistent with Sec.  96.25(c).
* * * * *

0
17. Section 96.41 is revised to read as follows:


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) Power limits. Unless otherwise specified in this section, the 
maximum effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) and maximum Power 
Spectral Density (PSD) of any CBSD and End User Device must comply with 
the limits shown in the table in this paragraph (b):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Maximum
                                                EIRP  (dBm/  Maximum PSD
                    Device                           10        (dBm/MHz)
                                                 megahertz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End User Device...............................           23          n/a
Category A CBSD...............................           30           20
Category B CBSD \1\...........................           47           37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 for all locations within the PAL 
Protection Area 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 paragraph (e)(2) of 
this section, for channel and frequency assignments made by the SAS to 
CBSDs, the conducted 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 conducted 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 conducted power of any emissions 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) Compliance with emission limits shall be demonstrated using 
either average (RMS)-detected or peak-detected power measurement 
techniques.
    (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

[[Page 49069]]

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.
    (g) Power measurement. The peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) of 
any CBSD transmitter output power must not exceed 13 dB. PAPR 
measurements should be made using either an instrument with 
complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) capabilities or 
another Commission approved procedure. The measurement must be 
performed using a signal corresponding to the highest PAPR expected 
during periods of continuous transmission.

0
18. Section 96.53 is amended by revising paragraph (i) and by adding 
paragraph (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  96.53  Spectrum access system purposes and functionality.

* * * * *
    (i) To protect Priority Access Licensees from interference caused 
by other PALs and from General Authorized Access Users, including the 
calculation and enforcement of PAL Protection Areas, consistent with 
Sec.  96.25.
* * * * *
    (o) To receive reports of interference and requests for additional 
protection from Incumbent Access users and promptly address 
interference issues.

0
19. Section 96.57 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (e) An SAS must calculate and enforce PAL Protection Areas 
consistent with Sec.  96.25 and such calculation and enforcement shall 
be consistent across all SASs.

0
20. Add Sec.  96.66 to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec.  96.66  Spectrum access system responsibilities related to 
priority access spectrum manager leases.

    (a) An SAS Administrator that chooses to accept and support leasing 
notifications shall:
    (1) Verify that the lessee is on the certification list, as 
established in Sec.  1.9046 of this chapter.
    (2) Establish a process for acquiring and storing the lease 
notification information and synchronizing this information, including 
information about the expiration, extension, or termination of leasing 
arrangements, with the Commission databases at least once a day;
    (3) Verify that the lease will not result in the lessee holding 
more than the 40 megahertz of Priority Access spectrum in a given 
License Area;
    (4) Verify that the area to be leased is within the Priority Access 
Licensee's Service Area and outside of the Priority Access Licensee's 
PAL Protection Area; and
    (5) Provide confirmation to licensee and lessee whether the 
notification has been received and verified.
    (b) During the period of the lease and within the geographic area 
of a lease, SASs shall treat any CBSD operated by the lessee the same 
as a similarly situated CBSDs operated by the lessor for frequency 
assignment and interference mitigation purposes.

[FR Doc. 2016-14505 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P