[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20011-20031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09416]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 2, 90

[WP Docket No. 07-100; FCC 18-33]


4.9 GHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In 2002, the Commission allocated the 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) 
band for fixed and mobile use and designated the band for public safety 
broadband communications. Since then, the band has experienced 
relatively light usage compared to the heavy use of other public safety 
bands. In this document, the Commission proposes several rule changes 
and seeks comment on alternatives with the goal of promoting increased 
public safety use of the band while opening up the spectrum to 
additional uses that will encourage a more robust market for equipment 
and greater innovation. The Commission proposes rules on channel 
aggregation, aeronautical mobile use, frequency coordination, site-
based licensing, regional planning, and technical rule changes with the 
goal of promoting increased use of the band. The Commission seeks 
comment on alternatives such as expanding eligibility, spectrum 
leasing, sharing, and redesignating the band for commercial use.

DATES: Submit comments on or before July 6, 2018. Submit reply comments 
August 6, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WP Docket No. 07-100 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and 
Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 
20554. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     Hand or Messenger Delivery: 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-
A325, Washington, DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Sixth FNPRM) in WP Docket No. 
07-100, adopted on March 22, 2018 and released as FCC 18-33 on March 
23, 2018. The complete text of this document is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats (computer diskette, 
large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available to persons with 
disabilities or by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530, TTY (202) 
418-0432. This document is also available on the Commission's website 
at http://www.fcc.gov.

Comments

    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.

Introduction

    The Commission has allocated and designated 50 megahertz of 
spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band (4940-4990 MHz) to public safety. Although 
nearly 90,000 public safety entities are eligible under our rules to 
obtain licenses in the band, there were only 2,442 licenses in use in 
2012 and only 3,174 licenses in use nearly six years later in 2018. 
With no more than 3.5% of potential licensees using the band, we remain 
concerned that, as the Commission stated in 2012, the band has ``fallen 
short of its potential.''
    Public safety entities have offered several reasons why the band 
has seen less use than expected. One reason cited is the difficulty of 
acquiring equipment and the cost of deployment. According

[[Page 20012]]

to the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials 
International's (APCO) 4.9 GHz Task Force Report (APCO Report), ``the 
public safety user community remains small relative to the greater 
consumer marketplace,'' which ``has historically resulted in a limited 
vendor ecosystem, specialized devices, and higher costs.'' We also 
believe that a lack of available equipment for mobile applications has 
impeded widespread use of the band by public safety. The National 
Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) has argued that 
interference concerns have also suppressed use of the 4.9 GHz band. In 
its 4.9 GHz NPSTC Plan Recommendations Final Report (NPSTC Plan), NPSTC 
notes that because the Commission's current rules ``allow 
geographically based licensing with little documentation on system 
design and transmitter location,'' public safety ``contemplating new 
service in this band cannot determine if other agencies in their area 
might cause harmful interference today or in the future.''
    In this Sixth FNPRM, we seek comment on several alternatives to 
stimulate expanded use of and investment in the 4.9 GHz band, drawing 
on comments in the record as well as the NPSTC Plan submitted in 2013 
and the APCO Report submitted in 2015. Our goal is to ensure that 
public safety continues to have priority in the band while opening up 
the band to additional uses that will facilitate increased usage, 
including more prominent mobile use, and encourage a more robust market 
for equipment and greater innovation, while protecting primary users 
from harmful interference. We believe that with an appropriate sharing 
mechanism in place, which we discuss in further detail below, our 
proposed approach will promote more opportunistic use of the 4.9 GHz 
band without compromising the integrity and security of public safety 
operations.

Background

    In June 2012, the Commission released the Fifth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (Fifth FNPRM) in which it sought comment on rule 
changes intended to establish frequency coordination procedures for 4.9 
GHz operations and to encourage spectrum efficiency and greater use of 
the 4.9 GHz band. It sought comment on how 4.9 GHz licensees currently 
use this spectrum, what applications and uses are best suited for the 
band, and what are the most cost-effective ways to improve 
accessibility to the band while minimizing adverse impact on incumbent 
operations. The Commission sought views on alternative frequency 
coordination proposals for 4.9 GHz licensees. The Commission also 
sought comment on specific proposals regarding expanded eligibility for 
critical infrastructure industry (CII) entities, for commercial 
entities on a secondary basis, subject to a shutdown feature, and for 
the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet). The Commission also 
sought comment about the impact of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 
Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) on broadband uses of the 4.9 GHz 
band by public safety entities. Finally, the Commission sought comment 
on whether to allow aeronautical mobile use in the 4.9 GHz band.
    The responsive comments to the Fifth FNPRM illustrate the wide 
variety of existing systems operating in the 4.9 GHz band and 
underscore the importance of developing rules that promote flexible use 
and maximize spectrum efficiency. Since the Fifth FNPRM the Commission 
has continued to build the record on the 4.9 GHz band. In October 2013, 
NPSTC submitted detailed recommendations in the NPSTC Plan, and the 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) released a Public 
Notice seeking comment on the proposals in the NPSTC Plan. In September 
2015, the APCO Report provided additional recommendations on how to 
increase public safety use of the band, reduce equipment costs, and 
drive investment in up-to-date technology in the band.

Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Taking into consideration the record in response to the Fifth 
FNPRM, comments on the NPSTC Plan, the APCO Report, and more recent ex 
parte filings, we now propose a limited set of rules for the 4.9 GHz 
band to promote more flexible and intensive use of this spectrum while 
preventing interference. We also seek comment on current usage and what 
types of services are being provided. Our goals are (a) to support the 
needs of public safety while opening the band to other compatible uses, 
(b) to maximize spectral efficiency and usage, (c) to promote a common 
equipment ecosystem that will drive down equipment costs and stimulate 
investment through economies of scale, (d) to encourage innovation, and 
(e) to ensure that secondary users do not cause interference to primary 
users.
    In this Sixth FNPRM, we review the major issues previously 
identified in the Fifth FNPRM; in the NPSTC Plan and the APCO Report 
and in comments on both of these evaluations; and in subsequent ex 
parte proposals. We then propose and seek comment on specific rules and 
policies intended to address each issue, and seek comment on and 
solicit alternative proposals.

Band Plan

    In the Fifth FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the current 
4.9 GHz band plan, which divides the band into ten one-megahertz 
channels (Channels 1-5 and 14-18) and eight five-megahertz channels 
(Channels 6-13), and limits channel aggregation bandwidth to 20 
megahertz. The NPSTC Plan proposes to keep this channelization, but 
recommends aggregating Channels 1-5 into a single 5 megahertz channel 
designated for air-to-ground communications and robotic use and 
proposes to reduce the current channel aggregation limit from 20 to 10 
megahertz. The APCO Report proposes no band plan changes but calls for 
relaxing the 20 megahertz channel aggregation limit, arguing that this 
would enable the band to accommodate 40 megahertz products that are 
currently available only outside the U.S., which relaxation could 
``create a better business case for manufacturers,'' and would 
``provide more options for rural deployments.''
    Discussion. Most commenters express support for the NPSTC band plan 
proposal. Based in part on the NPSTC band plan, we propose to retain 
the existing channelization plan for the band, but we seek comment 
below on more flexible aggregation limits, and in the Aeronautical 
Mobile and Robotic Use section, we propose to modify the 4.9 GHz band 
plan by aggregating Channels 1-5 to form a five-megahertz bandwidth 
channel for aeronautical mobile and robotic use. Although current 
geographic licenses authorize use of the entire 50 megahertz by all 
qualified services, we envision that under our revised rules we would 
grant licenses for specific uses that would authorize specific 
channels. We are concerned that the current geographic licensing model 
does not provide sufficient information on specific channel usage to 
facilitate effective frequency coordination, which we propose below for 
the 4.9 GHz band. For example, we seek comment on licensing base 
stations and hot spots site-by-site rather than blanket geographic 
licensing, and licensing these stations and mobiles for a specific 
channel or channels instead of the entire band, to the extent that 
channel use is static. Does 4.9 GHz equipment dynamically change 
channels as needed throughout

[[Page 20013]]

the band to avoid interference? We seek comment on these proposals.
    We further propose to expand the existing channel aggregation 
bandwidth limit to 40 megahertz and seek comment on that proposal, 
which could provide more options of the type advocated in the APCO 
Report, such as new rural deployments, and may enable public-safety 
access to 5G technologies. We seek comment on this proposal. We are 
concerned that narrowing the limit to 10 megahertz as proposed in the 
NPSTC Plan would constrain flexibility and discourage use of innovative 
broadband technologies. We nonetheless propose to allow Regional 
Planning Committees (RPCs) to submit plans to limit aggregations to 20 
megahertz. We solicit alternative band plan suggestions or 
modifications to the above. For example, should we permanently 
aggregate Channels 6-9 and 10-13 to form two 20-megahertz channels? We 
seek comment about the relative costs and benefits of wider channels. 
Are wider channels needed to drive innovation of equipment in the band, 
or are the current aggregation limits sufficient?
    We agree with commenters that any reconfiguration or repurposing of 
the 4.9 GHz band should not force incumbent licensees to modify, 
abandon, or replace existing 4.9 GHz facilities, which would impose 
technical, operational, and financial burdens on those incumbents. 
Therefore, we propose to grandfather all incumbent users as of the date 
any final rules become effective. As we discuss below in the Database 
and Existing Licensees section, we further propose that those incumbent 
licensees whose authorizations currently encompass the entire 4.9 GHz 
band must certify the channels they actually use when they input their 
transmitter and receiver parameters into the Commission's Universal 
Licensing System (ULS) database. Only those channels for which 
operating parameters have been supplied would receive protection. We 
seek comment on this approach, under which all new primary and 
secondary users of the band will be required to coordinate around and 
protect incumbent users. We also seek comment on whether a temporary 
licensing freeze before the release date of a report and order in this 
proceeding and lasting until the effective date of the final rules 
would be necessary to prevent the filing of applications for systems 
that are incompatible with the modified band plan.

Aeronautical Mobile and Robotic Use

    In the Fifth FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether to 
lift the general prohibition on aeronautical mobile operations in the 
4.9 GHz band. The Commission proposed to revise Sec.  90.1205(c) to 
permit aeronautical mobile operation in the band on a secondary, non-
interference basis to 4.9 GHz terrestrial services and subject to 
demonstrating interference protection to radio astronomy (RAS) 
operations. The Commission sought comment on whether to impose 
restrictions or conditions on aeronautical mobile use, such as an 
altitude limit of 1500 feet above ground.
    Eight parties filed comments to the Fifth FNPRM in support of 
allowing aeronautical mobile operations under such conditions. The 
National Academy of Sciences Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF), an 
organization representing RAS observatories, requests the following 
conditions: (1) Make the aeronautical use secondary to terrestrial 
services, including RAS; (2) limit the altitude of use of this band to 
1500 feet above the altitude of the observatory and limit operation to 
greater than 50 miles from observatories; (3) require aeronautical 
mobile applicants within 50 miles of protected observatories to 
demonstrate that the former will protect the latter from interference; 
and (4) require applicants within 50 miles of protected observatories 
to certify that they have served a copy of their application on such 
observatories. AASHTO recommends that air-to-ground operations that 
employ omnidirectional antennas should be limited to low power, while 
operations using steerable directional antennas that minimize 
interference to terrestrial users could employ higher power. FCCA/IAFC/
IMSA recommend a maximum altitude of ``500 feet above ground for 
direct, non-directional air-to-ground video feeds,'' a maximum 
bandwidth of five megahertz for a video feed, and a requirement that 
``aircraft providing video feeds to fixed remote receive sites must use 
steerable antennas and be limited to 1500 feet above ground level.''
    The NPSTC Plan recommends aggregating Channels 1-5 into a five-
megahertz channel to be used for air-to-ground communications and 
robotic communications. The NPSTC Plan would permit transmissions at 
altitudes up to 400 feet above ground level, and at higher altitudes if 
the licensee has a waiver. The proposal would require aeronautical 
mobile operations with an area of operation less than 80.5 km from 
listed RAS sites to obtain concurrence from the affected RAS site. 
NPSTC proposes licensing robotic operations on Channels 1-5 on a shared 
basis with air-to-ground operations, not allowing Channels 1-5 to be 
used for point-to-point (P-P) communications, and migrating existing 
users to other channels. APCO also supports these proposals, noting 
that ``modification of the existing rules, using the guidelines 
proposed in the NPSTC recommendations, would allow use of the 4.9 GHz 
band for air to ground communications, would add to the available 
public safety portfolio, and would assist with increasing public safety 
use of the spectrum.'' APCO also supports ``following the proposal 
contained in the NPSTC report with regard to robotic operations to 
allow for use of 4.9 GHz spectrum on a controlled and limited basis for 
robotic applications.''
    Discussion. We propose to designate Channels 1-5 as aeronautical 
mobile channels in the 4.9 GHz band. The proposed channel selection 
provides spectral separation from RAS operations in the 4950-4990 MHz 
band. As NPSTC notes, the 4.9 GHz band is an ideal short range band 
with the bandwidth required to transmit video from air to ground. 
Moreover, many law enforcement agencies operate helicopters and planes 
using video cameras and so could benefit from this rule change.
    We also propose to designate Channels 1-5 for robotic use. Although 
law enforcement has been using robots for several years, these devices 
currently operate on an unlicensed basis and are unprotected from 
interference. Modifying our rules to allow robotic operations could 
thus improve public safety. We seek comment on the relative costs and 
benefits of adding robotic use to this band. Is interference likely to 
be a problem for public safety robots? We propose to limit aerial 
transmitted information to video payload and to prohibit use of the 4.9 
GHz band for aircraft (including unmanned aircraft systems) command and 
control. We seek comment on these proposals and also request commenting 
parties to address whether similar restrictions on payload and command 
and control frequencies should be imposed on robotic uses.
    One of the potential cost of these rules would be that, for other 
than grandfathered licensees, the public safety use of Channels 1-5 
would be limited to aeronautical mobile and robotic operations. We seek 
comment on the extent to which limiting the flexibility of spectrum use 
in this manner imposes costs by, e.g., creating cumbersome regulatory 
obstacles to repurposing the spectrum for alternative public safety 
needs that may become more pressing as circumstances change. Are there 
any countervailing benefits in

[[Page 20014]]

establishing these proposed use restrictions? We also seek comment on 
the potential benefits of the proposed rule apart from such 
restrictions. Such benefits, which may be significant, would include 
that aeronautical mobile functionality would provide to first 
responders, who could use Channels 1-5 to transmit airborne video of 
emergency scenes such as wildfires, vehicle pursuits, and other events 
to assist in response and recovery efforts. A benefit of using these 
channels for robotic operations would be to enhance first responder 
safety by allowing users to send remote controlled, camera-equipped 
mobile devices into potentially dangerous situations. We seek comment 
on the magnitude of these and any other relative costs and benefits.
    Because we decline to propose mandatory relocation of incumbent 
terrestrial users on Channels 1-5, we therefore propose to require 
aeronautical mobile and robotic operations to be frequency coordinated 
around incumbent terrestrial users of Channels 1-5, consistent with the 
frequency coordination procedures proposed in the Coordination section 
below, including RPC review. We seek comment on the relative costs and 
benefits of this coordination requirement. Once aeronautical mobile and 
robotic operations are licensed, we propose to grant them co-primary 
status on Channels 1-5. Therefore, during an incident or emergency 
requiring such use, they would be able to operate on an equal basis 
with terrestrial users, around which they have already been 
coordinated, presenting a minimal risk of interference. To prevent 
future terrestrial licensing in the 4940-4945 MHz segment, we propose 
to revise Sec.  90.1207 so terrestrial-based licenses are only 
available in the 4945-4990 MHz segment rather than the entire band. We 
seek comment on the relative costs and benefits of these proposals and 
alternative approaches.
    While we propose to allow manned aeronautical use of Channels 1-5, 
we believe it would be premature at this time to permit unmanned aerial 
systems (UAS) to transmit in the 4.9 GHz band. The Federal Aviation 
Administration's (FAA) part 107 rules limit small UAS operations to 400 
feet altitude above ground, require visual line of sight aircraft 
operation, prohibit operations over people, and prohibit operation in 
certain airspace, among other restrictions. The FAA's UAS altitude 
limit is well below our proposal of 1500 feet above ground, and the 
other restrictions may present impediments to effective public safety 
use of UAS. Moreover, the Commission has not yet issued service rules 
for UAS operations in any specific spectrum band. Nevertheless, we seek 
comment on the potential for the 4.9 GHz band to support possible 
future UAS payload operations.
    We propose to establish a maximum altitude limit of 1500 feet (457 
meters) above ground level (AGL) for manned airborne operations on 
Channels 1-5. We believe this limit allows greater flexibility than 
NPSTC's proposal of 400 feet and is consistent with the altitude limit 
adopted for air-to-ground communications in the 700 MHz narrowband 
spectrum. However, because FAA rules require fixed-wing aircraft to 
maintain certain clearances around structures, we propose to allow 
fixed-wing aircraft to transmit at altitudes exceeding 1500 feet AGL, 
but only to avoid obstructions, and then only in the immediate area of 
the obstruction. We seek comment on the terrestrial interference 
potential and coverage of fixed-wing aircraft compared to the 
interference potential and coverage of helicopters, and whether any 
restrictions or prohibitions should apply to either group of aircraft.
    We propose to allow air-to-ground and robotic transmissions only 
from low power devices as defined in Sec.  90.1215 of our rules, which 
limits maximum conducted output power to 14 dBm per 5 megahertz 
bandwidth and use of a directional antenna to confine radiation to the 
direction of the associated receiving antenna. We seek comment on this 
proposed power limit, as well as on other techniques to minimize 
interference. For example, AASHTO and LA County propose to allow use of 
higher powered steerable directional antennas for air-to-ground 
communications, while Vislink contends that some air-ground 
communications will require omnidirectional antennas. We seek comment 
on the current state of aerial steerable directional antenna technology 
and the associated cost of such equipment.
    To minimize the impact of 4.9 GHz aeronautical and robotic 
operations on the important work being done by RAS observatories, we 
propose that aeronautical mobile and robotic operations, as with all 
other 4.9 GHz band operations, make every effort to protect the RAS 
observatories listed in our rules. We propose that aeronautical mobile 
use shall generally be prohibited within 80.5 kilometers from a listed 
RAS site. Public safety entities seeking authorization for aeronautical 
mobile operations fewer than 80.5 kilometers from a listed RAS site 
would be required to submit a waiver request and notify and obtain 
concurrence from the affected observatory. Next, we propose to apply 
the L emission mask to aeronautical mobile devices on Channels 1-5, 
which will provide attenuation of 40 dB at 4950 MHz and above to 
minimize emissions into RAS. We do not propose to require robotic 
operations to maintain 80.5 km spacing to RAS sites. Robotic operations 
are transient and, because of their lower antenna elevations relative 
to airborne operations, do not pose an equivalent interference issue. 
Moreover, RAS sites are typically located in remote areas where robotic 
operations are unlikely to take place. We seek comment on our 
conclusion concerning the interference potential of robotic operations 
to RAS operations and on any burdens that these proposed RAS protection 
rules would impose, including the burden placed on small entities.
    Next, we propose to amend Sec.  2.106 of the Commission's rules to 
remove the prohibition on aeronautical mobile service use from the 
4940-4950 MHz band in the non-Federal Table of Frequency Allocations, 
i.e., we propose to reallocate the lower 10 megahertz segment of the 
4940-4990 MHz band from the ``mobile except aeronautical mobile'' 
service to the ``mobile'' service. This action would parallel the 
International Table and provide the Commission with additional 
flexibility with regard to the future use of the mobile service. We 
request comment on this proposal.
    Finally, we remind commenters that the United States has border 
agreements with Canada and Mexico for the 4.9 GHz band that limit 
potential air-ground operations in border areas. In the Canada 
Agreement, the Commission agrees not to authorize aeronautical mobile 
stations within 160 kilometers of the border area without the written 
consent of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED). 
In the Mexico Agreement, for stations operated in aircraft, power flux 
density shall not exceed -114 dBW/m2 in any 1 MHz bandwidth at or 
beyond the common border. Thus, any rules we may adopt authorizing 
aeronautical use will be subject to these restrictions in border areas. 
However, we retain the option of seeking future revision of these 
cross-border agreements through appropriate international channels. The 
limits arising from these international agreements would continue to 
apply to all licensees in the 4.9 GHz band, including aeronautical and 
robotic uses.

[[Page 20015]]

Coordination

    Our rules currently require 4.9 GHz licensees to ``cooperate in the 
selection and use of channels in order to reduce interference and make 
the most effective use of the authorized facilities,'' but do not 
require prior frequency coordination. We note that current 4.9 GHz band 
licenses authorize use of the entire band and are geographic rather 
than site-based. Thus, they allow licensees to deploy base stations, 
mobile units, and temporary fixed stations anywhere within the 
licensee's jurisdiction using any part of the spectrum band by 
informally coordinating with other uses, and without having to obtain 
prior clearance from the Commission. In the 2009 FNPRM in this 
proceeding, the Commission expressed concern that informal self-
coordination ``may not ensure that applicants for primary permanent 
fixed stations offer sufficient protection to other primary permanent 
fixed stations and other co-primary users.'' Accordingly, the 
Commission proposed a notice-and-response coordination procedure 
conducted among applicants and licensees similar to the procedure used 
for point-to-point (P-P) microwave applications under part 101 of the 
Commission's rules. However, in the Fifth FNPRM, the Commission 
acknowledged the views of the majority of commenters that notice-and-
response coordination ``may not be appropriate for this band because 
[it] would add a level of uncertainty and complexity to the 
coordination process,'' and sought comment on requiring 4.9 GHz 
applications to be submitted to a third party such as a certified 
public safety frequency coordinator or an RPC. Most commenters to the 
Fifth FNPRM supported certified frequency coordination for the 4.9 GHz 
band, although a few commenters argued that the status quo of self-
coordination is working.
    NPSTC's Plan proposes that 4.9 GHz applications be coordinated by a 
certified public safety frequency coordinator. APCO supports NPSTC's 
recommendation because ``many public safety users and manufacturers 
choose not to invest in the 4.9 GHz band because it is not 
coordinated.'' Specifically, APCO reports that ``the current 
jurisdictional licensing model is viewed within the public safety 
community as too similar to an unlicensed structure to provide the 
degree of confidence needed for mission critical communications, 
including sensitive transmissions.'' APCO asserts that ``new frequency 
coordination procedures designed to improve usage, performance, and 
interference protection would encourage public safety entities that 
have been reluctant in the past to begin utilizing the 4.9 GHz Band.''
    Discussion. We propose to require certified frequency coordination 
for licensing in the 4.9 GHz band. Given that our goal is to encourage 
a wide variety of uses of the 4.9 GHz band, we agree with NPSTC, APCO, 
and the majority of commenters that neither self-coordination nor a 
notice-and-response coordination procedure is likely to be sufficient 
to ensure interference protection to primary users in a mixed use 
environment. We seek comment on this view. We do not propose to require 
incumbent 4.9 GHz licensees to submit to frequency coordination for 
their existing operations. Rather, as noted above, we propose to 
grandfather incumbent operations provided that they file certain 
technical information on P-P, point-to-multipoint (P-MP), base, and 
mobile operations in our licensing database as discussed infra in the 
Database and Existing Licensees section.
    We propose that, subject to qualification criteria, Public Safety 
Pool frequency coordinators which the Commission has certified to 
coordinate in other part 90 spectrum bands should be eligible to 
coordinate applications in the 4.9 GHz band. We seek comment on whether 
to limit 4.9 GHz band coordination to public safety coordinators or 
whether to allow coordination by non-public safety coordinators as 
well. To ensure that coordinators are qualified to address band-
specific coordination issues, we propose to require all frequency 
coordinators seeking to coordinate in the 4.9 GHz band to submit a 
qualification showing, which would include a coordination plan and a 
showing of expertise specifically for the 4.9 GHz band. We further 
propose to direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to 
certify coordinators for the band. We seek comment on these proposals, 
including whether a qualification showing would place a burden on small 
entities. Current public safety frequency coordinator fees for 
frequency pair/site combinations range from $60 to $315 depending on 
the frequency band. We seek comment on the relative costs and benefits 
of frequency coordination.
    The NPSTC Plan proposed that frequency coordinators would send each 
application to the applicant's home RPC for a five-business day review. 
We believe this particular proposal is burdensome on RPCs and redundant 
with the frequency coordinator's function and invite comment on this 
tentative conclusion. However, NPSTC also proposed that any application 
where the power flux density (PFD) into an adjacent region border 
exceeds -109 dBW/m2 would be flagged to be sent to the adjacent RPC to 
review. We believe this proposal may help prevent interference between 
regions, so we propose to adopt it. We seek comment on whether this PFD 
is an appropriate threshold, how PFD should be calculated and 
predicted, and how a PFD dispute would be resolved. We seek comment on 
what reference bandwidth should apply to this proposed PFD limit, e.g., 
is a 5 megahertz bandwidth appropriate?
    Finally, we seek comment on whether waiving frequency coordination 
for certain technology could serve as incentive for manufacturers and 
licensees to use such technology in the 4.9 GHz band without creating 
harmful interference. Should we exempt certain short term uses from 
frequency coordination, such as public safety robotic uses or ad hoc 
mobile networks? If so, how could such users minimize interference 
potential to existing operations in the same areas?

Database and Existing Licensees

    In the Fifth FNPRM, the Commission noted that ULS does not contain 
information specifying receiver location for 4.9 GHz band P-P or P-MP 
links, geographically licensed base station coordinates, antenna gain, 
output power, and antenna height. Because a frequency coordinator 
lacking this information would have difficulty protecting incumbent 
primary fixed links and base stations from interference from new 
operations, the Fifth FNPRM proposed to require all current 4.9 GHz 
licensees to register the technical parameters of their permanent fixed 
P-P, P-MP, and base-to-mobile stations, including permanent fixed 
receivers when applicable, into a coordination database to ensure that 
primary operations receive proper interference protection. The 
Commission ``tentatively concluded that the most cost-effective option 
is for the Commission to create and maintain a 4.9 GHz registration 
database that is modeled after an existing database,'' such as the 
millimeter wave band registration database in ULS. The Commission also 
sought comment on whether to use a third party database such as the 
Computer-Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database (CAPRAD) or a 
dynamic database similar to the Television White Space (WS) database.

[[Page 20016]]

    Commenters generally agree that the 4.9 GHz band is hampered by 
lack of a reliable database that provides technical information about 
current licensee deployments. The APCO Report concludes that wider use 
of the 4.9 GHz band is inhibited by ``blanket geographical licensing 
for fixed and mobile operations on any channel across the band,'' and 
therefore proposes that ``all fixed locations be identified and 
licensed for a specific channel or channels.'' The NPSTC Plan proposes 
that incumbent licensees be required to ``relicense using the proposed 
frequency coordination process and appropriate ULS schedules'' within 
one year from when ULS is ready to accept applications using the new 
process. It also proposes that incumbent licensees that do not conform 
to the new band plan (including any region-specific variations) must 
modify their licenses within five years of the adoption of new rules.
    The NPSTC Plan recommends using ULS to compile the information 
needed for coordination because ``ULS is already funded'' and ``data 
required for coordination is already collected by ULS in the 
application process.'' NPSTC opposes using a private database that 
would ``require the applicants to fund the entire cost of capturing, 
storing, and making data available to coordinators.'' However, other 
commenters suggest establishing a geo-location database similar to the 
WS database, so that commercial and unlicensed users could use the 4.9 
GHz band on a secondary basis.
    Discussion. Our rules specify that 4.9 GHz licensees encountering 
or causing harmful interference are expected to cooperate and resolve 
the problem by mutually satisfactory arrangements. Based on the record 
in this proceeding, we believe that concerns from public safety users 
of this band regarding resolution of interference issues in the 4.9 GHz 
band would be addressed if more complete technical information is 
available to all affected parties. Therefore, we propose to require 
incumbent licensees and new applicants to provide technical information 
that will enhance frequency coordination and help mitigate the 
possibility of interference, while permitting more new users, thereby 
promoting more efficient use of spectrum that has long been 
underutilized. We solicit alternative suggestions that would achieve 
these goals.
    We believe ULS provides the most efficient and cost-effective means 
to facilitate certified frequency coordination in the 4.9 GHz band 
because it is both flexible and easily accessible to frequency 
coordinators, incumbent licensees, applicants, and other interested 
parties. While the Commission relies on private databases in other 
select spectrum bands, ULS is already set up for licensing in the 4.9 
GHz band, and the Commission can use existing form schedules to capture 
P-P, P-MP, fixed receiver, base station, and mobile station data. 
Accordingly, we propose to add the 4.9 GHz band to the microwave 
schedule for P-P, P-MP, and fixed receiver stations. We also propose to 
uncouple base and mobile stations from geographic licenses and instead 
require that base and mobile technical parameters be entered on the 
existing location and technical data schedules. Thus, we propose to 
maintain ULS as the comprehensive licensing database for the 4.9 GHz 
band, which frequency coordinators will use to base their coordination. 
This proposal would not affect or restrict frequency coordinators' use 
of their own internal databases, which draw licensing data from ULS on 
a regular basis. We propose to modify ULS as necessary to accept the 
necessary licensing data, prepare application instructions, and release 
a public notice to announce when ULS is ready to accept such 
applications. Regarding the burdens associated with the Commission's 
application for radio service authorization, the Commission has 
estimated that ``each response to this collection of information will 
take on average 1.25 hours.'' The estimate ``includes the time to read 
the instructions, look through existing records, gather and maintain 
required data, and actually complete and review the form or response.'' 
We seek comment on whether these time and cost burdens are accurate, 
and on the number of entities (incumbents and new entrants) likely to 
be subject to this requirement. We also seek comment on how best to 
measure the benefits emanating from this filing requirement in order to 
determine whether its benefits exceed its relative costs. For example, 
what is the cost of resolving current and potential interference 
problems in the absence of such a filing requirement? We seek comment 
on this proposal, and on the feasibility of alternative database 
solutions.
    We propose to set a one-year timetable, starting on the release 
date of the ULS public notice described above, for incumbent licensees 
to provide data, as recommended in the NPSTC Plan. We propose one year 
because we believe this gives licensees sufficient time to gather 
technical information about their site-based facilities and file 
applications, while providing a reasonable date certain that ULS will 
be sufficiently populated with site-based data to enable accurate 
frequency coordination. We propose to establish an application process 
for existing licensees with geographic licenses to identify P-P, P-MP, 
fixed receivers, base stations, and mobiles that are not licensed site-
by-site. Under this process, incumbent licensees would file one or more 
applications, and update or delete the existing licenses as necessary 
to eliminate redundancy following a Public Notice announcing that ULS 
is ready to accept such applications. There would be no fee for the 
application process since only public safety eligible entities are 
currently authorized in the band, and the Commission does not charge 
application fees for public safety entities. We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    AASHTO suggests that incumbent licensees should be required to 
submit to frequency coordination either when their licenses are set for 
renewal or within one calendar year of the Commission's adoption of 
coordination requirements. We disagree because the purpose of the 
application process is to collect missing incumbent data so that fixed 
operations would be visible in the database. Although a richer database 
will better aid future coordinations, coordination of incumbents is not 
necessary to accomplish this goal and would impose unnecessary cost. 
Accordingly, for this incumbent application process, we propose to 
grant NYCTA's request to waive frequency coordination requirements for 
one year following the effective date of those rules. However, we 
propose that after the one-year deadline, an application from an 
incumbent licensee to supply the required database information would be 
treated as any other application for a new license or modification, 
i.e., it would require frequency coordination. We seek comment about 
whether the status of a license should become secondary if the 
incumbent licensee does not meet the one-year deadline.
    Finally, we decline to propose that incumbent licensees modify 
their licenses to conform to the new proposed rules and band plan. We 
agree with commenters such as Region 8 and King County/Seattle that 
such action would be unduly burdensome and inequitable to incumbent 
licensees, which already use the band for mission critical public 
safety operations. Instead, we propose to grandfather existing 
licensees from having to make any technical modifications to conform to 
the new rules and band plan, other than

[[Page 20017]]

providing more sufficient data as we discussed above, as of the 
effective date of new rules adopted in this proceeding. However, 
applications from incumbent licensees submitted more than one year 
after the new rules are in effect would be subject to the new proposed 
rules and band plan.

Regional Planning

    Section 90.1211(a) of the Commission's rules provides that each RPC 
region may submit a plan with guidelines to be used for sharing 
spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band. The rules list elements to be included in 
regional plans and provide instructions for the plan's modification. 
Although the Commission originally set a deadline for all RPCs to 
submit 4.9 GHz regional plans, it subsequently decided to make plan 
submission voluntary and stayed the deadline. To date, only 10 out of 
55 RPC regions have submitted 4.9 GHz regional plans. In the Fifth 
FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether it should lift the stay 
and amend Sec.  90.1211 to require Regional Plans to cover permanent 
fixed links and base stations, as well as mobile and temporary fixed 
links.
    NPSTC's Plan states that ``a single national plan for 4.9 GHz will 
meet most regions' needs,'' but ``some regions will need some different 
parameters to better meet needs of users in their regions. NPSTC 
proposes to allow RPCs to file amended regional plans specific to 4.9 
GHz to reflect regional considerations, including a required showing of 
need, within 120 days after the Commission adopts new rules for the 
band. Several commenters support RPC involvement in the 4.9 GHz band.
    Discussion. We believe that RPCs should play an integral role in 
shaping use of the 4.9 GHz band through regional planning. In this 
connection, we propose to afford RPCs the flexibility to file new and 
amended regional plans for Commission review and approval to reflect 
their region-specific needs or considerations as supported by a showing 
of need. Alternately, RPCs would have the option to default to the 
national rules without regional variation by taking no action. We seek 
comment on this proposal, and on how to implement regional variations.
    NPSTC recommends that RPCs be able to make region-specific changes 
in the following four areas: (i) Enabling additional channel 
aggregation; (ii) incorporating an additional channel designated for 
specialized use; (iii) placing limits on the use of P-P links in urban 
areas or imposing more stringent antenna requirements or other 
technical parameters to allow greater channel reuse; and (iv) in rural 
areas, allowing higher radiated power for longer path lengths and non-
line of sight paths. We tentatively disagree with the NPSTC Plan's 
proposals for item (i) because we propose to allow 40 megahertz channel 
aggregation, and for item (iv) because we believe that the upper 
equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) limits should be 
codified in our rules rather than left to the discretion of the RPCs. 
We propose to allow regional plans to be submitted for Commission 
approval that include variations for items (ii) and (iii) as well as 
for polarization. In lieu of item (i), we propose to allow RPCs to 
limit aggregations to 20 megahertz as discussed above. We also propose 
to limit the ability of RPCs to restrict non-public safety licensing 
eligibility to a greater degree than is provided in the Commission's 
rules. In general, we believe that providing these areas in which a 
regional plan can deviate from the national plan, combined with the 
overall flexibility of the band plan we propose, will enable regions to 
meet most needs of their users without threatening investments in 
existing deployments. Because we cannot foresee all areas in which RPCs 
may need flexibility, we propose to allow RPCs to request changes 
outside these areas pursuant to a waiver request. We are mindful that 
regional variations add a challenge to frequency coordination, but we 
believe that frequency coordinators have the tools to keep track of 
these variations. We seek comment on relative costs and benefits 
arising from this approach, which would not change the status of 
regional plans as optional.
    We seek comment on when RPCs should be required to submit regional 
plans. Comments on this issue were mixed, with suggested deadlines of 
180 days, 240 days, and 12 months after final rules are effective. 
Considering the resource constraints on RPCs, we propose a deadline of 
six months after the effective date of final rules for each RPC to 
notify the Commission either that it intends to file a regional plan or 
that the region will default to the general rules, and a deadline of 
one year after rules adopted in this proceeding become effective for 
the filing of regional plans. Prior to Commission acceptance of any 
regional plan, we propose to allow new applications for 4.9 GHz 
licenses to be filed consistent with updated general rules. These 
licenses would be grandfathered for the duration of the license period. 
We would lift the current stay on Sec.  90.1211(a) once the proposed 
rule modification becomes effective. We propose to continue to accept 
regional plans and amendments after the one-year deadline for the 
benefit of those RPCs that lack the resources to file timely regional 
plans or are not yet formed, but the purpose of the deadline is to 
provide a goal to commence licensing based on regional plan 
considerations. The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau would 
place any submitted regional plans on public notice for comment. With 
regard to Plan Amendments, we seek comment on establishing a 
streamlined process for staff review of such modifications, including 
defining ``major'' and ``minor'' plan modifications as defined by Sec.  
90.527(b) of the rules. We seek comment on these proposals and solicit 
alternative suggestions, especially from the individual RPCs. We seek 
comment on any burdens that the regional plan filing deadline may place 
on small entities.
    Finally, we decline the NPSTC Plan's recommendation to permanently 
waive the existing requirement to obtain concurrence from adjacent 
regions for plan amendments. The NPSTC Plan makes no mention of the 
existing adjacent region coordination requirement for initial regional 
plans, and we do not see why regional plan amendments should not also 
be subject to adjacent region review. This adjacent region review 
process for plan amendments has worked in the 700 MHz and 800 MHz 
bands, and we do not believe the process which is currently in place is 
unduly burdensome on RPCs for the 4.9 GHz band. We seek comment on 
whether adjacent region review requirements would place undue burdens 
on small entities.

Technical Standards

    In the Fifth FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether to 
adopt technical standards for 4.9 GHz band equipment. While 
acknowledging that the Commission previously had declined to mandate 
such a technical standard, the Commission sought comment on using IEEE 
802.11 as a potential standard solution, given the standard's worldwide 
availability and flexibility in supporting various applications. Some 
commenters to the Fifth FNPRM assert that mandatory technical standards 
would inhibit technological development in the band, restrict local 
flexibility and control, and render existing equipment obsolete. Other 
commenters contend that standards would promote national 
interoperability and lend certainty to the marketplace for 4.9 GHz 
equipment.

[[Page 20018]]

A number of these commenters express specific support for an 802.11-
based standard.
    Discussion. Since the Commission adopted service rules for the 4.9 
GHz band in 2003, the 4.9 GHz band has not fostered a market for 
diverse technology or inexpensive equipment, which in turn has led to 
underutilization and a slow influx of users. In general, the Commission 
has favored technology-neutral rules and has avoided adoption of 
mandatory standards, a model that has worked in many spectrum bands. 
However, the record in this proceeding suggests that some public safety 
users may desire greater certainty regarding technical standards to 
stimulate investment in the band. While we tentatively conclude that we 
should not adopt mandatory technical standards for the 4.9 GHz band and 
seek comment on this view, we seek comment on how to encourage 
voluntary implementation of technical standards for equipment in the 
band that can provide certainty for public safety users while also 
providing appropriate incentives for manufacturers to develop 
innovative and cost-effective equipment that will encourage 
interoperability, discourage fragmentation, and reduce equipment costs 
through higher economies of scale. Would a voluntary industry standard/
framework that would not be promulgated in our rules be appropriate and 
preferable to incorporating such a standard (or any other) in our 
rules? Are there industry standards available in the 4.9 GHz band, and 
if not, what is the likelihood that applicable standards could be 
extended to the 4.9 GHz band? What would be the relative cost and 
benefit of different voluntary standards for high-power and low-power 
systems?

Point-to-Point and Point-to-Multipoint

    Until 2009, permanent fixed P-P and P-MP stations in the 4.9 GHz 
band were secondary to base, mobile, and temporary fixed operations. In 
2009, the Commission permitted licensing of permanent fixed P-P and P-
MP stations that deliver broadband services on a primary basis, while 
those stations that deliver narrowband traffic remain secondary to 
other operations in the 4.9 GHz band. In the Fifth FNPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on whether to license all permanent fixed P-P 
stations on a primary basis, regardless of whether they support 
broadband or narrowband traffic, or whether permanent fixed P-MP 
stations not delivering broadband service should remain secondary.
    Discussion. Secondary status requires the user to accept the risk 
of interference and to cease operation if it causes interference to a 
primary licensee. The supporting commenters persuade us that primary 
status for P-P and P-MP links that carry or support narrowband traffic 
would resolve this risk and increase usage of the 4.9 GHz band because 
it would give potential users confidence to invest in the band. Given 
the divided comment record on primary status for narrowband P-P and P-
MP links, we propose to allow licensees to use individual 1-MHz 
bandwidth Channels 14-18 for permanent fixed P-P and P-MP operations on 
a primary basis, while existing permanent fixed P-P and P-MP operations 
on individual 1-MHz bandwidth Channels 1-5 would remain secondary, with 
no such further licensing allowed on those channels due to the proposed 
aeronautical mobile and robotic designation. We seek comment on this 
proposal, including its relative costs and benefits. Under the status 
quo, any competing public safety organization in dense urban areas 
could obtain secondary licenses for P-P and P-MP links on channels 14-
18 with no obligation to protect each other from interference. 
Accordingly, one potential cost of a proposal to license these links on 
a primary basis is that it could increase the difficulty of competing 
public safety organizations in dense urban areas to obtain primary 
licenses for base, mobile, and temporary fixed operations in channels 
14-18 because primary users are entitled to interference protection and 
cannot be licensed with overlapping channel assignments and areas of 
operation as secondary use may allow. How likely is this to occur, and 
what would be the cost of a work-around?
    The NPSTC Plan recommends that applications for P-P licenses 
include a showing as to the need for the bandwidth requested, to 
address the potential of P-P links to cause interference. At this time, 
we do not propose to impose such a requirement, which no other 
commenter has suggested, because the record does not contain objective 
benchmarks for correlating various uses with bandwidth needs. We have 
found that no evidence of P-P interference in the record, and we invite 
commenters to submit any such evidence. Further, we believe that 
technical rule changes we propose below in the Power Limits section may 
reduce interference potential by producing more directional P-P links. 
We seek comment on our view and on these concerns.
    Next, in order to limit ``temporary'' links to truly temporary 
uses, we propose to adopt the NPSTC Plan's recommendation that 
temporary P-P links may only be operated for thirty days maximum over a 
given path in a one-year period. Any application for longer operation 
would require a showing why longer duration is needed and how the link 
is supporting public safety protection of life and property. We seek 
comment on whether the number of days should be reduced or increased 
and the reasons therefor. We seek comment on the relative costs and 
benefits of the limitation proposed here, as well as any alternate 
proposals. We solicit alternative suggestions and solicit comment on 
burdens that a timeframe limitation on temporary P-P links would place 
on small entities.
    Finally, we decline to consider a request from the comment record 
that the band be used only for fixed uses. The band supports 
substantial mobile use, and it would be contrary to the public interest 
to force such operations to relocate from the 4.9 GHz band or cease 
operation. We believe that with the regional planning process combined 
with frequency coordination, the goal of increased density of fixed 
link deployment can occur with rule changes regardless of mobile 
presence. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

Power Limits

    The 4.9 GHz rules contain power output limits that depend on the 
channel bandwidth for both low power and high power transmitters. High 
power P-P and P-MP links may use directional antennas with gains 
greater than 9 dBi and up to 26 dBi with no reduction in conducted 
output power, but if antennas with a gain of more than 26 dBi are used, 
the maximum conducted output power and peak power spectral density must 
be reduced by the amount in decibels that the directional gain exceeds 
26 dBi. The Commission imposed the antenna gain rule ``in order to 
avoid interference from fixed operations to mobile operations.''
    In the Fifth FNPRM, the Commission sought recommendations for an 
effective radiated power (ERP) limit for high power, permanent and 
temporary fixed transmitters, and whether to impose a maximum ERP limit 
on point-to-point links. Going forward, we will discuss radiated power 
levels in the 4.9 GHz band in terms of EIRP, rather than ERP, because 
antenna gains in the 4.9 GHz band rules are conventionally specified in 
terms of gain relative to an isotropic reference (dBi). To make point-
to-point use in the band more efficient, the Commission also sought 
comment on whether it should establish a different minimum gain for P-P 
transmitting antennas and, if so, what value of gain

[[Page 20019]]

would be appropriate and what power reduction, if any, should be 
required.
    The NPSTC Plan does not address ERP limits, but it notes that Sec.  
101.143 of the Commission's rules specifies a formula for reducing the 
maximum EIRP for short path lengths and proposes ``that the frequency 
coordinators use a similar reduction in maximum EIRP for short path 
lengths with formulas developed based on transmit powers allowed in 
this band.'' The NPSTC Plan further recommends that for P-P links an 
antenna with a minimum gain of 26 dBi, a maximum of 5.5 degree 
beamwidth and a minimum 25 dB front-to-back ratio be required. The 
NPSTC Plan also recommends that frequency coordinators be allowed to 
impose tighter specifications for the antenna if that allows assignment 
of a channel that otherwise would cause interference. NPSTC states that 
equipment using ``multiple modulation rates and/or MIMO [multiple-input 
and multiple-output] antenna technologies'' is inefficient and proposes 
that ``they normally not be allowed in the band.'' NPSTC recommends 
that requests for higher EIRP levels only be granted under waiver and 
receive full coordination so that both frequency coordinators and RPCs 
can comment.
    The APCO Report argues for ``increasing the size of the antennas 
supporting 4.9 GHz operations.'' APCO states that ``larger directional 
antennas (i.e. 4' diameter and above) have more discriminatory ``off-
path'' antenna patterns and FB (Front-to-Back) ratios which allow the 
coordinator to assign frequencies closer together and permit more 
systems to co-exist, interference-free, within a given frequency 
band.'' APCO also contends that ``there are cases where a larger 
antenna may allow the coordinator to assign a frequency to a system 
where a smaller antenna may not have an efficient enough antenna 
pattern.''
    Discussion. We propose to allow P-P transmitting antennas to 
operate with a minimum directional gain of 26 dBi, maximum 5.5 degree 
beamwidth and minimum 25 dB front-to-back ratio. Antenna physical size, 
or area, is related to antenna gain. Although the rules do not contain 
restrictions on physical antenna size, we believe this proposal will 
enable users to deploy larger directional antennas, as recommended in 
the APCO Report, and to produce narrower beam widths and more 
directional P-P links, which should enable co-channel users in 
congested areas to place links closer together and achieve greater 
frequency reuse. Moreover, the higher gain would increase the EIRP so 
that P-P links can cover longer distances, which could save users the 
expense of deploying multiple, low EIRP links. Further, the record 
indicates that several low cost antennas that meet these requirements 
are already available. We seek comment on the relative costs and 
benefits of this proposal. We invite commenters to provide additional 
information about these antennas and associated costs in the record and 
we seek comment on the levels of directional antenna gains that 
licensees are using today. We also seek comment about burdens that a 
change to the antenna gain rules would place on small entities, 
notwithstanding that we propose to grandfather existing P-P and P-MP 
installations from having to replace antennas.
    We seek comment on whether the rules should contain a maximum EIRP 
limit for directional links. Although the NPSTC Plan proposes no 
maximum EIRP, three commenters suggest power levels equivalent to 
maximum EIRP levels of 65.15 dBm for P-P and 55.15 dBm for P-MP to 
``promote the use of the band for longer range communications . . . , 
particularly in rural areas.'' Accordingly, we seek comment on these 
EIRP limits. Since we noted above that the upper power limits need to 
be codified in the rules, we seek comment on whether these proposed 
power limits are adequate to meet the needs of regions whose users 
would deploy links with long path lengths in rural areas. We also seek 
comment on whether such an increase in maximum power levels for 
directional links creates any additional interference concerns and how 
it might affect the ability to coordinate additional links. Similarly, 
what effect might such an increase have on the ability for continued 
mobile operations in the band? We seek comment on whether emission mask 
M is sufficient, or whether a tighter emission mask should be imposed 
for these higher power operations. We seek further comment on other 
power suggestions in the record and how they would fit with the above 
proposals.
    Finally, we decline to propose restrictions on multiple modulation 
rates and MIMO antenna technologies as proposed by the NPSTC Plan. We 
agree with the City of New York that ``Multiple Input Multiple Output 
(MIMO) technology is a key element of both the 802.11n standard and LTE 
standards. Rather than being less spectrally efficient, it is more so 
as it provides for increased throughput and range.'' Similarly, 
multiple modulation rates are more spectrally efficient and offer 
licenses additional flexibility in the planning and operation of their 
systems.

Polarization

    The Fifth FNPRM sought comment on requiring P-P links to use a 
specific polarization, e.g., horizontal or vertical, to reduce 
potential interference to other links or to portable or mobile devices. 
The Commission sought comment on the costs of changing an antenna's 
polarization and whether polarization diversity would increase 
throughput.
    Discussion. Given the mixed comment record, we decline to propose 
any polarization requirements in our rules. However, we still believe 
that polarization can be a tool to increase density of P-P links in a 
given area and to address cases of actual interference between two or 
more P-P links. We note that side-by-side co-channel P-P links with 
orthogonal (opposite) polarizations could operate with minimized 
interference because each receive antenna would reject signals of the 
opposite polarization. We are also encouraged that dual polarization 
together with polarization multiplexing can increase capacity in a P-P 
link, as Cambium suggests. As discussed above, we propose to allow 
regional plans submitted for Commission review pursuant to Sec.  
90.1211 to propose any polarization schemes for new applications within 
their regions as necessary to maximize frequency reuse, manage 
interference, and increase throughput. As part of the application 
frequency coordination process, frequency coordinators would be able to 
recommend a particular polarization for a proposed P-P link in those 
regions. We seek comment on this proposal.

Deployment Reports, Construction Deadlines

    The Fifth FNPRM sought comment on whether to require 4.9 GHz 
licensees to file periodic deployment reports to better inform the 
Commission about usage of the band. The Commission indicated that 
reports could include information such as status of equipment 
development and purchase, including number of devices and users; site 
development, including use of existing towers; deployments and upgrades 
(commencement and completion), including site information and location; 
and applications in development or in use. The Commission also sought 
comment on reporting frequency.
    Discussion. Although a deployment report requirement had some 
support in the record, we agree with the opposing comments regarding 
burdens on licensees and decline to propose requiring deployment 
reports. In addition to imposing a burden, such reports would be 
superfluous given our

[[Page 20020]]

database proposal discussed above, in which existing licensees would 
file certain additional information on their operating parameters.
    However, we propose to establish a one-year construction deadline 
for all 4.9 GHz licensees, with a corresponding construction reporting 
requirement. The current rules impose an 18-month construction deadline 
only on fixed P-P stations that are licensed on a site-by-site basis, 
and no construction deadline for base and temporary fixed stations. We 
believe that shortening the construction period to one year for all 4.9 
GHz licenses will lead to more timely use of the spectrum and reduce 
the possibility of spectrum warehousing. Accordingly, we propose to 
require all 4.9 GHz geographic licensees to place at least one base or 
temporary fixed station in operation within 12 months of license grant 
and file a standard construction notification with the Commission. We 
also propose to reduce the construction period for fixed point-to-point 
stations from 18 months to 12 months. These proposed rule changes will 
also harmonize the construction deadlines for the 4.9 GHz band with the 
deadlines of Sec.  90.155, which is the analogous rule for the majority 
of part 90 radio services. We note that we have received no objections 
to this construction deadline change. We seek comment on these 
proposals, on their relative costs and benefits, on the burdens that 
the proposed construction deadline would place on small entities, and 
on alternative solutions that would achieve the same goal.

Eligibility, Shared Use, and Other Alternatives

    Currently, only entities providing public safety services are 
eligible for licenses in the 4.9 GHz band. Non-public safety entities--
including CII entities--may use the 4.9 GHz spectrum by entering into 
sharing agreements with eligible public safety licensees, but only for 
``operations in support of public safety.'' In light of the limited use 
of the band to date by public safety, the Fifth FNPRM sought comment on 
whether expanding eligibility to non-public safety users might lead to 
increased use and reduction in equipment costs that would benefit 
public safety. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on whether 
CII entities should be eligible to hold primary 4.9 GHz licenses, thus 
removing the requirement for a sharing agreement, and also whether the 
band should be opened to commercial users on a secondary or non-
interfering basis subject to a shutdown mechanism to enable priority 
access by public safety entities. In response to the Fifth FNPRM, the 
NPSTC Plan proposed to extend primary 4.9 GHz eligibility to CII. More 
recently, other ex parte filers have recommended various secondary 
spectrum sharing approaches combined with maintaining priority status 
for public safety in the 4.9 GHz band.
    In this Sixth FNPRM, we seek to further discuss these alternative 
eligibility and spectrum sharing approaches and other alternatives for 
the band. We seek comment on four specific alternatives outlined below, 
and on whether the four alternatives or elements thereof could be 
combined. We also solicit comment on any other sharing approaches that 
would meet the Commission's goals for the band.

Extending Eligibility to CII

    The NPSTC Plan proposes to expand eligibility to afford CII co-
primary status with public safety in the 4.9 GHz band and allow CII 
entities immediate access to two five-megahertz channels (Channels 6 
and 7). On the remaining channels in the band, NPSTC proposes to 
preserve public safety's licensing priority for three years, but would 
allow CII to seek access on a notice basis. Under the proposed notice 
procedure, a CII entity's application to use unoccupied channels would 
be put on public notice, and any public safety entity in the same 
geographic area as the CII entity's planned system would have 30 days 
to file an application for the same channels, in which case the public 
safety applicant would prevail. This notice process would expire after 
three years after the Commission's rules become effective, at which 
point public safety and CII would have equal access to all channels in 
the band with no required notice.
    The majority of commenters responding to both the Fifth FNPRM and 
the NPSTC Plan support expanding 4.9 GHz band eligibility to CII 
entities. APCO and FCCA/IAFC/IMSA assert that CII eligibility would 
enhance interoperability between utilities and public safety agencies 
during and immediately following major emergencies, although APCO 
cautions that CII use should be ``carefully monitored to ensure that 
public safety needs are considered in every potential conflicting 
filing.'' The Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) states that CII primary 
eligibility ``could provide capacity and coverage for smart grid and 
other applications . . . [and] would promote investment in and more 
effective use of the spectrum.''
    Some public safety commenters oppose direct licensing of CII 
entities and advocate retaining the requirement that CII entities may 
only use the 4.9 GHz band pursuant to sharing agreements with public 
safety licensees. In response, Southern Company contends that ``the 
current eligibility rules for the 4.9 GHz band do not correlate with 
marketplace or political realities,'' because CII entities are 
``understandably reluctant to enter agreements whereby their investment 
in infrastructure, and their use of a vital communications resource, 
could be rendered worthless at any time, including when that resource 
is needed most.''
    Some commenters advocate expanding CII eligibility to include 
additional categories of potential users. The Enterprise Wireless 
Alliance (EWA) proposes extending 4.9 GHz band eligibility to ``all 
private internal systems'' that ``have defined areas of operation not 
necessarily focused on population centers, often conducted in a campus-
type environment that can be coordinated with public safety usage.'' 
The Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC) argues that alarm 
companies should have primary access to the 4.9 GHz band in order to 
allow them ``to more efficiently and rapidly gather and forward to 
PSAPs information about emergencies.''
    Discussion. We seek comment on whether offering CII co-primary 
status with public safety is likely to create incentives for increased 
investment in the 4.9 GHz band. The Commission has recognized that 
railroad, power, and petroleum entities use radio communications ``as a 
critical tool for responding to emergencies that could impact hundreds 
or even thousands of people.'' Extending eligibility to CII could 
encourage collaborative investment by public safety and CII users of 
the 4.9 GHz band to improve response to emergencies that affect both 
public safety and critical infrastructure. We seek comment on this 
approach, including its potential relative costs and benefits.
    We also seek comment on whether eligibility for CII entities should 
be conditioned on using the band to provide ``public safety services'' 
as that term is defined in Section 337(f)(1)(A) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended. For example, API requests that CII entities be 
permitted to use the band for any purpose, not just in support of 
public safety. Would eliminating the requirement that the band be used 
for ``public safety services'' by CII users increase use of the band, 
lowering equipment costs and facilitating the other benefits of CII 
access to the band? Or would it unduly

[[Page 20021]]

increase congestion? Considering the public safety focus of the 4.9 GHz 
band, should we limit CII use of the 4.9 GHz band to communications 
related to the protection of life, safety, and property, as opposed to 
general business purposes? If we maintain the requirement, how should 
the Commission ensure compliance by CII users (and what are the costs 
of doing so)? Given public safety's relatively modest use of 4.9 GHz 
spectrum to date, we think there is sufficient remaining spectrum in 
the band to accommodate both expanded use by public safety and CII co-
primary use. Stated otherwise, we think the benefits of co-primary use 
of the band by both CII and public safety can be realized at slight or 
no cost to public safety. We seek comment on this characterization. Is 
there reason to elevate public safety communications in the band over 
other uses? If so, would preferential algorithms built into equipment 
ensure priority of public safety communications? How would that 
priority be achieved? Would such priority be sufficient to ensure that 
public safety traffic would not be interfered with? We seek comment on 
affording public safety priority over other users and how priority 
would be achieved.
    If we grant co-primary eligibility to CII entities without the need 
for a sharing agreement with a public safety entity, we seek comment on 
NPSTC's proposal to provide CII immediate, co-primary access to 
Channels 6 and 7 during the first three years, to establish a notice 
procedure for CII access to the remainder of the band during the three-
year period, and to open up the entire band to CII thereafter. Should 
we consider alternative access arrangements, such as providing CII 
immediate access to Channels 12 and 13, which could be coupled with 
access to narrowband Channels 14-18 to create 15 megahertz of 
contiguous spectrum for CII to access on a co-primary basis? Should we 
exclude Channels 1-5 from CII eligibility in light of our proposal to 
dedicate this segment to public safety aeronautical mobile and robotic 
use? We seek comment on these options and solicit any alternative 
suggestions.
    We in turn seek comment on extending 4.9 GHz band co-primary 
eligibility to all private internal systems, as EWA requests. Would 
doing so be consistent with our core goal of supporting critical public 
safety needs? Similarly, we seek comment on extending primary 
eligibility to alarm companies as advocated by AICC. Does the fact that 
the Commission's recent review of ULS in another proceeding suggesting 
that certain frequencies designated for central alarm operations may be 
underutilized affect how we should approach this request? Finally, we 
note that the Commission's general approach to making spectrum 
available in recent years has leaned toward flexible use rather than 
allocations to specific industries. We seek comment on how granting CII 
entities eligibility for co-primary status is consistent with this 
approach. We also ask how CII entities' need for co-primary use of this 
band can be differentiated from the needs of other critical and safety-
related industries that may seek access to this band in the future.

Leasing

    In the 2003 4.9 GHz Third Report and Order, the Commission allowed 
non-public safety entities engaged in providing public safety-related 
services to be licensed in the 4.9 GHz band to support public safety 
operations. In 2004, the Commission permitted public safety licensees 
with ``exclusive spectrum rights'' to lease their spectrum to other 
public safety entities eligible for such a license authorization and to 
entities providing communications in support of public safety 
operations. Based on the record at that time, the Commission declined 
to permit public safety licensees to lease 4.9 GHz spectrum for 
commercial or non-public safety operations. Specifically, the 
Commission noted that commenters expressed concern that such leasing 
could face statutory barriers or result in abuse without the 
implementation of regulatory safeguards. In the Secondary Markets 
Order, the Commission also noted that allowing such leasing could be 
premature given the then-nascent state of ``interruptible use'' 
technology that would enable public safety licenses to immediately 
reclaim the use of any leased spectrum for public safety emergencies.
    Discussion. In this Sixth FNPRM, we seek to establish new licensing 
and service rules for the 4.9 GHz band that will spur investment and 
innovation while furthering public safety use of the band. We seek 
comment on whether these objectives could be facilitated by expanding 
the leasing alternatives available to public safety in the band. In 
particular, should we remove the current limitation and allow public 
safety licensees that have obtained exclusive spectrum rights in the 
4.9 GHz band to lease spectrum capacity to CII or to commercial 
entities generally? Would such expanded leasing flexibility stimulate 
investment in equipment and networks that would benefit public safety 
and further our objectives for increased use of the band? Would such 
leasing opportunities present public safety entities with new potential 
revenue streams that could be used to increase investment in NG911 
operations or to purchase new 4.9 GHz equipment? What rule changes, if 
any, would best facilitate bringing the economies of scope and scale 
that come with commercial use of a band to this public safety spectrum? 
How would a leasing alternative lead to increased use of the band 
compared to the current environment, where non-public safety entities 
can to enter into sharing agreements with public safety licensees? What 
are the relative costs and benefits of expanding leasing alternatives?
    We also seek comment on how best to ensure that public safety would 
retain priority access to 4.9 GHz spectrum in any commercial leasing 
framework. As noted above, the Commission cited a dearth of technology 
in 2004 that would support ``interruptible'' spectrum leasing. In light 
of the significant technological advances that have occurred since 
then, does technology now exist that would enable public safety to 
interrupt other spectrum users and reclaim leased spectrum capacity in 
emergencies? Should non-public safety entities that lease spectrum 
capacity have primary status because they entered agreements with 
specific public safety licensees? If so, how would public safety 
priority function?
    As noted above, in the Secondary Markets Order the Commission cited 
to comments expressing concern that the Communication Act might be a 
barrier to allowing public safety entities to lease spectrum that had 
been designated for public safety for non-public safety operations. 
Those comments suggested that because Section 337 of the Communications 
Act of 1934 defines ``public safety services'' as services that ``are 
not made commercially available to the public by the provider,'' the 
Commission could be limited in its ability to allow non-public safety 
services on bands designated for public safety services. However, 
Section 337's proscription on commercial operations is expressly 
limited to 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band, and there is 
no equivalent statutory limitation on the 4.9 GHz band. Section 90.1203 
of our rules, which governs eligibility for 4.9 GHz licenses, 
incorporates the requirements and conditions set forth in Sec.  90.523 
of our rules, which in turn implements Section 337 of the Act, and 
provides that applications in this band are limited to operations in 
support of public safety. The Commission tentatively concludes that it 
has authority to modify Sec.  90.1203 to allow public safety licensees 
to enter

[[Page 20022]]

into leases for non-public safety or commercial uses in the 4.9 GHz 
band. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Are there any other 
potential jurisdictional barriers to adopting the rules proposed here?
    If we authorize expanded leasing by public safety in the 4.9 GHz 
band, should there be conditions or limitations on use of leased 
spectrum or expenditure of leasing revenues to safeguard against 
potential abuse? For example, should use of leased spectrum be limited 
to communications in support of public safety or should all 
communications be allowed regardless of whether they have a public 
safety nexus? Can or should we require public safety licensees that 
receive leasing revenues to invest such revenues solely for public 
safety purposes, e.g., for procurement of public safety equipment or 
maintenance and operational costs of the network? Would such a 
requirement be consistent with the Miscellaneous Receipts Act? Are 
there provisions of state or local law relating to use of funds by 
local public safety entities that the Commission should take into 
consideration here? How would compliance with such a requirement be 
audited and enforced?
    We seek comment on the relative costs and benefits of a commercial-
leasing options vis-[agrave]-vis the CII co-primary option discussed 
above. Which option would bring the greatest innovation to the 4.9 GHz 
band? Which option would best facilitate the introduction of new, lower 
cost equipment? Which option would best empower public safety users--
the case-by-case leasing to commercial entities where public safety 
users must sign off on each use or the ability of CII users to gain co-
primary access to the spectrum without further public safety input? In 
short, which of these options would best serve our goals in increasing 
shared use of this band at the lowest cost? As noted above, given 
public safety's relatively modest use of 4.9 GHz spectrum to date, we 
think that allowing leasing would not impose any cost on public safety. 
Stated otherwise, we think the benefits of allowing more efficient 
spectrum use through leasing can be realized at no cost to public 
safety. We note that there are potential revenue streams from leasing, 
further supporting our judgement that allowing leasing would be produce 
benefits that exceed relative costs. We seek comment on this 
characterization.

Two-Tiered Sharing on a Secondary Basis

    In the Fifth FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether to 
open 4.9 GHz band eligibility to commercial users on a secondary or 
non-interfering basis, while ensuring priority access for public safety 
entities by means of a sharing mechanism, such as dynamic access 
control based on a database similar to that used for TV white spaces 
devices. In response, some commenters support extending eligibility to 
commercial entities on a secondary basis. Carlson, AICC, Spectrum 
Bridge, SSC, and WISPA suggest that adopting an intelligent, dynamic 
database system as the sharing mechanism could allow non-public safety 
to use the 4.9 GHz band on a secondary basis. The APCO Report 
recommends that the Commission consider ``build[ing] upon the `white 
space' model and apply[ing] it to the 4.9 GHz arena to spur development 
by increasing the potential customer base, including within the CII 
segment.'' APCO recommends that the Commission study ``[a]n innovative 
approach that incorporates essential features such as frequency 
coordination, with newer spectrum management tools that could expand 
the user base while preserving reliable access for public safety.''
    However, many public safety commenters oppose opening the band to 
commercial users, even on a secondary basis. These commenters express 
concern that because public safety generally requires greater lead time 
than commercial entities to secure funding to construct communications 
systems, commercial operations could foreclose public safety use and 
increase the risk of interference and congestion. Commenters also 
express skepticism about the feasibility of a using a dynamic database 
as a sharing mechanism. FCCA/IMSA/IAFC argue that ``white space-style 
databases are not appropriate for the 4.9 GHz band'' because they rely 
on equipment that employs geo-location or similar technologies, and 
``requiring 4.9 GHz devices to incorporate geo-location or similar 
capabilities will unnecessarily impede the development of equipment for 
the band.'' Southern similarly ``does not believe the database paradigm 
used for TV White Spaces . . . devices would be appropriate for the 4.9 
GHz band,'' citing the risk to public safety that could be caused by 
``loss of critical communications service due to database errors, 
malfunctions of the coordination system, or loss of connectivity with 
the database.''
    Discussion. As a third option, we seek comment on the feasibility 
of a two-tiered sharing approach, in which Tier 1 would consist of 
primary licensees in the band (including all incumbent users), while 
Tier 2 would allow other non-public safety users to access the band on 
a secondary basis, with safeguards to ensure priority and interference 
protection for Tier 1 operations. We seek comment on potential 
mechanisms that could facilitate two-tiered sharing in the 4.9 GHz band 
while protecting primary users.
    For example, could we implement Tier 2 secondary access to the 4.9 
GHz band using frequency coordination and licensing procedures similar 
to those we are proposing for primary licensing? The public safety 
community has long relied on frequency coordination in other spectrum 
bands to protect mission-critical communications from interference. 
While this system has worked well in other bands, frequency 
coordination in the 4.9 GHz band would typically take place before 
deployment and does not take into account the dynamically changing 
environment of real-time spectrum usage. We seek comment on whether a 
frequency coordination approach to Tier 2 secondary use would provide 
sufficient flexibility to support dynamic spectrum use while protecting 
Tier 1 users. Would real-time coordination be feasible if we required 
Tier 2 users to provide digital identification and/or geo-location so 
that Tier 1 users could readily identify potential sources of 
interference to their systems? We seek comment on relative costs and 
benefits that a digital ID and/or geolocation requirement on Tier 2 
users would have, especially for Tier 2 small businesses.
    We also seek comment on the feasibility of developing an automated 
database system to enable dynamic Tier 2 secondary use of the 4.9 GHz 
band while protecting Tier 1 operations. We acknowledge the concerns 
raised by commenters that ``white-spaces'' databases previously 
developed for commercial bands might not provide sufficient assurance 
of real-time protection for mission-critical public safety operations. 
We seek comment on what capabilities an automated system would need to 
support the public safety requirements of the 4.9 GHz band. Should the 
database be centralized or distributed? What would it cost to design, 
build, and operate such a system, and who should be responsible for 
such costs? What information would Tier 1 and Tier 2 users need to 
enter and update in the database to facilitate dynamic spectrum 
sharing? What would be the cost and burden of providing such 
information? How would an automated system communicate with users' 
devices to help minimize interference and facilitate registration, 
coordination, and dynamic access?

[[Page 20023]]

What capabilities would be required to identify potentially interfering 
Tier 2 users in real time and to direct them to move to a non-
interfering channel or to shut down? We seek comment on these issues 
and on alternative models for spectrum sharing that would achieve these 
goals. Beyond the upfront cost of designing, building and operating the 
automated database system, and recurring database maintenance costs--
both necessary to enable dynamic Tier 2 secondary use--such dynamic 
spectrum sharing would appear to impose few costs on public safety 
because it would retain primary access to the spectrum as needed. These 
costs would be the costs of entering and updating information to the 
automated database. We seek comment on whether the benefits to 
secondary users would outweigh the upfront, recurring, and database 
entry relative costs, and any other appreciable costs that we may not 
have taken into account.

Redesignation of the Band

    As this spectrum has been underutilized, we request comment on 
redesignating the 4.9 GHz band, wholly or partially, to support 
commercial wireless use. Are the bases for the Commission's decision in 
2002 to allocate the entire band for public safety purposes still 
valid, or does the public interest now call for a change? For example, 
would the public interest be best served if this spectrum could be used 
for commercial applications, such as 5G, or would it be better to 
strike a balance between public safety and commercial uses? What are 
the relative costs and benefits of a commercial use of this spectrum as 
weighed against the band plan we propose above or the sharing use 
alternatives on which we seek comment? If only a portion of the band 
were to be redesignated, how should the band be divided between public 
safety and commercial use? If any or all of the spectrum is 
redesignated for commercial wireless purposes, should the Commission 
consider auctioning the redesignated spectrum, making licenses 
available on some other basis, or authorizing the spectrum for 
unlicensed use under part 15 of the Rules? We seek comment on any other 
alternatives to support commercial wireless use of the 4.9 GHz band. If 
the band were made available for licensed or unlicensed use, we seek 
comment on what the technical rules would be appropriate. Specifically, 
if the band were made available for licensed use, should we apply the 
power levels, emissions limits, and other technical requirements that 
are in the existing 4.9 GHz band technical rules, the Citizen's 
Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) as reflected in part 96 subpart E, or 
the technical rules for the AWS-3 spectrum as reflected in part 27 for 
the 1710-1780 MHz and 2110-2170 MHz bands? The CBRS rules assume time 
division duplex operation while the AWS-3 rules assume frequency 
division duplex operation, with each set of rules specifying separate 
technical requirements for base stations and mobile devices. If the 
band were made available for unlicensed use, we specifically invite 
comment on whether we should apply the same technical rules that exist 
for the U-NII band at 5150-5250 MHz under part 15 subpart E. If the 
Commission allows commercial use in all or part of the 4.9 GHz band, 
should it allow both mobile and fixed use? When considering whether to 
designate all or part of the band for commercial users, should the 
Commission consider designating the entire band in markets where there 
are no existing public safety 4.9 GHz facilities? In markets where 
there are public safety incumbents, should public safety use be limited 
to those incumbents or should a specified amount of the 4.9 GHz band be 
reserved for public safety use? If the Commission divides the band into 
commercial and public safety segments, would it need to establish guard 
bands or would in-band and out-of-band emission limits suffice to guard 
against harmful interference? Commenters should address how the loss of 
opportunities for public safety spectrum use in the 4.9 GHz band might 
affect congestion in other bands currently allocated for public safety 
use.
    In the event that the Commission redesignates any of the spectrum 
in the 4.9 GHz band, how should the Commission treat existing public 
safety systems operating in the band? Should public safety systems 
simply be grandfathered on their current frequencies? If so, should it 
be based on the frequencies licensed or those actually deployed and 
used? If the band is divided into public safety and commercial 
segments, should public safety licensees be required to relocate their 
facilities into the public safety segment? In the event the Commission 
elects to designate the entire band for commercial use, is there 
alternative spectrum to which existing public safety 4.9 GHz licensees 
can be relocated? If so, who should pay the relocation cost, e.g., if 
the Commission decides to auction the redesignated spectrum? Should 
auction proceeds be used to pay public safety's cost to relocate its 
systems? We seek comment on the relative costs and benefits of all of 
these options.

Procedural Matters

Ex Parte Presentations

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 
603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. IRFA is 
set forth in Appendix C of the Sixth FNPRM. Written public comments are 
requested on the IRFA. These

[[Page 20024]]

comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as 
comments filed in response to this Sixth FNPRM as set forth herein, and 
they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as 
responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the 
Sixth FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    This document contains proposed new and modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might ``further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.''

Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, It is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 
4(o), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, 332, and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
154(o), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, 332, and 403, that this Sixth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Center, shall send a copy of 
this Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 0, 2, and 90

    Organization and functions (Government agencies); Communications 
equipment; Radio; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 0, 2 and 90 as 
follows:

PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

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

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

0
2. Section 0.392 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  0.392   Authority Delegated.

* * * * *
    (k) Certifies frequency coordinators; considers petitions seeking 
review of coordinator actions; and engages in oversight of coordinator 
actions and practices.

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

0
3. 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
4. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended by 
revising page 41 to read as follows:


Sec.  2.106   Table of Frequency Allocations.

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

[[Page 20025]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY18.027


[[Page 20026]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY18.028


[[Page 20027]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY18.029

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

[[Page 20028]]

PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
5. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 
303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.

0
6. Section 90.175 is amended by removing paragraph (j)(22) and adding 
paragraph (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  90.175  Frequency coordinator requirements.

* * * * *
    (k) For frequencies in the 4940-4990 MHz band: See Sec.  90.1209 of 
this chapter for further information.

0
7. Section 90.1205 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  90.1205   Permissible operations.

* * * * *
    (c) Aeronautical mobile and robotic station operations are 
permitted subject to Sec.  90.1219.
0
8. Section 90.1207 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1207   Licensing.

    (a) A 4945-4990 MHz band geographic license gives the licensee 
authority to operate temporary (1 year or less) fixed stations on any 
authorized channel in this band within its licensed area of operation. 
See Sec.  90.1213. A 4945-4990 MHz band license will be issued for the 
geographic area encompassing the legal jurisdiction of the licensee or, 
in case of a nongovernmental organization, the legal jurisdiction of 
the state or local governmental entity supporting the nongovernmental 
organization.
    (1) A temporary fixed station is required to be individually 
licensed if:
    (i) International agreements require coordination;
    (ii) Submission of an environmental assessment is required under 
Sec.  1.1307 of this chapter; or
    (iii) The station would affect areas identified in Sec.  1.924 of 
this chapter.
    (2) Any antenna structure that requires notification to the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) must be registered with the Commission 
prior to construction under Sec.  17.4 of this chapter.
    (b) Subject to Sec.  90.1209, base stations and mobile units 
(including portable and handheld units) in the 4945-4990 MHz band are 
required to be licensed on a site-by-site basis. All existing licensees 
that operate such stations shall seek licenses for such stations in the 
Commission's Universal Licensing System database by filing new or 
modification applications within one year after the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
announce by public notice that the database is ready to accept such 
applications. Any antenna structure that requires notification to the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must be registered with the 
Commission prior to construction under Sec.  17.4 of this chapter.
    (c) Permanent fixed point-to-point transmitters and receivers, 
permanent fixed point-to-multipoint transmitters and fixed receivers in 
the 4945-4990 MHz band must be licensed individually on a site-by-site 
basis. All existing licensees that operate such stations shall seek 
individual licenses for such stations in the Commission's Universal 
Licensing System database by filing new applications within one year 
after the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau announce by public notice that the database 
is ready to accept such applications. Primary permanent fixed point-to-
point and point-to-multipoint transmitters must use directional 
antennas with gains equal to or greater than 26 dBi. All such stations 
in the 4945-4990 MHz band are accorded primary status.
    (d) A 4940-4945 MHz license gives the licensee authority to operate 
aeronautical mobile or robotic stations subject to Sec.  90.1219 on any 
authorized channel in this band within its licensed area of operation. 
See Sec.  90.1213. Geographic area licenses and individually licensed 
stations issued before the effective date of this rule that use 
spectrum overlapping or within the 4940-4945 MHz band segment are 
grandfathered.
    (e) Existing 4940-4990 MHz band licenses as of the effective date 
of this rule are grandfathered from revisions to Sec.  90.1215(a)(2).
0
9. Section 90.1209 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) through (d), 
and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Each application for a new frequency assignment or for a change 
in existing facilities must include a showing of frequency 
coordination. A database of licenses is available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls. Frequency coordinators and potential applicants 
should examine this database before seeking station authorization, and 
make every effort to ensure that their fixed and base stations operate 
at a location, and with technical parameters, that will minimize the 
potential to cause and receive interference. Licensees of stations 
suffering or causing harmful interference are expected to cooperate and 
resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory arrangements. If 
licensees are unable to do so, frequency coordinators may adjudicate 
such matters and recommend solutions to the Commission. The Commission 
may impose restrictions including specifying the transmitter power, 
antenna height, or area or hours of operation of the stations 
concerned. Within one day of making a frequency recommendation, the 
lead frequency coordinator must send a copy of the application to other 
certified frequency coordinators. Concurrently, the lead frequency 
coordinator must send a copy of the application to the adjacent 700 MHz 
Regional Planning Committee where the signal at the region border 
exceeds -109 dBW/m2/5 MHz.
    (c) Licensees will make every practical effort to protect radio 
astronomy operations as specified in Sec.  2.106, footnote US385 of 
this chapter.
    (d) Licensees of base or temporary fixed stations must place at 
least one such station in operation within twelve (12) months of the 
license grant date, or the license cancels automatically as of the 
expiration of such twelve-month period, without specific Commission 
action. Fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint stations which are 
licensed on a site-by-site basis must be placed in operation within 
twelve (12) months of the grant date or the authorization for that 
station cancels automatically as of the expiration of such twelve-month 
period, without specific Commission action.
    (e) Temporary fixed point-to-point stations may only be operated 
for thirty days maximum over a given path over a one-year time frame.
0
10. Section 90.1211 is amended by revising paragraph (a), (b)(4), and 
(c) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1211   Regional plan.

    (a) To facilitate the shared use of the 4.9 GHz band, each region 
may submit a plan on guidelines to be used for sharing the spectrum 
within the region.
    (b) * * *
    (4) A description of the coordination procedures for permanent 
fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint stations, base stations, 
temporary fixed stations, and mobile operations. The procedures shall 
include, but are not limited to, mechanisms for incident

[[Page 20029]]

management protocols, interference avoidance, and interoperability.
    (c) Regional plans may vary from the band plan in the following 
areas:
    (1) Limit channel aggregation to 20 megahertz bandwidth.
    (2) Designate one or more channels for specialized use.
    (3) Place limits on the use of point-to-point links in urban areas 
or impose more stringent limits on antenna gain, maximum conducted 
output power, power spectral density, or other technical parameters of 
point-to-point systems relative to the limits of Sec.  90.1215.
    (4) Require polarization for point-to-point links.
    (d) Regional plans may be modified by submitting a written request, 
signed by the regional planning committee, to the Chief, Public Safety 
and Homeland Security Bureau. The request must contain the full text of 
the modification, and a certification that all eligible entities had a 
chance to participate in discussions concerning the modification and 
that any changes have been coordinated with adjacent regions.
0
11. Section 90.1213 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1213   Band plan.

    (a) Upon the effective date of this rule, Channel numbers 1 through 
5 are aggregated for a channel bandwidth of 5 MHz and may be 
subsequently licensed for use only in accordance with Sec.  90.1219 of 
this chapter; any existing operations on these channels prior to the 
effective date of this rule are grandfathered. Channel numbers 6 
through 13 are 5 MHz bandwidth channels and Channel numbers 14 through 
18 are 1 MHz bandwidth channels. The following channel center 
frequencies are permitted to be aggregated for channel bandwidths of 5, 
10, 15 or 20 MHz as described in paragraph (b) of this section. Channel 
numbers 14 through 18 should be used for narrow bandwidth operations 
and should be used in aggregations only if all other 5 MHz channels are 
blocked.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Bandwidth
         Center frequency  (MHz)               (MHz)       Channel Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4942.5..................................               5             1-5
4947.5..................................               5               6
4952.5..................................               5               7
4957.5..................................               5               8
4962.5..................................               5               9
4967.5..................................               5              10
4972.5..................................               5              11
4977.5..................................               5              12
4982.5..................................               5              13
4985.5..................................               1              14
4986.5..................................               1              15
4987.5..................................               1              16
4988.5..................................               1              17
4989.5..................................               1              18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) The following tables list center frequencies to be licensed for 
aggregated channels only. A license may contain any combination of 
bandwidths from aggregated channels provided that the bandwidths do not 
overlap. The bandwidth edges (lower and upper frequencies) are provided 
to aid in planning.
    (1) 5 MHz bandwidth aggregation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center  frequency    Channel  Nos.    Lower  frequency  Upper  frequency
       (MHz)            employed            (MHz)             (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         4942.5           1 to 5 *               4940              4945
         4947.5                  6               4945              4950
         4952.5                  7               4950              4955
         4957.5                  8               4955              4960
         4962.5                  9               4960              4965
         4967.5                 10               4965              4970
         4972.5                 11               4970              4975
         4977.5                 12               4975              4980
         4982.5                 13               4980              4985
         4987.5        14 to 18 **               4985              4990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Licensees for these channels granted after the effective date of this
  rule may use these channels only in accordance with Sec.   90.1219 of
  this chapter.
** Licensees should avoid using these channels in aggregations unless
  all other channels are blocked.

    (2) 10 MHz bandwidth aggregation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center  frequency    Channel  Nos.    Lower  frequency  Upper  frequency
       (MHz)            employed            (MHz)             (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           4950              6 & 7               4945              4955
           4955              7 & 8               4950              4960
           4960              8 & 9               4955              4965
           4965             9 & 10               4960              4970

[[Page 20030]]

 
           4970            10 & 11               4965              4975
           4975            11 & 12               4970              4980
           4980             12 &13               4975              4985
           4985          13 to 18*               4980              4990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Licensees should avoid using these channels in aggregations unless all
  other channels are blocked.

    (3) 15 MHz bandwidth aggregation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center  frequency    Channel  Nos.    Lower  frequency  Upper  frequency
       (MHz)            employed            (MHz)             (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         4952.5             6 to 8               4945              4960
         4957.5             7 to 9               4950              4965
         4962.5            8 to 10               4955              4970
         4967.5            9 to 11               4960              4975
         4972.5           10 to 12               4965              4980
         4977.5           11 to 13               4970              4985
         4982.5         12 to 18 *               4975              4990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Licensees should avoid using these channels in aggregations unless all
  other channels are blocked.

    (4) 20 MHz bandwidth aggregation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center  frequency    Channel  Nos.    Lower  frequency  Upper  frequency
       (MHz)            employed            (MHz)             (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           4955             6 to 9               4945              4965
           4960            7 to 10               4950              4970
           4965            8 to 11               4955              4975
           4970            9 to 12               4960              4980
           4975           10 to 13               4965              4985
           4980         11 to 18 *               4970              4990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Licensees should should avoid using these channels in aggregations
  unless all other channels are blocked.

    (5) 30 MHz bandwidth aggregation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center  frequency    Channel  Nos.    Lower  frequency  Upper  frequency
       (MHz)            employed            (MHz)             (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           4960            6 to 11               4945              4975
           4965            7 to 12               4950              4980
           4970            8 to 13               4955              4985
           4975          9 to 18 *               4960              4990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Licensees should avoid using these channels in aggregations unless all
  other channels are blocked.

    (6) 40 MHz bandwidth aggregation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center  frequency    Channel  Nos.    Lower  frequency  Upper  frequency
       (MHz)            employed            (MHz)             (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           4965            6 to 13               4945              4985
           4970          7 to 18 *               4950              4990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Licensees should avoid using these channels in aggregations unless all
  other channels are blocked.

0
12. Section 90.1215 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  90.1215   Power limits.

* * * * *
    (a)(1) The maximum conducted output power should not exceed:

[[Page 20031]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Low power      High  power
                                              maximum         maximum
        Channel  bandwidth  (MHz)            conducted       conducted
                                           output power    output  power
                                               (dBm)           (dBm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................               7              20
5.......................................              14              27
10......................................              17              30
15......................................            18.8            31.8
20......................................              20              33
30......................................            21.8            34.8
40......................................              23              36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) High power devices are also limited to a peak power spectral 
density of 21 dBm per one MHz. High power devices using channel 
bandwidths other than those listed above are permitted; however, they 
are limited to peak power spectral density of 21 dBm/MHz. If 
transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 9 dBi are used, 
both the maximum conducted output power and the peak power spectral 
density should be reduced by the amount in decibels that the 
directional gain of the antenna exceeds 9 dBi. However, high power 
point-to-point transmitting antennas (both fixed and temporary-fixed 
rapid deployment) shall operate with minimum directional gain of 26 
dBi, maximum 5.5 degree beamwidth and 25 dB front-to-back ratio. For 
point-to-point systems, the maximum equivalent isotropically radiated 
power (EIRP) is 65.15 dBm. High power point-to-multipoint operations 
(both fixed and temporary-fixed rapid deployment) may employ 
transmitting antennas with directional gain exceeding 26 dBi. For 
point-to-multipoint systems, the maximum EIRP is 55.15 dBm. Frequency 
coordinators may recommend reduction to the EIRP on a case-by-case 
basis, through reduction of the maximum conducted output power, 
spectral density, and/or antenna gain. Further, under Sec.  
90.1211(c)(3) thorough (4), Regional Planning Committees may recommend 
alternate lower limits to the allowed antenna gain, maximum conducted 
output power, or power spectral density of point-to-point systems.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 90.1219 is added to Subpart Y to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1219   Aeronautical mobile and robotic operation.

    Entities eligible pursuant to Sec.  90.1203(a) may conduct manned 
aeronautical mobile and robotic terrestrial operations on Channels 1 
through 5 (4940-4945 MHz) to transmit video payload on a primary basis 
to terrestrial services under the following restrictions.
    (a) Airborne use of these channels is limited to aircraft flying at 
or below 457 meters (1500 feet) above ground level. Fixed wing aircraft 
may use these channels at altitudes exceeding 457 meters above ground 
level as necessary to comply with 14 CFR 91.119(b) through (c).
    (b) Licensees may use only low power devices as defined by Sec.  
90.1215 that use Emission Mask L as defined by Sec.  90.210(l) for 
aeronautical mobile use.
    (c) Licensees may use only low power devices as defined by Sec.  
90.1215 for robotic applications.
    (d) The applicant shall provide a description of proposed operation 
to demonstrate that the proposed aeronautical mobile operations protect 
radio astronomy operations and terrestrial services from interference.
    (e) Aeronautical mobile and robotic applications must be approved 
in writing by the 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee or the National 
Regional Planning Council as part of the frequency coordination 
Regional Planning Committee review process before the coordinator can 
submit the application to the Commission.
    (f) Aeronautical mobile operations are prohibited within 80.5 
kilometers (50 miles) of radio astronomy sites listed in Sec.  2.106 
US385 or US131. The coordinates to be used for the Allen Telescope 
Array are 40[deg] 49' 01'' North latitude, 121[deg] 28' 12'' West 
longitude. An applicant for aeronautical mobile use whose geographic 
boundaries fall within 80.5 kilometers of any of these radio astronomy 
sites may request a waiver, but shall certify that it has served a copy 
of the application on affected radio astronomy observatories.
    (g) The Commission has the discretion to impose special conditions 
and operating restrictions on individual licenses as necessary to 
reduce risk of interference to radio astronomy operations and 
terrestrial services.
    (h) Transmissions in the 4940-4990 MHz band to or from unmanned 
aerial systems are prohibited.

[FR Doc. 2018-09416 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P