[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 235 (Friday, December 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63076-63097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25795]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 96

[GN Docket No. 17-258; FCC 18-149]


Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission

[[Page 63077]]

(Commission) adopts limited changes to the rules governing Priority 
Access Licenses (PALs) that will be issued in the 3500-3700 MHz Band 
(3.5 GHz band)--including larger license areas, longer license terms, 
renewability, and performance requirements--as well as changes to the 
competitive bidding rules for the issuance of PALs and to the ability 
to partition and disaggregate areas within PALs. These changes are 
consistent with the rules that helped foster the development of 4G and 
LTE services in the United States, and adopting similar rules in this 
band will help promote additional investment in the next generation of 
wireless services. The Commission also adopts changes to the technical 
rules to facilitate transmissions over wider bandwidth channels without 
significant power reduction and changes to the information security 
requirements to better safeguard commercially sensitive information and 
protect critical infrastructure. These targeted changes will spur 
additional investment and broader deployment in the band, promote 
robust and efficient spectrum use, and help ensure the rapid deployment 
of advanced wireless technologies--including 5G--in the United States.

DATES: Effective Date: January 7, 2019.
    Compliance Date: Compliance will not be required for Sec.  96.23(a) 
or for Sec.  96.25(b) or for Sec.  96.32(b) until after approval by the 
Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document 
in the Federal Register announcing that compliance date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Greffenius at 
[email protected], of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Mobility Division, (202) 418-2896.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order in GN Docket No. 17-258, FCC 18-148 adopted October 23, 2018 
and released October 24, 2018. The full text of the Report and Order, 
including all Appendices, is available for inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th 
Street SW, Room CY-A157, Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the 
text from the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-149A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for 
people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Consumer 
and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).
    The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

I. Background

    1. In 2015, the Commission adopted rules for shared commercial use 
of the 3.5 GHz band. It created a three-tiered access and authorization 
framework to coordinate shared federal and non-federal use of the band. 
Incumbents comprise the first tier (Incumbent Access) and receive 
protection from all other users, followed by PALs, the second tier 
(Priority Access), and General Authorized Access (GAA), the third tier. 
Over half of the band--a minimum of 80 megahertz--is reserved for GAA 
use. PALs receive protection from GAA operations but must protect and 
accept interference from Incumbent Access tier users. GAA is licensed-
by-rule and must avoid causing harmful interference to higher tier 
users and accept interference from all other users, including other GAA 
users. GAA users can operate throughout the entire 150 megahertz of the 
3.5 GHz band on any frequencies not in use by PALs. Automated frequency 
coordinators, known as Spectrum Access Systems (SASs), will coordinate 
operations between and among users in different access tiers. The 
Commission adopted service and technical rules governing the 3.5 GHz 
band as the new part 96 of its rules.
    2. In June 2017, CTIA and T-Mobile filed petitions for rulemaking, 
which asked the Commission to reexamine several of the part 96 rules 
related to PALs. CTIA proposed several changes to the PAL licensing 
rules, including much larger license areas, longer license terms, and 
renewability. T-Mobile supported CTIA's proposals and made additional 
proposals, including changes to the amount of spectrum available for 
PALs and to the technical rules governing the 3.5 GHz band. Both 
petitioners argued that these requested changes were necessary to 
promote additional investment to facilitate 5G network deployment in 
the band. On June 22, 2017, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and 
Office of Engineering and Technology sought comment on the Petitions 
and on related issues raised in ex parte communications, and they 
received comments and reply comments from more than 120 parties.
    3. On October 24, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (82 FR 56193, Nov. 28, 2017) (2017 NPRM) seeking comment on 
potential changes to the PAL rules, including significantly larger 
geographic license areas, longer license terms, PAL renewability, and 
changes to the way in which PALs are assigned and auctioned. The 
Commission also sought comment on relaxing the emissions limits for 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices (CBSDs) and/or End User 
Devices to allow operation over wider bandwidths without power 
reduction. The Commission simultaneously adopted an Order Terminating 
the Petitions, in which it declined to seek comment on discrete 
proposals from T-Mobile's Petition that would have fundamentally 
altered the sharing framework of the band, including its proposal to 
reapportion the amount of spectrum available for GAA versus PAL use and 
designating the entire band for PAL use.
    4. The Commission received nearly 200 comments and 40 reply 
comments in response to the 2017 NPRM, including from mobile wireless 
service providers, Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) and 
other fixed wireless service providers, cable providers, Internet of 
Things (IoT) providers, energy and utility associations, and consumer 
groups.

III. Discussion

A. PAL Licensing Rules

1. Geographic Licensing Area
    5. Background. In the 2015 Report and Order (80 FR 36164, June 23, 
2015), the Commission defined the geographic license area for each PAL 
as one census tract. In the 2017 NPRM, the Commission proposed to 
increase the geographic license area to ``stimulate additional 
investment, promote innovation, and encourage efficient use of spectrum 
resources.'' The Commission sought comment on petitioners' specific 
request to increase the license size to Partial Economic Areas (PEAs), 
asking whether the larger size and the ability to combine and partition 
licenses would strike the right balance between supporting targeted 
deployments and incentivizing additional investment in the band. Noting 
concerns in the record about whether PEAs would incent diverse auction 
participants, differing technologies, and rural deployments, the 
Commission also sought comment on alternative or hybrid approaches, 
such as licensing PEAs in urban areas and census tracts in rural areas, 
or

[[Page 63078]]

offering PALs of different sizes in each market.
    6. Several commenters support increasing the PAL license area 
significantly, from census tracts to PEAs, as a way to simplify the 
auction process, reduce interference risks and coordination 
complications at border areas, and encourage investment by all 
providers. Other commenters argue that the Commission should retain 
census tracts as the geographic licensing unit for PALs, arguing that 
using census tracts would increase the likelihood of localized services 
reaching rural and underserved areas, and open up PAL auctions to a 
wider variety of potential users and uses. Other commenters support 
using county-sized PALs as a compromise between census tracts and PEAs. 
Some commenters suggest that the Commission rely on a hybrid approach 
and to adopt multiple, different-sized PAL license areas. After the 
comment cycle closed, many stakeholders worked to find a hybrid 
solution for the size of the PAL license area.
    7. Discussion. After review of the extensive record on this issue 
and in light of the changed circumstances since adoption of the 2015 
rules, the Commission finds that increasing the size of the PAL license 
area to counties will better serve the public interest.
    8. In 2015, the Commission determined that larger license areas 
were inconsistent with its desire to promote innovative, low power uses 
in the band, such as small cells, which align well with small, targeted 
geographic areas, and that census tracts would permit intensive use of 
the band and support a variety of use cases. The Commission now 
reassesses these determinations in the wake of the changed 
technological landscape, with efforts here and abroad to prioritize 
mid-band spectrum as part of the spectrum portfolio that will support 
next generation wireless networks, including 5G. While the decision to 
use census tracts may well support the deployment of targeted use 
cases--particularly fixed uses--as discussed below, the record shows 
that census tracts could disadvantage flexible mobile use, including 
5G, and other wide-area network deployments, which in turn would 
decrease investment in the band. Increasing the PAL license area 
slightly from 714,000 census tracts to about 3,200 counties strikes a 
more appropriate balance and will more effectively support next 
generation mobile network deployments, while still retaining the 
ability to support small, targeted uses, included fixed uses. In 
contrast, increasing the PAL license area size further (i.e., from 
3,200 counties to 416 PEAs) could disproportionately favor mobile use 
cases and hinder investment in innovative fixed networks and localized 
deployments. The 3.5 GHz band will be the first mid-band spectrum 
suited for 5G uses that will be made available domestically, and the 
band will play a key role as part of the low-, mid-, and high-band 
spectrum toolkit for 5G uses. While census tracts seemed like an 
appropriate ``middle ground'' in 2015, since that time, the balance has 
shifted.
    9. First, given the increasing importance of mid-band spectrum for 
5G--and the importance of maximizing auction participation to ensure 
this band is put to its highest and best use--it is important for the 
size of PAL license areas not to preclude a mobile 5G use case. The 
record in this proceeding now demonstrates that retaining census tracts 
as the size of the PAL license areas would cause significant 
difficulties in deployment of large-scale networks for mobile 5G use. 
In light of this, it is necessary to reassess the Commission's decision 
in the 2015 Report and Order that census tract-sized PALs were large 
enough to support a variety of use cases. After reviewing the record, 
the Commission finds that increasing the size of PAL license areas to 
counties is more likely to ensure that mobile 5G deployments are 
feasible in the 3.5 GHz band.
    10. The Commission agrees with certain commenters' arguments that 
licensing PALs using census tracts could raise insurmountable technical 
issues in urban areas. These commenters stress that the number of PALs 
under a census tract regime--and the number of license borders in 
particular--will cause unnecessarily challenging border coordination 
issues and create network deployment complexities. In New York City, 
for example, there are 2,168 census tracts, spanning an average of less 
than one-sixth of a square mile. This appears to be far smaller than 
the area necessary for a single CBSD to operate in its coverage area on 
at least 20 megahertz of PAL spectrum. Some commenters argue that there 
are engineering and cost challenges to using census tracts, and stress 
that, in order to cover the border areas of census tracts, Priority 
Access Licensees will need to severely limit their power and deploy 
many more CBSDs than what may be actually needed. They also argue that 
TDD-LTE technology requires coordination among co-channel and adjacent 
channel systems at the border, and that synchronization of uplink and 
downlink operations with neighbors would be almost impossible to 
implement in census tracts in large urban areas.
    11. Further, the smaller the license area, the more the 
interference protection requirements will limit a licensee's ability to 
use its assigned spectrum throughout its service area. This is because 
there is a much higher likelihood that when a licensee seeks to deploy 
a CBSD, there will be a nearby PAL Protection Area that requires 
protection, forcing the licensee to reduce power or take other steps to 
protect the transmitter deployed in the adjacent geographic area. Some 
commenters argue that licensing PALs by census tract will add 
tremendous administrative overhead to the process of acquiring PALs and 
building networks to align with areas where licensees actually want to 
operate, and also express concern over the cost of designing and 
deploying networks under a census tract licensing regime. The 
Commission finds this evidence credible that census-tract based 
licensing risks intractable interference problems at PAL borders, 
potentially precluding the use of this spectrum for mobile 5G services.
    12. Other commenters argue that these border interference concerns 
are overstated, because a licensee can operate within its entire PAL 
Protection Area, which may consist of several aggregated PAL licenses 
areas, and because the signals from CBSDs whose service contours form 
the PAL Protection Area would be treated as GAA outside of the PAL 
area. The Commission is unconvinced that these factors fully mitigate 
the problem. For instance, commenters describe scenarios illustrating 
that there is no guarantee that a licensee will have a common channel 
assignment in adjacent markets. And with respect to potentially 
extending a licensee's service contours outside of its license area on 
a GAA basis, some providers note that they cannot make network 
deployment decisions that are premised on not having to protect 
adjacent operations because they might not be deployed, and will need 
to assume that adjacent markets are robustly utilized by PAL (or GAA) 
licensees to the fullest extent possible.
    13. Nor is the Commission persuaded by the argument that it need 
not worry about these interference concerns because they will not 
affect a licensee with a geographically targeted LTE deployment, such 
as within a hotel, convention center, or business campus. If relying on 
census tracts precludes wide-area use of the 3.5 GHz band (and thus 
prevents its use for 5G or rural broadband deployments), the

[[Page 63079]]

Commission would be improperly tipping the scales towards one use case 
over others rather than allowing a neutral market mechanism--an 
auction--to ensure that this valuable spectrum is put to its highest 
and best use.
    14. The Commission further finds that the requirement that the SAS 
assign geographically contiguous PALs held by the same Priority Access 
Licensee to the same channel block in each geographic area does not 
mitigate these concerns. This requirement applies only ``to the extent 
feasible,'' and doing so may not be feasible when, for example, 
multiple licensees want common channels across overlapping aggregate 
PAL Protection Areas. The smaller the license area, the greater the 
likelihood of such conflicts occurring. For example, a carrier seeking 
to offer 5G mobile broadband throughout the New York area would be 
required to bid on 28,000 licenses and be the auction winner 4,000 
times in a single geographic area; this would increase dramatically the 
likelihood that, instead of taking advantage of the contiguous-area 
rule, an auction winner with a checkerboard of census tract-based 
licenses would be able to use none of them. Further, even if some form 
of package or combinatorial bidding could mitigate such risks, 
licensees would still face potentially discontiguous channel 
assignments.
    15. Although other commenters, in disputing these claims, stress 
the legal obligation of the SAS to protect a licensee's PAL Protection 
Area, they do not persuasively refute the demonstration that the use of 
census tracts is likely in practice to increase dramatically the number 
of potential border conflicts and related engineering and coordination 
challenges, potentially precluding next generation mobile services, 
including 5G, in the 3.5 GHz band. As the Commission recognized in 
2015, licensees may have a legitimate need to coordinate with holders 
of both geographically and spectrally adjacent licenses in order to 
maximize the utility of the band and facilitate efficient network 
planning. The record presents serious concerns that, for large scale 
deployments, such coordination could involve a prohibitive number of 
co-channel and adjacent channel licensees.
    16. Second, county-based licensing will allow Priority Access 
Licensees to take advantage of economies of scale, which will reduce 
deployment costs. Economic analysis submitted in the record suggests 
that the population of a census tract is likely not sufficiently large 
to take advantage of possible economies of scale for many of the 
potential uses of the band, particularly for the deployment of 5G. 
Counties--in contrast--are large enough for network deployers to 
achieve scale economies for both fixed and mobile services. Indeed, 
counties cover a large enough geographic footprint to incentivize 
investment in wider area geographic deployments that take full 
advantage of the CBSD power limits in the 3.5 GHz band, a particularly 
important issue for 5G networks.
    17. Third, counties will service the needs of rural communities and 
will allow new and innovative services to reach underserved and 
unserved communities, consistent with the Act's objectives. County-
sized PALs will provide small, rural providers with a reasonable 
opportunity to obtain spectrum and promote more effective use of 
spectrum for actual service delivery in rural areas. Senators of 
Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska argue that use of counties for licensing 
PALs in rural areas would serve the needs of their rural communities 
because it will provide small carriers with an opportunity to access 
PALs that best fit their targeted service at a price that fits their 
budget. Several small, rural carriers note that census tract licensing 
would render the spectrum useless for many small carriers in rural 
areas, arguing that county-sized licenses will make logical sense in 
rural communities. And many commenters support using counties to 
license at least some PALs, particularly in rural communities. The 
Commission agrees with this ample record that county-based license 
areas will enable a wide variety of use cases needed to ensure 
deployment of the 3.5 GHz band in rural areas.
    18. Fourth, the Commission finds that counties will serve a variety 
of innovative use cases for urban, suburban, and rural deployments, 
including IoT deployments and those by new entrants. Several parties 
stress the importance of access to PALs for IoT and other innovative 
spectrum uses in suburban and urban areas, and they note that 5G will 
be replete with these type of targeted uses cases regardless of whether 
the community is urban or more rural. These commenters argue that 
counties strike a balance between enabling efficient deployment of 
services and remaining small enough to ensure economic viability for a 
variety of businesses and technical plans. Other commenters also note 
that while they may prefer other license sizes, counties would 
nonetheless be compatible with their business cases. The Commission 
agrees that the Priority Access licensing structure should be flexible 
enough to support and encourage next-generation applications like 5G 
and IoT and believes that county-based licensing will help to 
accomplish this goal. Licensing PALs by county will help foster 
flexible and innovative use of the 3.5 GHz band in all areas by 
providing a consistent, relatively small license size appropriate for a 
wide range of possible network deployments. Indeed, the Commission 
adopted county-size PALs for the 28 GHz band for these same reasons, 
which likewise will be an important part of the next generation 
wireless ecosystem, including 5G and IoT applications. In that 
proceeding, the Commission found that ``a county-based license affords 
a licensee the flexibility to develop localized services, allows for 
targeted deployments based on market forces and customer demand, and 
facilitates access by both smaller and larger carriers.'' As in that 
context, the Commission anticipates that this approach in the 3.5 GHz 
band will support diverse network deployments and business models and 
will fulfill the Act's objectives by fostering the development and 
rapid deployment of new technologies, promoting economic opportunity 
and competition, and disseminating licenses among a wide variety of 
applicants.
    19. Counties are sufficiently small to support the small cell 
deployments and localized types of service the Commission anticipates 
will be an important part of this band. They are also small enough to 
allow licensees to target their deployments where they need capacity. 
At the same time, as the Commission and commenters have recognized, 
counties are the basic ``building blocks'' of many geographic areas, 
making them suitable for aggregation for licensees that wish to operate 
over larger areas. This flexibility makes counties an appropriate 
middle ground for this band, given that the characteristics of 3.5 GHz 
band spectrum are favorable to support both localized and wide-area 
deployments, and thus to entities wanting to provide a variety of 
innovative services--some more targeted than others--to the public.
    20. Fifth, the Commission finds that licensing PALs on a county 
basis will simplify the licensing regime in a way that minimizes 
burdens imposed on licensees, and that promotes administrative and 
spectral efficiency consistent with its statutory objectives including 
speeding the ``development and rapid deployment of new technologies, 
products, and services'' and ``efficient and intensive use'' of the 
spectrum. With just 3,200 counties nationwide (compared to about 74,000 
census tracts), the Commission can

[[Page 63080]]

reduce the administrative burden more than 20-fold by using counties as 
the PAL license area. It anticipates that this reduction, in turn, will 
reduce network design complexity and minimize border coordination 
issues.
    21. The Commission also anticipates that fewer license areas and 
fewer overall biddable items available through the PAL auction will 
reduce auction complexity and will enable it to move forward more 
quickly to offer all available PALs in one multiple round auction 
conferring significant benefits to the public. Historically, the 
Commission has preferred to use a specific simultaneous multiple round 
(SMR) auction format for offering spectrum licenses. In the forward 
auction portion of the broadcast incentive auction (Auction 1002), the 
Commission used a clock auction format which, like the SMR, also offers 
all items simultaneously in multiple bidding rounds. These auction 
formats allow bidders to engage in price discovery and pursue backup 
strategies as prices ascend, which, for many license inventories, are 
important benefits for bidders. The Commission's current bidding 
systems for multiple round spectrum auctions were designed so as to 
offer these bidder advantages given historically typical inventories of 
geographic areas. While a county-based geographic license area gives us 
an inventory with the largest number of areas that the Commission has 
ever auctioned or licensed, it is a far smaller number than an 
inventory based on 74,000 census tracts. Accordingly, licensing PALs on 
the basis of counties will enable the Commission to use an auction 
system that offers bidders important benefits, as well as allow it to 
auction them more quickly with a bidding system that is manageable for 
bidders.
    22. Relatedly, if providers with larger-area needs have to turn to 
the secondary market to aggregate additional licenses, the smaller the 
license area used, the larger the number of transactions that would be 
required, thus increasing transaction costs. The Commission believes 
that this balance will not only promote Section 309's goal of 
``efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum,'' but 
also encourage investment by a wider array of users than under the 
census tract regime by removing unnecessary administrative hurdles and 
associated costs.
    23. Several parties, including those representing small and rural 
interests, also agree that counties will minimize administrative 
burdens imposed on licensees, while still being small enough to support 
rural deployment, reduce barriers of entry, and encourage localized use 
cases. They stress that, as compared to census tracts, counties will 
simplify license management burdens and border coordination issues, 
while still supporting rural deployment preserving low barriers to 
entry.
    24. Sixth, international developments confirm the importance of 
creating an environment that encourages domestic investment in next 
generation mobile networks in the 3.5 GHz band to effectively leverage 
the economies of scale created by international investments in the 
band. Numerous other countries have begun to auction spectrum in the 
3.5 GHz range and several others are poised to do so in the near 
future. It is important for the United States to create a robust 
marketplace in the band, particularly as the band is standardized for 
next-generation, 5G technology. By making sure that the PAL license 
area will foster investment in the band, including by those seeking to 
use it for mobile 5G use, the Commission is better aligning itself with 
global developments and preparing to be a leader in the 5G ecosystem, 
as it has been in the LTE space. Service providers often determine 
their investments on a global scale, not just a domestic one, and 
adjustments to the Commission's approach on the geographic licensing 
area will better facilitate service providers including offerings to 
U.S. customers in their plans. Specifically, the Commission finds that 
its revised approach to the geographic licensing area will better align 
the band with global developments, and with other bands in the U.S. 
that the Commission has found will play a role in the 5G ecosystem, 
including the millimeter wave bands and the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. This 
consistent approach will ensure that the 3.5 GHz band in the United 
States is ripe for robust investment.
    25. Finally, while no approach to license sizes will satisfy all 
stakeholders, counties represent a more appropriate middle ground that 
will address many of the concerns raised by stakeholders in this 
proceeding. The Commission finds that adopting counties as the 
geographic unit for PAL licensing balances the concerns that some 
commenters have raised about licensing PALs as small as a census tract 
with the concerns that other commenters have raised about licensing 
PALs as large as a PEA. In fact, across the various compromise 
proposals and hybrid approaches submitted in this proceeding, the main 
commonality is support for the use of counties as part of the PAL 
licensing scheme. As such, the Commission finds that increasing the 
size of the geographic license area from census tracts to counties will 
be more likely to unlock the potential for existing and new 
technologies and services to thrive in the 3.5 GHz band, while 
preserving the incentives and ability of smaller innovators to make use 
of PALs, reserved GAA spectrum, and unreserved GAA use as appropriate.
    26. The Commission disagrees with the argument that census tract 
licensing is necessary for localized use cases, or that these localized 
use cases should be the primary focus of the balance struck by its 
rules. Some commenters argue that counties are too large for localized 
deployments such as those intended by colleges, industrial parks, 
manufacturing plants, sports arenas and other similar users, and that 
census tracts are the least costly way to support targeted use cases. 
The Commission finds that the public interest best served by ensuring 
that all potential use cases are technically and economically feasible, 
and by using competitive bidding to allocate the 3.5 GHz band to its 
highest and best use.
    27. Further, county-sized licenses will still enable the 
construction of localized, private networks using 3.5 GHz spectrum. 
Targeted use cases are already encouraged by the ``use-or-share'' 
nature of the band and the GAA tier. A minimum of 80 out of 150 
megahertz--more than half the band--will be available for GAA use even 
if all of the potential PAL channels are occupied, and the Commission 
previously denied T-Mobile's request to change the apportionment of PAL 
to GAA spectrum. Even census tracts are already significantly larger 
than a single campus, hotel, factory, or other similar enterprise, and 
the demands of such targeted applications can be addressed in ways that 
provide interference protection without using license areas as small as 
census tracts, including entering into transactions tailored to the 
area or amount of spectrum needed through leasing, partitioning, or 
disaggregation, or entering into commercial agreements with PAL 
licensees in which the licensee manages the spectrum. What is more, 
network deployers, manufacturers, and technology companies are well 
positioned to aggregate demand across counties to coordinate the 
deployment of localized use cases. This Report and Order also opens up 
the PAL market to partitioning and disaggregation, which should provide 
additional secondary market avenues for targeted uses and users. And 
the decision to impose end-of-term performance requirements will 
incentivize Priority Access Licensees to enter into the commercial 
transactions

[[Page 63081]]

with entities that have targeted-sized uses that fall within their 
license areas.
    28. The Commission also disagrees that increasing the size of PAL 
license areas will ``strand'' investments in the band. Those making 
this argument either are incumbents with grandfathered licenses in one 
portion of the band or they have made those investments in reliance on 
the 2015 rules. For one, the Commission does not find any such reliance 
expectations to be reasonable. It had neither scheduled nor even sought 
comment on how to design a competitive bidding system for PALs before 
seeking comment on the petitions for rulemaking to change the 2015 
rules--and no provider is ever guaranteed to win protected spectrum at 
auction in a given market, regardless of the size of the geographic 
license area. For another, the unique structure and technical rules 
governing the 3.5 GHz band reduce the risk of stranded investment for 
all entrants and largely obviate the need to rely solely on auctioned 
licenses for access to the band. As stated previously, a minimum of 80 
megahertz of the band will be available for use on a GAA basis in any 
area, by any entity that registers with the SAS. Additional spectrum 
will also be made available when it is not in use by Priority Access 
Licensees. The technical rules are the same for GAA and PAL users, 
meaning entities can use the same equipment in either tier, and can 
rely on both PAL and GAA spectrum, one or the other, or switch between 
the two to meet their business needs. And so any entity that deploys in 
the band prior to the PAL auction would need to operate on a GAA basis 
for some period of time and would be able to continue to do so after 
the auction, regardless of the outcome. Moreover, counties are small 
enough that the Commission anticipates rural providers and WISPs will 
actively seek county-sized PALs at auction, or enter arrangements to 
partition or disaggregate county-sized areas into smaller ones. 
Additionally, the opportunities for small entities and rural carriers 
to win will be supported by the bidding credits that have been 
successful in other Commission proceedings.
    29. The Commission rejects arguments that it should adopt PEAs 
nationwide, as petitioners and some commenters support, or Metropolitan 
Statistical Areas (MSAs) in urban areas, as suggested in multiple 
hybrid proposals. The incremental benefit for 5G mobile use of going 
from counties to MSAs or PEAs would be far less than the incremental 
costs incurred by other potential users of the band. In particular, the 
Commission agrees with those commenters that cite the potential 
negative effects of adopting license areas as large as PEAs. Many WISPs 
express concerns that the incongruity between PEAs and WISP service 
footprints will diminish or foreclose their ability to win PALs at 
auction. In response to these concerns, the Commission has decided not 
to increase the size of the PAL license area to PEAs.
    30. Nevertheless, to provide greater flexibility to PAL applicants 
interested in serving larger areas, the Commission will seek comment in 
the pre-auction process on allowing package bids to facilitate bidding 
for the counties that comprise a complete MSA in the top 305 markets. 
Several commenters argue that MSAs in urban areas will promote 
investment in the band in those markets, and--in combination with 
counties--provide an opportunity for parties to acquire PAL spectrum in 
areas that best fit their business models and investment plans and 
minimize burdens for applicants interested in a larger footprint in 
urban areas. The Commission expects that the proposed procedures for 
the auction will include specific procedures for a form of package 
bidding consistent with proposals for other bidding procedures proposed 
in the pre-auction public notice process. Licensing PALs by county, and 
seeking comment on the best flexible auction mechanism that may allow 
bidders to aggregate MSA bids, including possibly using package bidding 
for all of the counties in an MSA, could reduce secondary market 
transaction costs while still promoting an active secondary market.
    31. The Commission rejects hybrid approaches that offer multiple 
size PALs in every market, such as licensing 50 megahertz of PALs by 
county and 20 megahertz by census tract. As discussed above, using 
counties nationwide will support licensee diversity and increased 
investment. Further, there are already significant complexities 
inherent to the 3.5 GHz band authorization and spectrum coordination 
model, which involve the SAS coordinating access between and among the 
three tiers of users, including the protection of multiple discrete 
types of Incumbent users. While SASs may be--and likely are--capable of 
modifying their systems to address multiple sizes of PALs in a given 
geographic area, on balance, it is not in the public interest to add 
yet another layer of complexity to the SAS's spectrum coordination 
responsibilities at this time. Such additional requirements could delay 
SAS certification and, possibly, affect the deployment timeline for the 
band. No party has articulated a compelling argument for the benefits 
of such a hybrid model (vis-[agrave]-vis nationwide use of counties) 
that would outweigh the potential costs inherent in increasing the 
complexity of the licensing and authorization framework at this stage 
of the SAS development cycle. The Commission also agrees with certain 
commenters that, given the specific characteristics of the 3.5 GHz 
band, licensing all PALs available in a market using the same 
geographic area will avoid unnecessarily complicating network 
management burdens for all users. Using the same license area in both 
rural and urban areas, as opposed to a hybrid approach licensing 
different sized PALs in urban and rural areas, will minimize 
complexities in a band that has a unique tiered access structure with 
dynamic spectrum sharing.
2. License Term and Renewal
    32. Background. The rules adopted in the 2015 Report and Order 
established a three-year license term for PALs. Under the current 
rules, during the first application window, an applicant may apply for 
up to two consecutive three-year terms for a given PAL. During 
subsequent regular application windows, however, an applicant will be 
able to apply for only a single three-year license term for any given 
PAL.
    33. In the 2017 NPRM, the Commission proposed to revise its rules 
by increasing the PAL license term from three years to 10 years and 
eliminating the requirement that PALs automatically terminate at the 
end of the license term. The Commission sought comment on this change 
and on the appropriate performance requirements and renewal standards 
for PALs. The Commission noted that its proposed approach was 
consistent with other wireless services and would afford licensees 
sufficient time to design and acquire the necessary equipment and 
devices and to deploy facilities across the license area.
    34. The Commission traditionally has licensed many wireless 
services on a 10-year renewable basis. For example, the Commission 
issues 10-year renewable licenses in Personal Communications Services, 
Wireless Communications Services, 700 MHz Services, and Advanced 
Wireless Services. Since it adopted the 2016 Report and Order (81 FR 
49024, July 26, 2016), the Commission extended this licensing paradigm 
to the millimeter wave spectrum bands that make up the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service (UMFUS), which, like the 3.5 GHz band, has been 
identified as important spectrum for 5G deployment.

[[Page 63082]]

    35. Discussion. The Commission finds that it is in the public 
interest to extend PAL license terms to 10 years and make such licenses 
renewable. The service rules for the 3.5 GHz band must create 
incentives for investment, encourage efficient spectrum use, support a 
variety of different use cases, and promote network deployments in both 
urban and rural communities. As the Commission determined with regard 
to the license area size, it finds that the rapid changes in the mobile 
marketplace, including the growing importance of mid-band spectrum for 
large-scale 5G mobile service, necessitate that it revises the license 
term for PALs to best advance these goals. Since the Commission adopted 
the 3.5 GHz band licensing rules in 2015, it has become apparent that 
supporting the rapid deployment of next generation mobile networks, 
including 5G, will require a combination of low-, mid-, and high-band 
spectrum, and that the 3.5 GHz band will play a significant role as one 
of the core mid-range bands for 5G network deployments throughout the 
world, as well as the first mid-band spectrum to be commercially 
available in this country for such deployments. Considering the 
critical importance this band will play in the United States' 
competitiveness in the global 5G arena, it is also important to ensure 
that the Commission's rules for the 3.5 GHz band support robust 
investment in large scale mobile deployments like 5G, as well as other 
use cases. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission concludes 
that 10-year renewable license terms will strike the right balance of 
providing the certainty needed to foster robust investment in next 
generation wireless networks--including 5G networks--while still 
maintaining the flexibility needed to support innovative and localized 
opportunities for a wide variety of entrants.
    36. First, review of the record persuades the Commission that 
longer, renewable license terms will provide Priority Access Licensees 
with the level of certainty needed to promote robust investment and 
widespread deployment in the band. Many commenters maintain that 
longer, renewable license terms are necessary to incentivize robust 
investment in the band. They emphasize that successful network buildout 
is a multi-year process that includes standardizing a new frequency 
band, developing and certifying equipment, introducing a new band into 
end-user devices, and deploying infrastructure. They likewise maintain 
that 10-year renewable licenses would provide the long-term certainty 
required to invest in solutions utilizing the CBRS spectrum, and allow 
PAL holders to work with equipment manufacturers to lower equipment 
costs, the savings from which can in turn can be reinvested in networks 
to achieve higher speeds and additional rollout. Other commenters argue 
that the investment that larger entities have already made in 3.5 GHz 
band technology demonstrates that a three-year, non-renewable term will 
not deter their participation in the band. Such preparatory efforts 
certainly reflect an encouraging interest in the band, but do not 
guarantee a robust level of investment and deployment going forward. 
The Commission believes that the certainty provided by a 10-year, 
renewable license is warranted to help ensure the kind of robust 
investment and deployment that will achieve global leadership in next 
generation wireless technologies, including 5G.
    37. The conclusion that a longer, renewable PAL license term is 
necessary to support robust investment in the band is further supported 
by economic analyses in the record. For instance, one such analysis 
argues that infrastructure investment decisions depend on the present 
value of the expected increase in profits on the investment. It 
explains that expected profits are a function of revenues and costs 
over the period a firm expects to use the investment, and thus, with 
shorter non-renewable licenses, expected profits will decrease. As 
such, it contends that three-year license terms, even when coupled with 
the option to obtain two consecutive three-year terms in the first 
license period, would provide insufficient time for investment returns 
in an infrastructure-heavy industry. Another analysis similarly finds 
that short term licenses discourage long-term investments in comparison 
to long-term licenses and the utilization of secondary markets. One 
study finds that shorter, non-renewable license terms are listed as one 
of the factors likely to decrease market value for PALs by as much as 
50 to 95 percent overall relative to similarly licensed spectrum in the 
2.5-2.6 GHz band.
    38. Second, the Commission's experience managing other commercial 
spectrum supports adopting this modification. A 10-year renewable 
license term is consistent with the time-tested licensing frameworks 
that have proven successful in many other bands. Further, the 
Commission recently concluded in the Spectrum Frontiers (81 FR 79909, 
Nov. 14, 2016) proceeding that this framework was particularly 
appropriate for a band important for 5G, finding that ``a 10-year 
license term will give licensees sufficient certainty to invest in 
their systems, particularly as the new technology is still nascent and 
will require time to fully develop.'' The record in this proceeding 
reaffirms that conclusion. Further, the next generation flexible use 
deployments envisioned for this band--including 5G networks--involve 
large numbers of small cells, which add complexity and siting delays to 
roll out, particularly given that these deployments will often require 
new sites (e.g., street lights, billboards, sides of buildings) with 
new power and backhaul requirements. Longer, renewable license terms 
will provide time for licensees to contend with these complexities and 
challenges, and help to position the band for robust network 
development.
    39. Third, the adoption of larger license areas for PALs further 
supports the modification to PAL license terms. The Commission in 2015 
adopted a three-year, non-renewable term partly based on the conclusion 
that the economics and upgrade cycles for the small use case ``in the 
context of census tract license areas'' might resemble those for 
enterprise and Wi-Fi deployments rather than the large mobile 
deployments in other bands. The Commission expects the larger license 
areas now adopted to be more attractive to wide area network operators 
than census tracts and, as such, anticipates more large scale mobile 
deployments, including 5G. Given the nature and scale of such 
investments, the economics and upgrade cycles of such deployments will 
likely be closer to those in other bands used for mobile broadband, 
such as those bands addressed in Spectrum Frontiers, for which the 
Commission also adopted a ten-year renewable license term, and find 
that a longer period is appropriate to ensure a sufficient return-on-
investment.
    40. Fourth, as with the adoption of counties as the license area 
size for PALs, the Commission finds that 10-year, renewable terms are 
suited for a wide variety of entrants in both urban and rural areas. 
Ten-year renewable terms were supported by a diverse group of 
commenters, including mobile wireless providers, rural 
telecommunications and electric cooperatives, fixed wireless broadband 
providers, and equipment manufacturers. Further, a large number of 
other parties, as part of a multi-stakeholder consensus, support 
adoption of a renewable license term, albeit with a term of seven years 
rather than 10. The Commission finds their support for renewability and 
a term only somewhat shorter than the one it adopts

[[Page 63083]]

in the Report and Order as further evidence that a 10-year, renewable 
term will serve a wide diversity of entrants. Regarding access by rural 
providers in particular, the Commission's Mobility Fund II, which funds 
wireless broadband buildout, provides support in 10-year terms ``in 
light of the significant capital and effort needed to deploy and 
upgrade broadband networks and [because it] is consistent with the 
timeframe used by rural carriers to plan and schedule network 
upgrades.'' Indeed, some commenters maintain that longer license terms 
and renewability are necessary to incentivize rural service providers 
and utilities to invest in 3.5 GHz band networks.
    41. The Commission is not persuaded by commenters who argue that 
the longer term and renewability will make PALs broadly uneconomical 
for rural and innovative investments or lead to a less efficient use 
and distribution of the band. As discussed in economic analysis in the 
record, a licensee's expected profits from license acquisition should 
generally increase with a longer term and renewability. While some 
commenters challenge this assertion, arguing that extending the term 
will force prospective licensees to acquire spectrum for a longer 
period than they need, they offer no evidence that there is any 
mismatch between the longer term and the use cases discussed in the 
record. Numerous parties with various use cases, including rural WISPs 
and industrial entities, assert that they seek to deploy with the use 
of PALs, and they do not assert that their need for or use of such 
priority access will terminate by some fixed period, or that they plan 
to switch to GAA spectrum after that period. The Commission anticipates 
that the longer, renewable term will provide additional value to small 
and rural entities seeking to use spectrum for commercial broadband 
networks and other uses that involve significant long-term investments, 
and that the greater value to small and rural entities will help such 
entities absorb a higher acquisition cost at auction to the extent it 
may result from such terms.
    42. Other aspects of the revised framework should further help 
ensure that small and rural providers have affordable access to the 3.5 
GHz band. The bidding credits the Commission adopts for small 
businesses and rural providers will directly help them to compete for 
PALs at auction without compromising the certainty needed for 
substantial long-term investment. Expanded access through the secondary 
market will also help facilitate access to PALs. As discussed 
elsewhere, the Commission is not persuaded by commenters' claims that 
small entities will be unable to participate in secondary market 
transactions. Further, GAA spectrum will continue to be available on an 
opportunistic basis, and may be particularly suitable for short-term 
investments. Taking all these factors into account, to the extent a 
change to a longer-term, renewable license might still result in some 
reduction in liquidity in the market for priority spectrum access or 
otherwise raise the cost of access, the benefits of longer, renewable 
terms outweigh these concerns.
    43. Finally, while commenters advocate for a variety of license 
terms shorter than 10 years, with limited or no renewability, these 
other options would not encourage investment as effectively and 
efficiently as a 10-year renewable license. Many commenters maintain 
that less than a 10-year license term is insufficient for investors to 
obtain a return on investment. Several commenters also contend that, 
without reasonable expectancy of license renewal, many potential 
entrants may be dissuaded from investing in the band because of the 
risk of stranded investment. The Commission concludes that its revised 
framework, when taken as a whole, appropriately addresses the needs of 
a wide variety of stakeholders, including those that wish to use the 
band for short-term purposes and those providers that require more 
certainty and stability, and will result in greater overall investment 
and deployment while still providing a wide variety of stakeholders 
with the opportunity to participate in this innovative band.
    44. Regarding license renewal, last year, the Commission adopted a 
unified renewal framework for Wireless Radio Services (WRS) to replace 
the then-existing patchwork of service-specific rules for renewal. 
Consistent with that reform, the Commission finds it appropriate to 
include PALs in the unified WRS renewal framework rather than create a 
service-specific standard. Consequently, PAL licensees must comply with 
Sec.  1.949 of the Commission's rules. Under that section, each PAL 
licensee, in order to qualify for renewal, must demonstrate that over 
the course of its license term, the licensee either: (1) Provided and 
continues to provide service to the public, or (2) operated and 
continues to operate the license to meet the licensee's private, 
internal communications needs. Like other WRS licensees, Priority 
Access Licensees may avail themselves of appropriate safe harbors 
contained in Sec.  1.949(e) or make a Renewal Showing consistent with 
Sec.  1.949(f). Including PALs in the unified WRS renewal framework is 
consistent with the Commission's determination in the WRS Renewals 
Second Report and Order (82 FR 41531, Sept. 1, 2017) that ``uniform 
renewal rules [across different Wireless Radio Services] will promote 
the efficient use of spectrum resources, serve the public interest by 
providing licensees certainty regarding their license renewal 
requirements, encourage licensees to invest in new facilities and 
services, and facilitate their business and network planning.'' In this 
band, such an approach ``will provide incentives for licensees to 
continue to provide service'' over their license terms.
    45. Some commenters have argued that, instead of renewability, the 
licenses should be reauctioned at the end of the license term. For 
example, one economist describes an auction format under which an 
incumbent would be required to bid for a renewal of its license at the 
end of the license term, but it would be given a bidding credit so 
that, if it won, it would have to pay only a fraction of the auction-
determined price. Moreover, if the incumbent loses, it would be 
compensated with a transferable bidding credit to apply to the purchase 
of other licenses. The economist argues that this format would mitigate 
the risk that the incumbent licensee's investments may become stranded. 
This proposal gained little support in the record, however. Moreover, 
several commenters, opposing this proposal, argue that a ``foothold'' 
auction system will lower license valuations and initial investments in 
the band due to its complex approach within the setting of three-year 
terms and unknown subsidy rates. The Commission therefore declines to 
adopt this proposal in place of the time-tested approach of providing 
for renewability.

3. Performance Requirements

    46. Background. In the 2015 Report and Order, the Commission 
determined that, in light of the three-year license term and non-
renewability of PALs, the rules permitting opportunistic GAA use, and 
the relatively inexpensive deployment costs, ``winning bidders for PAL 
licenses at auction will have sufficient incentive to deliver service 
so as to avoid the need for prescribing any further performance 
requirements.'' In the 2017 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
whether to adopt performance requirements for PALs, and if so, which 
type, if they are licensed with a longer term and renewability.
    47. Discussion. The Commission finds that, given the changes to 
PALs adopted

[[Page 63084]]

in the Report and Order (i.e., longer license terms, larger license 
areas, and renewability), it is in the public interest to revise its 
rules to adopt new end-of-term performance requirements for PALs. 
Specifically, Priority Access Licensees will be required to provide a 
bona fide communications service that meets a ``substantial service'' 
standard of performance, and the Commission adopts two specific safe 
harbors to meet this standard, one for mobile or point-to-multipoint 
services and a second for point-to-point services. A licensee providing 
a mobile service or point-to-multipoint service may demonstrate 
substantial service by showing that it provides reliable signal 
coverage and offers service over at least 50 percent of the population 
in the license area. A licensee deploying a point-to-point service may 
demonstrate substantial service by showing that it has constructed and 
operates, using Category B CBSDs, at least four links in license areas 
with 134,000 population or less, and at least one link per 33,500 
population (rounded up) in license areas with greater population. 
Licensees may fulfill their performance requirements by showing that 
they meet at least one of these safe harbors, or they may make an 
individualized showing of substantial service by relying, for example, 
on a combination of different services for which there is a safe harbor 
or on services for which there is no defined safe harbor.
    48. New performance requirements are warranted given the other 
changes to the PALs that adopted in this Report and Order. Performance 
requirements promote the productive use of spectrum, encourage 
licensees to provide service in a timely manner, and promote the 
provision of innovative services and technologies in unserved areas, 
particularly rural ones. Further, Section 309(j)(4)(B) of the Act 
requires that the Commission, in establishing rules for auctioned 
licenses, must ``include performance requirements, such as appropriate 
deadlines and penalties for performance failures . . . .'' These 
considerations have led the Commission to require licensees to meet a 
particular standard or metric for performance in numerous other bands. 
The Commission found in 2015 that Priority Access Licensees had 
sufficient incentive to use their licensed spectrum that similar 
requirements were not necessary, in part due to the short license term 
and non-renewability. Given that the revised PALs will have a longer 
license term and renewability, as well as larger license areas, the 
Commission finds that the revised PALs are comparable to licenses in 
the other bands for which it has adopted a standard or metric for 
performance. Consistent with these past Commission actions, the 
Commission adopts such a performance requirement for the revised PALs 
to meet its obligations under Section 309(j)(4)(B), to reduce 
warehousing, and to promote timely and efficient use of spectrum, 
including in rural areas.
    49. The Commission also find that, given the revised PAL parameters 
adopted herein, the potential for opportunistic GAA use of unused PAL 
spectrum does not obviate the need for performance requirements. Under 
the current rules, GAA users can operate in unused 3.5 GHz band 
spectrum on an opportunistic basis. GAA users will be excluded from 
operating only to the extent that the Priority Access Licensee actually 
operates over a given channel within its license area (i.e., only from 
the PAL Protection Area surrounding a deployed CBSD). Given the other 
changes to PALs (e.g., 10-year license terms, renewability, larger 
license areas), the Commission does not believe that opportunistic GAA 
use is, in itself, sufficient to prevent warehousing and encourage 
robust spectrum use. Absent performance requirements, the revisions to 
PALs likely will increase incentives for parties to seek PALs for 
speculative investment or warehousing. Such conduct could prevent 
intensive use of the band and reduce overall investment notwithstanding 
the option of GAA use. Notably, a lack of PAL performance would 
increase the uncertainty for GAA users surrounding long term spectrum 
availability. Potential GAA users would have little idea regarding 
when, where, and with what technology Priority Access Licensees may 
ultimately choose to deploy, which could reduce the incentive for GAA 
users to invest and innovate in the band. Further, the record indicates 
that there is significant demand for 3.5 GHz spectrum that is 
contingent on the ability to obtain interference protection, and while 
an unused PAL will not foreclose GAA use, it can preclude others from 
deploying in that area with the benefit of priority access. Adopting 
performance requirements in the 3.5 GHz band will encourage Priority 
Access Licensees to make timely and productive use of their licenses, 
and to the extent they choose not to do so, will incentivize them to 
make priority access to spectrum available to others through secondary 
market transactions. Accordingly, the Commission finds that adopting 
performance requirements in this band is in the public interest.
    50. After review of the record, and the various alternatives for 
performance requirements discussed therein, the Commission concludes 
that an end-of-term performance requirement of substantial service, 
with certain specific safe harbors, is the appropriate requirement for 
the revised PALs. Many commenters emphasize the importance of ensuring 
that performance requirements do not inhibit the innovation anticipated 
in this band. The substantial service requirement, with appropriate 
safe harbors for different types of network deployments, will provide 
licensees with the flexibility to deploy new and innovative 
technologies while ensuring that the spectrum is used in a productive 
manner by the end of the license term.
    51. In particular, the Commission finds that specific safe harbors 
for different types of network deployments will provide additional 
regulatory certainty that will promote investment and encourage robust 
deployment in the band. Priority Access Licensees will have the option 
of satisfying their end-of-term performance requirement by 
demonstrating that they have provided service that meets or exceeds one 
of the safe harbors or making an individualized showing of substantial 
service in the license area. This approach will incentivize licensees 
to provide service throughout their license areas while retaining the 
flexibility to deploy new and innovative services. In addition, the 
Commission anticipates that the option of opportunistic GAA use, while 
not eliminating the need for new performance requirements, will 
complement such requirements and provide a low-cost entry point in the 
band. This should promote additional use of spectrum assigned to PALs 
and thereby help ensure efficient and productive use of the band. For 
these reasons, the Commission finds that a substantial service 
standard, with appropriate specific safe harbors, adequately safeguards 
effective use of spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band and satisfies its 
obligations under section 309(j)(4)(B).
    52. In selecting an appropriate safe harbor for mobile and point-
to-multipoint services, the Commission notes that a wide range of 
metrics are proposed in the record. In addition, the Commission has 
adopted a range of performance standards for similar services in other 
spectrum bands. Several considerations in this band weigh in favor of a 
safe harbor that provides licensees with relatively greater 
flexibility. First, such flexibility is appropriate given the power 
limits for deployments in the 3.5 GHz band. The Commission adopted 
significantly lower limits in this band than it has typically

[[Page 63085]]

imposed in other bands in order to reduce coexistence challenges and 
with the expectation that deployment in the 3.5 GHz band would often 
focus on innovative low-power technologies. The adopted power limits 
and the technologies that the Commission anticipates will be 
appropriate for them may bring significant localized benefits such as 
increased network capacity, but they may be less suitable for wide-area 
coverage as compared to other bands. A more flexible safe harbor will 
therefore better accommodate these technologies and promote the 
innovation anticipated in the band. In addition, the Commission's rules 
incorporate several other measures to facilitate coexistence that may 
introduce some uncertainty in the timing, cost, interference 
management, or technical specifics of deployment, such as limitations 
on commercial operations to protect incumbent users, the SAS authority 
to require, in specific cases, power reduction below the rule limits 
(and potentially other technical restrictions), and the potential for 
dynamic spectrum re-assignments or even cessation of operations to 
which licensees will be subject to protect incumbent operations. These 
unique aspects of the licensing and authorization regime in the 3.5 GHz 
band generally supports providing licensees with greater flexibility in 
deployment than the Commission has provided in some other bands.
    53. In addition, a flexible performance requirement for mobile and 
point-to-multipoint may provide particular benefits to WISPs and other 
small providers in the 3.5 GHz band. The record supports the conclusion 
that many small providers seek to overlay existing service areas that 
may incompletely cover a PAL license area, such as those who have 
deployed networks targeting unserved or underserved rural populations 
under the Commission's prior 3650-3700 MHz service rules. A flexible 
requirement that allows these providers to implement such overlay or 
incremental strategies will thus benefit small entities and help to 
foster a diversity of users in the band. Further, the Commission 
anticipates that opportunistic GAA use, although not eliminating the 
need for performance requirements, will complement such requirements 
and help to ensure that spectrum is used productively, including in 
rural areas. Accordingly, the Commission does not need to rely as 
heavily on performance requirements to ensure intensive and productive 
use in the 3.5 GHz band as in other bands.
    54. After considering these factors and the arguments and proposals 
in the record, the Commission concludes that a 50 percent population 
coverage safe harbor strikes an appropriate balance between, on the one 
hand, ensuring spectrum is used efficiently and productively in rural 
and non-rural areas, including through secondary market access, and, on 
the other, providing licensees the flexibility to invest in and deploy 
innovative network technologies that may be more suitable for smaller 
coverage areas and the co-existence regime that governs the 3.5 GHz 
band. The Commission finds, consistent with the analysis above, that a 
50 percent requirement, rather than the higher coverage requirements 
adopted in certain other bands, is appropriate in the context of the 
low power limits and other unique aspects of the licensing and 
authorization regime in the 3.5 GHz band. Further, this safe harbor for 
substantial service, together with secondary market mechanisms and the 
potential for opportunistic GAA use, will foster efficient and 
innovative use of the band, including in rural areas.
    55. As the Commission indicated in 2015, it contemplates that the 
band may also be used for fixed point-to-point services. Commenters 
responding to the inquiry in the 2017 NPRM concerning the possible 
performance metrics provide little discussion of a metric or approach 
for fixed point-to-point services. The Commission has adopted a link-
based metric for fixed point-to-point services in many other bands, 
however. In the absence of commenter proposals, the Commission draws on 
the link-based metric adopted for fixed point-to-point services in the 
2.3 GHz Band. Specifically, in the WCS Report and Order (75 FR 45058, 
Aug. 2, 2010), the Commission required 2.3 GHz licensees using the 
spectrum for point-to-point service to construct and operate a minimum 
number of links within each license area equal to the population of the 
license area divided by 33,500 and rounded up to the nearest whole 
number. The Commission found that this metric was ``achievable'' and 
would ``further our goal of ensuring meaningful wireless deployment.'' 
A similar metric is generally a reasonable safe harbor for such 
services in the 3.5 GHz band. However, for license areas with 134,000 
population or less, licensees must construct and operate a minimum of 
four links to meet the safe harbor, which will be an achievable minimum 
given the geographic license areas adopted. Further, the Commission 
limits the safe harbor to links that operate using registered Category 
B CBSDs. Category B CBSDs must be deployed outdoors and have higher 
maximum power limits in comparison with Category A CBSDs. Links using 
Category B CBSDs are therefore likely to be more consistent with the 
traditional point-to-point services the Commission intends for this 
safe harbor, and they will avoid the possibility that a licensee could 
satisfy its performance requirement for an entire license area with a 
single in-building IoT deployment such as a sensor network.
    56. The Commission recognizes that Priority Access Licensees may 
seek to deploy innovative services, including low-power IoT-type 
services, for which the safe harbors discussed above may not be 
suitable. Given the lack of any comment on a metric or safe harbor for 
such services, and the uncertainty regarding what type of services will 
be deployed and what safe harbor would be appropriate in the context of 
the 3.5 GHz band's multi-tiered sharing regime, power limits, and other 
band-specific rules, the Commission declines to adopt a specific safe 
harbor for such services at this time. Priority Access Licensees 
providing such services may file individualized showings to demonstrate 
that they provided a bona fide communications service, either for 
unaffiliated customers or for private, internal use, that meets the 
standard of substantial service.
    57. Priority Access Licensees also may provide a mix of services 
covered by more than one safe harbor. With respect to such mixed 
deployments, the Commission declines to establish a specific formula 
for applying the safe harbors. Instead, licensees whose deployments 
contain a mix of services covered by more than one safe harbor may 
either demonstrate that at least one of these safe harbors is met, or 
they may make an individualized showing that the services in 
combination meet a standard of substantial service. The Commission 
clarifies, however, that in its assessment of individualized 
substantial service showings, the safe harbors established above will 
generally be important factors in cases involving, in whole or in part, 
services that fall within the scope of such safe harbors. Absent 
justifications such as those discussed above, and given the flexibility 
already incorporated into the safe harbors, its expects that, in cases 
of a service addressed by a safe harbor, substantial service will meet 
or exceed the relevant safe harbor standard.
    58. The Commission declines to adopt interim performance 
requirements for PALs. Adopting specific coverage requirements as an 
interim requirement would be inconsistent with the flexible substantial 
service showings allowed at

[[Page 63086]]

the end of the license term, and that requiring licensees to provide 
``substantial service'' by both the end-of-term and some earlier 
interim point would create significant regulatory uncertainty as to the 
difference between the interim and end-of-term requirements, raise the 
risk of arbitrary and inconsistent results between licensees, and be 
unlikely to incentivize more rapid or extensive deployment in the band. 
Indeed, there is little support in the record for either of these 
approaches. In addition, the still-nascent status of 5G and other 
innovative wireless technologies anticipated for this band and the 
unique aspects of the 3.5 GHz sharing regime support providing Priority 
Access Licensees with additional flexibility in the timeframe provided 
to develop and deploy services in the band.
    59. In order to confirm that the spectrum is being utilized 
consistent with the performance requirements, the Commission adopts 
performance verification procedures largely consistent with those for 
other bands. Parties must comply with the procedures under Sec.  1.946 
of the Commission's rules in making their compliance demonstration. 
That section provides, in part, that licensees must notify the 
Commission of compliance with the performance requirement within 15 
days of the relevant deadline by filing FCC Form 601. As part of this 
notification, licensees will be required to submit and certify to a 
description of the service and documentation of the extent of the 
service, including electronic coverage maps accurately depicting the 
boundaries of each license area and where in the license area the 
licensee provides service that meets the performance requirement (e.g., 
for mobile services, where in the license area the licensee offers the 
service at a reliable signal level), supporting technical 
documentation, population-related assumptions if relevant, and any 
other information as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may 
prescribe by public notice. The Commission further concludes that 
licensees, in demonstrating service coverage, may rely on the PAL 
Protection Areas of the relevant CBSDs they use to provide the service. 
They must, however, specify the CBSDs and certify that they actually 
are being used to provide service, either to customers or for internal 
use. In any case, licensees may not claim service coverage outside of 
these PAL Protection Areas or deployments that are not reflected in SAS 
records of CBSD registrations. This approach appropriately leverages 
the SASs to help ensure consistency and accuracy in performance 
demonstrations, reduce administrative burdens on licensees and the 
Commission, and speed compliance and renewal review. The Commission 
delegates authority to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to 
specify the format of submissions, consistent with these 
determinations.
    60. Consistent with the approach in many other bands, if a licensee 
fails to meet the substantial service requirement, its authorization 
under the relevant license will terminate automatically without 
Commission action. The Commission declines to adopt a ``use-or-lose'' 
regime, as suggested by some commenters, under which a licensee would 
lose only those areas or census tracts within a license area that are 
not developed. Such an approach, which has been adopted rarely for 
other bands, would complicate coordination with the PAL tier and 
between PAL and GAA users, may reduce incentives for licensees to build 
out to the less populated areas covered by their license, and is 
unnecessary to ensure effective use of the spectrum.
    61. The Commission clarifies that operations pursuant to lease 
arrangements, other than short-term de facto transfer leasing 
arrangements, may be counted toward meeting the performance 
requirement, either under the safe harbors or as part of an 
individualized showing of substantial service. Doing so is consistent 
with the general rules for spectrum leasing, and the Commission finds 
that it will encourage parties to enter into secondary market 
transactions while ensuring that performance requirements will be met 
for the license overall. Consistent with the general short term de 
facto transfer leasing rule (covering de facto transfer leasing 
arrangements of one year or less), a licensee in such an arrangement 
will not be permitted to attribute to itself the activities of its 
spectrum lessee when seeking to establish that performance or build-out 
requirements applicable to the licensee have been met. The Commission 
rejects proposals that it credit licensees for merely making spectrum 
available for leasing on a spectrum exchange or otherwise, which would 
undermine the purposes of the performance requirement discussed above.

B. Competitive Bidding Procedures

1. Applicability of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules
    62. PAL Applications Subject to Competitive Bidding. Consistent 
with its proposals to lengthen the term of a PAL, to make a PAL 
renewable, and to increase the size of a PAL's geographic area, the 
Commission proposed in the 2017 NPRM to employ its standard practice 
for finding mutual exclusivity among accepted applications. It also 
proposed to eliminate the rule that made available one less PAL than 
the total number of PALs in a license area for which all applicants had 
applied. The Commission further proposed to assign a PAL even when only 
one applicant has applied for a PAL in a specific license area, subject 
to the applicant's being otherwise qualified, rather than to adhere to 
its decision in the 2015 Report and Order not to assign any PAL for 
such a license area.
    63. Given the other modifications the Commission adopts for PALs in 
this Report and Order, it eliminates the rule that made available one 
less PAL than the total number of PALs for which all applicants had 
applied in a given geographic license area. By making a PAL renewable, 
increasing the size of its geographic area, and lengthening its license 
term to 10 years, the Commission anticipates that the rights conferred 
by a PAL will be more beneficial to a wider range of potential users. 
The previous rule, which was adopted to limit the number of PALs 
available in a given license area, was premised on the view that GAA 
use should be easy to access and sufficient for many applications in 
the 3.5 GHz band, but that PALs should be available for those limited 
applications that required greater certainty as to interference 
protection because they would suffer in a congested use environment. 
The changes adopted in this Report and Order ensure that PALs will 
support all technologies and foster additional investment from a wide 
variety of users in the 3.5 GHz band, thereby expanding the potential 
use cases by Priority Access Licensees, and based on the record, the 
Commission agrees with the argument that GAA use is less likely to 
provide sufficient access for many application in the 3.5 GHz band. 
Therefore, it can no longer conclude that the similar use cases for 
PALs and the GAA that existed under the prior rules provide a reasoned 
basis on which to limit the number of PALs available in a given 
geographic area. The Commission therefore agrees with commenters that 
the public interest will not be served by limiting the availability of 
PALs within a given geographic area in the 3.5 GHz band. Rather, by 
eliminating this rule, the Commission can better achieve a licensing 
process that will promote the ``efficient and

[[Page 63087]]

intensive use'' of this spectrum and the ``development and rapid 
deployment of new technologies, products, and services for the benefit 
of the public, including those residing in rural areas,'' that 
``recover[s] for the public . . . a portion of the value of the public 
spectrum resource made available for commercial use, and achieves the 
other goals of Section 309(j).''
    64. Instead, the Commission will use its standard approach to 
determine whether accepted applications with respect to initial 
geographic area licenses are mutually exclusive applications subject to 
competitive bidding, which takes into consideration the Commission's 
need to ``effectively implement'' the public interest considerations 
underlying the licensing of the spectrum. Here, determining mutual 
exclusivity based on applicant interest in a given geographic area 
serves the public interest objective of assigning these licenses to the 
applicant that values them most highly and therefore is most likely to 
make effective use of them. Making the determination based on interest 
in geographic areas without respect to particular frequencies or 
bandwidth is necessary to provide applicants with maximum flexibility 
to pursue back-up strategies to aggregate blocks to meet their 
licensing needs as the auction progresses and the value of and 
opportunities in the band become better known. Applicants here will 
have an opportunity to identify on their short-form application each 
geographic area(s) in which they are interested in bidding for PALs. An 
applicant will only be permitted to bid for PALs in the particular 
geographic area or areas that it initially selects on its short-form 
application, subject to the 40-megahertz PAL aggregation cap. The 
record supports following this approach for identifying an applicant's 
interest in a particular geographic area. If the Commission accepts 
more than one application to bid on the generic PALs available in any 
particular geographic area, those PALs will be assigned by competitive 
bidding. As in other Commission auctions, the Commission will proceed 
to competitive bidding even if other applicants ultimately do not 
pursue licenses in that area or pursue fewer than all the licenses 
available.
    65. The Commission also adopts the proposal to assign PAL(s) even 
when there is only one application in a given geographic area, assuming 
the applicant is otherwise qualified. In the absence of accepting 
mutually exclusive applications, the Commission cannot assign a license 
through the use of competitive bidding. Accordingly, consistent with 
its long-standing approach, if the Commission does not accept competing 
applications in a particular geographic area, it will cancel the 
auction for the PAL(s) in that area, and if the short form application 
is otherwise acceptable, it will establish a date for the filing of a 
long-form application by the applicant. The Commission also eliminates 
the single applicant exception in rural areas as the exception is no 
longer necessary under this approach. Adopting this licensing approach 
for PALs generally is also consistent with the Commission's earlier 
decision to do so on a limited basis. The fundamental benefit of a PAL 
is the right to prioritized, interference protected use of 10 megahertz 
of spectrum in a given geographic area. Commenters maintain that there 
are certain use cases that require the interference protected use of 
the spectrum that only a PAL can confer, making GAA access, with its 
lack of prioritized access, insufficient. Under the rules adopted in 
this Report and Order, if there is only one applicant seeking a PAL in 
an area, that applicant will be able to acquire a PAL outside of the 
auction process. Given that the decisions in this item make PALs 
similar in many ways to licenses in other services, the Commission 
concludes that it should follow this approach as it does in other 
services. In light of this decision and given the limited record 
received on the issue, the Commission further concludes that it need 
not address the issue of whether an application for a PAL in a given 
geographic area should be considered to be mutually exclusive with an 
application for GAA use in the same area.
    66. The Commission reminds parties that it will conduct any auction 
of PALs in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set 
forth in part 1, subpart Q of the Commission's rules, including any 
modifications that the Commission may adopt to its part 1 general 
competitive bidding rules in the future. As has been the Commission's 
practice in past spectrum auctions, the rules adopted in this Report 
and Order allow subsequent determination of specific final auction 
procedures. The pre-auction process will be initiated by the release of 
an auction Comment Public Notice, which will solicit public input on 
final auction procedures, and which will include specific proposals for 
auction components, such as minimum opening bids and bidding credit 
caps. Thereafter, an auction Procedures Public Notice will specify 
final procedures, including dates, deadlines, and other final details 
of the application and bidding processes. Accordingly, issues involving 
bidding procedures, like those raised by commenters, will be addressed 
at that time, and the Commission will seek public input on the 
competitive bidding procedures to be used for a particular auction of 
PALs. The Commission's practice of finalizing auction procedures in the 
pre-auction process provides time for interested participants both to 
comment on the final procedures and to develop business plans in 
advance of the auction.
    67. Bidding on Specific PAL License Blocks. Under the current 
rules, Priority Access Licensees do not bid on specific spectrum 
blocks. Rather, the SAS assigns frequencies based on the amount of 
spectrum that a PAL licensee is authorized to use in a given license 
area. Licensees may request a particular channel or frequency range 
from the SAS, but they are not guaranteed a particular assignment. The 
SAS will ``assign geographically contiguous PALs held by the same 
Priority Access Licensee to the same channels in each geographic area'' 
and ``assign multiple channels held by the same Priority Access 
Licensee to contiguous frequencies within the same License Area'' when 
it is feasible to do so.
    68. In the 2017 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the 
feasibility and desirability of allowing PAL licensees to bid on 
specific channel assignments. Specifically, the Commission sought 
comment on how it could allow bidding on specific license blocks given 
the constraints of the band and the need to protect incumbents. The 
Commission sought comment on whether the Incentive Auction could 
provide a model for a separate, voluntary channel assignment phase of 
the auction, and, if so, what changes to the Incentive Auction 
framework might be necessary to accommodate interference protection of 
federal incumbents by PALs. It also sought comment on possible 
alternative auction methodologies that might be appropriate.
    69. The Commission affirms its decision that PALs will operate over 
10 megahertz unpaired channels, wherein all channels will be assigned 
by the SAS. The exact frequencies of specific assigned channels may be 
changed by the SAS, if necessary, to facilitate sharing between the 
three tiers of authorized users. Accordingly, bidders will not be 
permitted to bid on specific channel assignments through competitive 
bidding. As the Commission previously explained, ``flexible band 
management is essential

[[Page 63088]]

to effective spectrum sharing between the three tiers of authorized 
users in the band.'' Coupled with the requirement that CBSDs be capable 
of operating across the entire 3.5 GHz band, SAS-controlled assignments 
will ensure that individual users are provided with flexible, stable 
access to the band. In assigning frequencies for Priority Access, the 
SAS must assign multiple channels held by the same Priority Access 
Licensee to contiguous channels in the same license area. Likewise, an 
SAS will be required to maintain consistent and contiguous frequency 
assignments for licensees with multiple PALs in the same or adjacent 
license areas whenever feasible. A wide variety of commenters support 
the current framework of SAS-assigned PAL channels.
    70. While there may be some uncertainty for a Priority Access 
Licensee in receiving a channel assignment from an SAS rather than 
bidding on a specific PAL license block, it is precisely this 
flexibility that is needed in a tiered licensing approach to ensure 
that a Priority Access Licensee is not forced to shut down its 
operations indefinitely or even permanently. Under a static channel 
assignment framework proposed by certain commenters, a Priority Access 
Licensee could be required to move off of a frequency to protect an 
incumbent, thus losing access to the exclusive channel until incumbent 
operations were no longer affected. In contrast, under the approach the 
Commission affirms in the Report and Order, the SAS will be able to 
reassign the Priority Access Licensee dynamically, ensuring prioritized 
access to 10 megahertz of spectrum. A flexible channel assignment plan 
where the SAS can reassign a PAL dynamically when an incumbent is using 
a specific channel, will lead to better coordination and co-existence 
between PAL holders and incumbents. For this reason, the Commission 
rejects the argument that a predictable, static spectral environment 
provides the certainty needed for network deployments, and concludes 
that the approach the Commission adopted in 2015 supports a wide 
variety of use cases in the 3.5 GHz band. As the Commission previously 
explained, by having the SAS assign all channels, its rules aim to 
create a flexible, responsive spectral environment while retaining much 
of the stability of traditional static channel assignments. As the 
Commission has previously observed, modern networks typically have 
control features that allow for automated or managed channel selection. 
On balance, the flexibility afforded by the assignment of channels by 
the SAS allows the Commission to ensure protection to the Incumbent 
tier, including federal users, exclusivity to the Priority Access tier, 
and access to GAA users.
2. Bidding Credits for PALs
    71. In the 2017 NPRM, the Commission revisited its decision not to 
offer bidding credits in the 3.5 GHz band and sought comment on whether 
it should consider adopting such provisions for certain bidders or 
areas if it increased the size of a PAL's license area. Specifically, 
the Commission sought comment on whether it should adopt the bidding 
credits it used in the 600 MHz Band auction (Incentive Auction).
    72. Small Business Bidding Credit. Based on the significant changes 
adopted for PALs in the Report and Order, as well as the Commission's 
experience with the use of bidding credits in recent spectrum auctions, 
the Commission concludes that utilizing bidding credits in competitive 
bidding for the 3.5 GHz band will provide it with an effective tool to 
achieve its statutory objective of promoting the participation of 
designated entities in the provision of spectrum-based service. Section 
309(j)(4) of the Communications Act requires that when the Commission 
prescribes regulations to establish a methodology for the grant of 
licenses through the use of competitive bidding, it must ``ensure that 
small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by 
members of minority groups and women are given the opportunity to 
participate in the provision of spectrum-based services, and, for such 
purposes, consider the use of . . . bidding preferences.'' In addition, 
Section 309(j)(3)(B) provides that in establishing eligibility criteria 
and bidding methodologies, the Commission shall promote ``economic 
opportunity and competition . . . by avoiding excessive concentration 
of licenses and by disseminating licenses among a wide variety of 
applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and 
businesses owned by members of minority groups and women.'' 
Historically, one of the principal means by which the Commission 
fulfills this mandate is through ``bidding preferences'' in the form of 
bidding credits to small businesses.
    73. Because the Commission has modified the characteristics of PALs 
to more closely resemble those of other wireless licenses, it concludes 
that designated entities might have less opportunity to obtain spectrum 
in the 3.5 GHz band without small business size standards and bidding 
credits. Thus, by modifying its rules to include bidding credits, the 
Commission can address the concerns that some commenters have raised 
that the decision to adopt counties as the geographic area size for PAL 
licensing and a longer, renewal license term will impede small 
businesses' ability to effectively compete in the auction. Commenters 
generally support implementing a system of bidding credits for the 3.5 
GHz band and recognize the related pro-competitive benefits for smaller 
carriers. Accordingly, the Commission is persuaded by commenters that 
maintain offering bidding credits here should improve the ability of 
small businesses to attract the capital necessary to meaningfully 
participate in a PAL auction.
    74. In the 2017 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on using the 
same small business size standards and bidding credits for the 3.5 GHz 
band as the Commission offered in the 600 MHz Band. In adopting 
competitive bidding rules for the 600 MHz Band, and more recently in 
the UMFUS bands, the Commission offered bidding credits to promote 
opportunities for small businesses, rural telephone companies, and 
businesses owned by members of minority groups and women to participate 
in the provision of spectrum-based services. Specifically, for the 600 
MHz and UMFUS band auctions, the Commission adopted two small business 
definitions, the highest two of the three thresholds included in the 
Commission's part 1 standardized schedule of bidding credits.
    75. As a general matter, the Commission defines eligibility 
requirements for small businesses benefits on a service-specific basis, 
taking into account the capital requirements and other characteristics 
of each particular service in establishing the appropriate threshold. 
While the capital requirements of the services to be deployed in the 
3.5 GHz band are not yet known, based on the record and on the its most 
recent actions in other similar wireless spectrum bands, the Commission 
concludes that using the same small business size standards and bidding 
credits adopted in the 600 MHz and UMFUS bands should enhance the 
ability of small businesses to acquire and retain capital and thereby 
compete more meaningfully at auction in the 3.5 GHz band. Use of these 
small business definitions and associated bidding credits should 
provide consistency and predictability for small businesses

[[Page 63089]]

participating in competitive bidding in the 3.5 GHz band.
    76. Accordingly, for the 3.5 GHz band, an entity with average 
annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $55 
million will be eligible to qualify as a ``small business'' for a 
bidding credit of 15 percent, while an entity with average annual gross 
revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $20 million will 
be eligible to qualify as a ``very small business'' for a bidding 
credit of 25 percent, consistent with the standardized schedule in part 
1 of the Commission's rules.
    77. Rural Service Provider Bidding Credit. In the auction of 600 
MHz Band licenses, the Commission also offered, for the first time, a 
rural service provider (RSP) bidding credit to counter the fact that 
rural service providers have often faced ``challenges in their efforts 
to obtain financing because the rural areas they seek to serve are not 
as profitable as more densely-populated markets.'' The RSP bidding 
credit provides a 15 percent bidding credit to eligible entities that 
predominantly serve rural areas and have fewer than 250,000 combined 
wireless, wireline, broadband and cable subscribers. Here too, the 
record supports the conclusion that an RSP bidding credit should 
provide an adequate tool to enable rural service providers to compete 
for 3.5 GHz band spectrum licenses at auction and in doing so, will 
support the statutory objectives to disseminate licenses among a wide 
variety of applicants, ensure that rural telephone companies have an 
opportunity to participate in the provision of spectrum-based services, 
and promote the availability of innovative services to rural America.
    78. Tribal Lands Bidding Credit. The Commission also made tribal 
lands bidding credits available to winning bidders of licenses in the 
600 MHz auction. In light of the record support for having similar 
bidding credits here as the Commission offered in the 600 MHz Band 
auction, and the modifications adopted for PALs that, as explained 
above, may cause designated entities to have less opportunity to obtain 
spectrum in this band, the Commission concludes that it should revise 
its earlier determination not to offer tribal lands bidding credits in 
competitive bidding for the 3.5 GHz band. The Commission generally has 
determined that such a credit should be available where wireless 
licenses are subject to the Commission's part 1 competitive bidding 
rules, and wireless providers are willing to offer service to 
qualifying tribal lands. Accordingly, a winning bidder for a market 
will be eligible to receive a credit for serving qualifying Tribal 
lands within that market, provided it complies with the applicable 
competitive bidding rules.
    79. Finally, the Commission rejects a proposal from some commenters 
to provide a bidding preference for applicants that indicate their 
intention to use a PAL to meet Connect America Fund (CAF) obligations. 
Insofar as providers participating in CAF would be receiving CAF 
support already, additional bidding preferences should not be 
necessary, and are likely to distort participation in and the results 
of both the CAF-II and 3.5 GHz auctions. It also rejects other 
proposals from commenters asking the Commission to offer bidding 
credits to entities based upon standards other than the ones discussed 
above. The record lacks support to justify a departure from the 
Commission's approach to promoting the participation of designated 
entities in the provision of spectrum-based service, and it believes 
that the small business and rural service bidding credits should help 
sufficiently to address the challenges that such groups face.

C. Partitioning and Disaggregation of PALs on the Secondary Market

    80. Background. In the 2016 Report and Order, the Commission 
prohibited Priority Access Licensees from partitioning or 
disaggregating their licenses because the Commission found that the 
typical reasons for permitting partitioning and disaggregation in more 
traditionally licensed bands were not present in the 3.5 GHz band. The 
Commission noted that the licensing rules that it adopted in the 2015 
Report and Order did not have the same characteristics as other bands 
where partitioning and disaggregation were permitted, such as longer 
license terms, larger license areas, and construction obligations. In 
other bands, partitioning and disaggregation were needed to promote key 
policy goals such as access to spectrum and flexibility of use, which 
in turn could result in greater service to consumers.
    81. In the 2016 Report and Order, the Commission also determined 
that a light-touch leasing process could achieve the goal of making PAL 
spectrum use rights available in secondary markets--on a targeted, 
flexible basis--without the need for the Commission oversight required 
for partitioning and disaggregation. The Commission modified its 
streamlined part 1 spectrum manager lease rules to create a process 
tailored to the 3.5 GHz band. Under this streamlined process, parties 
contemplating spectrum manager lease arrangements with Priority Access 
Licensees may submit the required, non-lease specific certifications, 
including ownership information, to the Commission at any time prior to 
reaching a spectrum manger lease agreement with a Priority Access 
Licensee. The Commission will expeditiously process these 
certifications and provide SASs with confirmation that the putative 
lessee meets the corresponding eligibility criteria for a spectrum 
manager lease. Once the lessee notifies the SAS of a spectrum manager 
leasing agreement with a Priority Access Licensee, the SAS may then 
quickly complete the spectrum manager lease notification process for 
that lease, and provide confirmation to the parties. The lessee may 
then immediately begin operating under the lease.
    82. In the 2017 NPRM, the Commission proposed to allow partitioning 
and disaggregation of PALs in secondary market transactions. It noted 
that such a modification would be consistent with proposals to lengthen 
the license term and enlarge the geographic area of PALs, and that it 
also would be consistent with the licensing paradigm for other 
similarly licensed services. The Commission anticipated that, when 
coupled with a longer license term or larger license area for PALs, the 
ability to partition and disaggregate a PAL would be an effective way 
to improve spectral efficiency and facilitate targeted network 
deployments.
    83. Discussion. The Commission adopts the proposal in the 2017 NPRM 
to allow partitioning and disaggregation of PALs in the 3.5 GHz band, 
because it will promote investment, encourage robust use of the band by 
a wide variety of stakeholders, and help to ensure that spectrum is 
used efficiently. The Commission consistently has found that the 
flexibility afforded by partitioning and disaggregation facilitates the 
efficient use of spectrum by enabling licensees to make offerings 
directly responsive to market demands for particular types of services, 
increasing competition by allowing new entrants to enter markets, and 
expediting provision of services that might not otherwise be provided 
in the near term. Particularly here, where the Commission has decided 
to license the 3.5 GHz band in larger geographic areas for longer, 
renewable license terms, allowing secondary market transactions will 
allow licensees and the marketplace to determine the correct size of 
licenses on a market-specific and needs-based basis. These licensing 
changes also bring the

[[Page 63090]]

3.5 GHz band in line with other bands where partitioning and 
disaggregation are allowed. Thus, the unique features of PALs that had 
previously militated against allowing partitioning and disaggregation 
in the band--small census tract licenses with three-year, non-renewable 
terms--are no longer present. Partitioning and disaggregation of 
licenses in the 3.5 GHz band must comply with Sec.  1.950 of the 
Commission's rules. Accordingly, each party to a partitioning or 
disaggregation agreement must have a clear construction and operation 
requirement and each party will face license termination, in the event 
of failure to meet these requirements. Allowing partitioning and 
disaggregation will not alter the light-touch leasing rules adopted in 
the 2016 Report and Order.
    84. Many commenters support allowing partitioning and 
disaggregation of PALs, particularly when coupled with the larger 
geographic area license size, longer license term, and license 
renewability that the Commission adopts in this Report and Order. These 
entities maintain that the flexibility afforded by partitioning and 
disaggregation will encourage a thriving secondary market, facilitate 
``right sizing'' PALs for any local market, and increase the likelihood 
that a greater percentage of the whole PEA ultimately will receive 
service.'' These rationales all support the Commission's decision to 
allow PAL partitioning and disaggregation in the 3.5 GHz band.
    85. Some commenters maintain that partitioning and disaggregation 
are not substitutes for initially licensing smaller license areas. 
Their positions, however, relate to disagreements over license size 
rather than opposition to these secondary market transactions per se. 
Some commenters that oppose increased license sizes in the band contend 
that partitioning and disaggregation offer some benefits, particularly 
in rural areas where even census tract-sized licenses can be very 
large. For the reasons discussed above, the Commission determines that 
licensing PALs on a county basis serves the public interest. It agrees, 
however, that partitioning and disaggregation are important tools which 
will help it fulfill its statutory mandate to make spectrum available 
across the United States, in all markets from urban to rural.
    86. Other commenters contend that simply allowing secondary market 
transactions in the band will not necessarily result in such 
transactions. These commenters maintain that large wireless providers 
generally are unwilling to make licensed spectrum available on the 
secondary market. Some assert that secondary market transactions 
operate far more frequently and efficiently in the opposite direction, 
allowing large carriers to aggregate spectrum that initially was 
acquired by smaller operators. Other commenters argue that high 
transaction costs inhibit a robust secondary market.
    87. The Commission is unpersuaded by commenters' claims that small 
entities will be unable to participate in secondary market 
transactions. Commission records reflect that there is an active 
secondary market for partitioned and disaggregated licenses. The 
Commission has received about 1,000 assignment applications involving 
partitioned or disaggregated licenses over the last 10 years. Further, 
the unique characteristics of the 3.5 GHz band are particularly 
conducive to secondary market transactions. First, the SAS can be 
leveraged to facilitate secondary market transactions. In addition, the 
use-or-share rule greatly diminishes the concerns of potential hoarding 
or incomplete deployment over a license area. Priority Access Licensees 
will be incentivized to sell on the secondary market spectrum within 
their license area that may lie outside of their current network build 
or that they otherwise do not need access to for their future 
deployments. The availability of up to seven PALs in each market 
combined with a 40 megahertz spectrum aggregation limit also decrease 
the likelihood of excessive or even prohibitive transaction costs.
    88. The Commission rejects the suggestion of some commenters that, 
if it determines to license PALs in larger geographic areas, it should 
impose an affirmative obligation on larger providers to engage in 
secondary market transactions with smaller providers and new entrants. 
The Commission typically relies upon market forces and economic 
incentives to drive spectrum to its most beneficial use. This remains 
the correct approach in this band.
    89. One commenter questions whether this approach fulfills the 
Commission's statutory and public responsibilities under section 309(j) 
of the Act to promote ``economic opportunity for a wide variety of 
applicants.'' It maintains that the Commission would be relying solely 
on private commercial interests' use of partitioning, disaggregation, 
and secondary market transactions to provide such economic 
opportunities. The Commission disagrees. By developing a new framework 
to license PALs by counties, the Commission creates opportunities for a 
variety of applicants both large and small to participate in this 
innovative band. Further, by making a variety of secondary market 
opportunities available to all licensees, it creates economic 
opportunities for all types of entrants to the band. The decision to 
permit partitioning and disaggregation in the band furthers, rather 
than undermines, efforts to fulfill the Commission's statutory 
responsibilities under section 309(j). This change, along with the 
others adopted in this Report and Order, will best balance the 
statutory objectives to promote competition, the efficient use of 
spectrum, and the deployment of innovative services to consumers--
including those in rural areas. The Commission's decision to adopt 
performance requirements for PALs also advances its efforts to fulfill 
the statutory obligations under section 309(j) by helping to ensure 
that spectrum won't lie fallow.
    90. For these reasons, the Commission finds that it is in the 
public interest to permit partitioning and disaggregation in the 3.5 
GHz band, subject to the requirements in Sec.  1.950 of the rules. The 
Commission's spectrum manager and de facto leasing rules remain in 
effect for PALs, thus affording potential entrants to the band a 
variety of options for accessing this spectrum.

D. PAL Spectrum Aggregation Limit

    91. Background. In the 2015 Report and Order, the Commission 
adopted an in-band spectrum aggregation limit of 40 megahertz (i.e., 
four PALs) of the possible 70 megahertz per license area at any given 
point in time. The Commission concluded that the benefits of 
facilitating competition, innovation, and the efficient use of the 3.5 
GHz band outweighed any harms of imposing such an aggregation limit. In 
the 2017 NPRM, the Commission asked whether it should modify or 
eliminate the PAL aggregation limit, in the event it determined to 
change the geographic license area or make other changes to the PAL 
licensing scheme.
    92. Discussion. The record largely supports retaining the PAL 
aggregation limit. For the reasons articulated in the 2015 Report and 
Order, the Commission finds that the current framework for auction, 
assignment, and operation of the 3.5 GHz band is sufficient to 
incentivize investment and participation by a broader range of 
participants. The other changes made to the PAL licensing regime do not 
alter the Commission's underlying rationale that the 40 megahertz PAL 
aggregation limit will provide a minimum degree of diversity among 
users that likely will be operating in this band, and foster 
competition and innovation in both PAL

[[Page 63091]]

and GAA uses. Accordingly, the Commission maintains the PAL aggregation 
limit for both licensees and lessees.

E. Confidentiality of CBSD Registration Information

    93. Background. In the 2015 Report and Order, the Commission 
required that all CBSDs register with and be authorized by an SAS prior 
to initial service transmission. The SAS ensures spectral efficiency, 
non-discriminatory coexistence, and the minimalization of interference 
among GAA users, by such means as managing the frequencies in a manner 
to avoid assignment of the same frequency to multiple GAA users at the 
same location to the extent possible. CBSD registration must include 
detailed information specifying the location and characteristics of the 
CBSD. In addition, the CBSD must send an update to the SAS within 60 
seconds of any change in the registration information. The Commission 
required SAS Administrators to disclose CBSD registration information 
in three circumstances. First, SAS Administrators must immediately 
respond to requests from Commission personnel for information stored or 
maintained by the SAS. Second, SAS Administrators must make available 
to other SAS Administrators all information necessary to effectively 
coordinate operations between and among CBSDs. Third, SAS 
Administrators must make CBSD registration information available to the 
general public. However, due to concerns raised by commenters about the 
potential for public disclosure of confidential business information 
that could compromise personal privacy or affect competitive interests, 
the Commission required SAS Administrators to ``obfuscate the 
identities of the licensees providing the information for any public 
disclosures.''
    94. Noting that some parties had asserted that public disclosure of 
the registration information, even with licensee identities obfuscated, 
would raise both competitive and security concerns, the Commission 
proposed in the 2017 NPRM to amend the rules to prohibit an SAS from 
disclosing publicly any CBSD registration information that may 
compromise the security of critical network deployments or be 
considered competitively sensitive. The Commission noted that it was 
not proposing any change in SAS-to-SAS information sharing 
requirements. The Commission sought comment, inter alia, on the 
potential risks presented by the public disclosure requirement, how to 
balance these potential risks against potential users' need for 
information to plan future GAA and/or PAL deployments, and whether 
there was a mechanism short of public disclosure for potential users to 
plan future GAA and/or PAL deployments, such as by communicating with 
an SAS on a confidential basis. It further sought comment on whether 
there was certain information an SAS could publicly provide while 
balancing data sensitivity and security concerns.
    95. Discussion. After careful consideration of the record, the 
Commission finds that it is in the public interest to protect CBSD 
registration information from public disclosure while still ensuring 
that aggregated data on spectrum use is made available to the public. 
Specifically, the Commission prohibits SAS Administrators from 
disclosing disaggregated CBSD registration data to the public except 
where such disclosure is authorized by the registrant. However, it also 
requires SAS Administrators to make aggregated spectrum usage data for 
any particular area of interest available to the public, including the 
extent of usage and available spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band throughout 
that area and the maximum available contiguous spectrum, using 
graphical ``heat maps'' or other appropriate formats. This approach 
will effectively balance the interests in protecting sensitive network 
information and the legitimate needs that parties--including potential 
GAA operators--may have for information on the local spectrum 
environment. The Commission is not modifying the current requirements 
governing SAS-to-SAS information exchange.
    96. Although the current requirement provides that licensees' 
identities must be obfuscated, numerous commenters argue that public 
disclosure of CBSD registration information would still allow 
competitors or other parties to identify the licensee--using a 
combination of publicly available data--and obtain competitively 
sensitive information about the licensee's network. Some commenters 
also argue that such information could compromise the security of 
network infrastructure. Due to the concerns raised by commenters, the 
Commission finds that, on balance, the current requirement to publicly 
disclose CBSD registration information does not adequately protect 
sensitive information about licensees' network deployments.
    97. The Commission continues to find, however, that the success of 
the shared spectrum model adopted for the 3.5 GHz band requires 
providing potential users of the band with enough information to 
accurately assess the overall spectrum environment in an area in order 
to make investment and deployment decisions. It further finds 
substantial support in the record for the conclusion that revising the 
public disclosure requirement to require the disclosure of aggregated 
spectrum usage data will enable potential users of the 3.5 GHz band to 
make investment and deployment decisions, while significantly reducing 
the concerns from the disclosure of disaggregated device registration 
data. Several commenters support disclosure of a heat map based on 
aggregate data showing the level of spectrum use in a given area and 
the amount of spectrum available, arguing that such an approach would 
permit current and prospective users to better plan for future 
deployments while withholding potentially commercially sensitive or 
security-related, licensee-specific information. Accordingly, the 
Commission finds that it will serve the public interest to require SAS 
Administrators to make publicly available up-to-date aggregated 
spectrum usage data for any desired area of interest, including the 
extent of usage and available spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band throughout 
that area and the maximum available contiguous spectrum, using 
graphical ``heat maps'' or other appropriate formats that provide this 
information.
    98. This approach strikes a better balance between protecting 
sensitive network information and the legitimate needs that parties 
have for information on the local spectrum environment than a 
prohibition on any public disclosures. Some commenters, while not 
disputing that potential users will need information on the spectrum 
environment to plan their deployments, argue that any public disclosure 
is nevertheless unnecessary because, under a Wireless Innovation Forum 
working document, SAS Administrators must publish certain information 
to assist operators in assessing whether there is available spectrum. 
The suggestion that no Commission requirement is needed in the light of 
the working document requirements is unpersuasive, particularly given 
that the working document requirements were only adopted pursuant to 
the existing Commission disclosure requirement. Some commenters argue 
that disclosure is unnecessary because potential users can obtain 
information from SAS Administrators on a confidential basis to make 
such decisions. But these commenters do not provide details regarding 
how such an option would operate, who would be authorized to access 
CBSD registration information,

[[Page 63092]]

and under what circumstances access would or would not be provided. The 
Commission finds that, on the record before it, the revised public 
disclosure requirement it adopts in this Report and Order is the best 
choice because it will ensure that all potential users have certain and 
convenient access to aggregate data on the spectrum environment for the 
area of interest while substantially reducing any legitimate concerns 
regarding the sensitivity of network data. The Commission acknowledges 
that aggregate spectrum usage data might in some circumstances 
implicitly reveal some provider- or CBSD-specific information (such as 
in cases where a 3.5 GHz Priority Access Licensee has deployed CBSDs in 
a particular geographic area with no other deployments in the band). It 
finds, however, that the benefits of the revised public disclosure 
requirement and its importance to the success of the shared model in 
the 3.5 GHz band far outweigh any remaining concerns from the potential 
for such inferred disclosures.
    99. Some proponents of the current requirement assert that the 
harms of disclosure should be discounted because the deployment 
information will in any case become available through other means. The 
Commission disagrees that the possibility that, in the future, there 
may be independent methods to obtain data about some licensees' 
networks is an appropriate justification for us to disregard concerns 
over the commercial sensitivity of that data and to allow today the 
public disclosure of commercially sensitive data about all licensees' 
networks. Further, there is no evident source currently that would 
reproduce the CBSD registration information and find it unlikely that 
any third-party public source will provide 3.5 GHz band network 
infrastructure data of the same character, in terms of information 
covered, specificity, comprehensiveness, timeliness, and accuracy. As 
evidence that CBSD registration data will likely be available from 
providers' own voluntary disclosures, some commenters cite several 
cable provider websites disclosing the location of their commercially 
offered Wi-Fi hotspots. However, the Commission finds these disclosures 
of the locations of Wi-Fi hotspots reflect that such Wi-Fi services are 
typically provided only at discrete locations. Such disclosures do not 
support the conclusion that mobile broadband providers would similarly 
disclose the location of individual antenna sites that are subsumed 
within the broad coverage of a cellular service. The Commission also 
rejects the argument that concerns regarding the disclosure of the 
network data should be discounted because access points will cover very 
limited areas. While the anticipated deployment of 5G services in the 
band will likely often involve small cell technologies, that does not 
reduce the sensitive nature of the deployment information.
    100. Some commenters also argue that the Commission typically has 
disclosed site information in historic site-based licensing regimes and 
that there is no reason to provide any greater protection here. Their 
assessment of Commission practice disregards other Commission or Bureau 
actions, however, that have found that comparable disclosures of 
network infrastructure information encompass sensitive information that 
warranted some degree of protection. These latter precedents, as well 
as the record in this proceeding, support a determination that parties 
have legitimate concerns regarding the sensitivity of CBSD registration 
data that may impact their investment and deployment decisions.
    101. Arguments in the record that a disclosure of aggregate data 
would be insufficient are similarly unpersuasive. Some commenters argue 
that a GAA user will need to know how many contiguous channels are 
available throughout its service area in order to predict the speeds it 
can offer its subscribers; however, the modified requirement directly 
addresses that concern because the Commission requires publicly 
disclosed information to include aggregate information on the maximum 
number of contiguous channels available. While one commenter argues 
that a heat map is inadequate because it does not necessarily provide 
sufficient information for the aiming of directional antennas, 
aggregate data should enable potential users to identify geographic 
areas with sufficient available spectrum to support a range of 
directional orientations for deployments within that area. Some 
commenters argue that licensees need information on specific channel 
availability. However, specific channel availability will be far less 
relevant to 3.5 GHz band network planning than aggregate spectrum 
availability, given that all 3.5 GHz band equipment must be operable 
across the entire band, and that the SASs will be making the frequency 
assignments, which will be subject to change during the operation of 
the equipment.
    102. One commenter proposes that if the Commission determines that 
the current public disclosure requirement raises security or 
competitive concerns, it should require SAS Administrators, in their 
public disclosure of disaggregated data, to obscure or randomize the 
location of individual CBSDs within a triangle of points 50 linear feet 
apart or another defined area. The Commission finds this proposal does 
not differ significantly from the current requirement, which does not 
adequately protect competitively sensitive information. The modified 
requirement is a better approach to address the concern, as it will 
directly provide current and potential users with information on the 
availability of spectrum in a geographic area without requiring public 
disclosure of disaggregated CBSD data.
    103. Other purposes that commenters identify for the public 
disclosure of disaggregated registration data are likely to be able to 
be achieved without the public disclosure of such data. For example, 
while some argue that disclosure will help users identify sources of 
interference, that is a core function of the SAS itself and therefore 
does not require public disclosure of disaggregated SAS registration 
data. The role of the SASs further distinguishes the 3.5 GHz band from 
the prior 3650-3700 MHz Band service rules, where the Commission 
adopted public disclosure of site registrations to enable non-exclusive 
licensees to coordinate to avoid harmful interference. Under that 
regime, there was no license administrator to facilitate coordination.
    104. The Commission does not find that disclosure would enable the 
public to detect and hold operators accountable for erroneous or 
obsolete information, as some commenters argue. The Commission 
acknowledges that, for the white space database, it did adopt public 
disclosure for some registrations in part to ``permit public 
examination of protected entity registration information to allow the 
detection and correction of errors.'' However, it finds the 3.5 GHz 
band is not analogous to the white space service in this regard, as the 
Commission discussed extensively in the 2016 Order on Reconsideration 
(81 FR 49038, July 26, 2016). Among other distinctions in the case of 
3.5 GHz, the Commission noted that ``[t]he licensed nature of the 
service coupled with industry certification requirements for 
professional installers provides a higher degree of accountability for 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and SAS Administrators, ensuring 
that CBSD locations are accurately reported and verified.'' It further 
noted that SASs ``will have capabilities and responsibilities that 
exceed those of White Spaces database administrators,''

[[Page 63093]]

including rules that require authentication of CBSDs with an SAS and 
require that SAS Administrators maintain the accuracy of CBSD records, 
which ``places a duty on SAS Administrators to take reasonable steps to 
validate newly entered data and to purge obsolete data.'' Accordingly, 
the Commission finds there is not the same benefit from public 
disclosures in helping to ensure registration accuracy in this context 
as was present in the white space service.
    105. The Commission also disagrees that Category B GAA users will 
need disaggregated registration data, and particularly relevant contact 
data, to fulfill their obligation to coordinate with other Category B 
GAA users under Sec.  96.35(e) of the Commission's rules. Mandatory 
disclosure of disaggregated CBSD registration data, including contact 
data, is not necessary for Category B GAA coordination, and voluntary 
mechanisms and arrangements facilitated by an SAS, supplemented by the 
mandatory disclosure of aggregate spectrum usage data, can reasonably 
be expected to support and achieve the coordination contemplated in 
Sec.  96.35(e), given that Category B GAA users will generally have 
mutual incentives to coordinate with one another and SASs are required 
to facilitate such coordination. For example, one multi-stakeholder 
standards document for Citizens Broadband Radio Service commercial 
operation, noted by several commenters, addresses the need for GAA 
coordination through a voluntary approach to be administered by the 
SASs. The Commission anticipates that the SAS Administrators will play 
an active role in facilitating GAA coordination, and bases its 
expectation that a voluntary mechanism will be successful in part on 
SAS involvement.
    106. The Commission also anticipates that disclosure of aggregate 
information on spectrum availability will be sufficient in many cases 
to help interested parties identify potential secondary market 
opportunities, and that the SASs will help facilitate secondary market 
transactions in other ways that do not require disaggregated 
disclosure. Further, parties can directly contact the Priority Access 
Licensees in a particular license area (which will be a matter of 
public record) for that purpose. Indeed, even if the Commission 
continued to mandate disclosure of anonymized CBSD data, it would still 
generally be necessary to determine from the licensees in an area 
(either directly or through SAS facilitation) whether a particular 
licensee has unused PAL spectrum it is willing to make available 
through a secondary market transaction. To the extent that mandatory 
public disclosures of detailed, disaggregated CBSD registration data 
might in some circumstances provide some additional benefit over 
aggregate data, and the benefits are outweighed by the security and 
competitive concerns that such disclosures would raise. In sum, the 
Commission concludes that the revised requirement provides a reasonable 
balance for the services in the 3.5 GHz band, including emerging 5G and 
other innovative services anticipated in this band, and will thus 
promote its effective and efficient use.

F. Emissions Limits for CBSDs and End User Devices

    107. Background. The Commission's rules include the following 
emissions limits for CBSDs and End User Devices operating in the 3.5 
GHz band:
     -13 dBm/MHz from 0 to 10 megahertz from the assigned 
channel edge;
     -25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz from the assigned channel 
edge down to 3530 megahertz and up to 3720 megahertz;
     -40 dBm/MHz below 3530 megahertz and above 3720 megahertz.
    108. The Commission adopted these limits to achieve a balance 
between the ability of CBSDs and End User Devices to protect out-of-
band incumbent services, the ability of equipment vendors to meet 
reasonable standards of design performance, and the ability of CBSD and 
End User Devices to minimize the addition of in-band noise affecting 
other users of the band. The Commission denied petitions for 
reconsideration that sought changes to these limits in 2016.
    109. In the 2017 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on two 
alternative emission masks to address concerns about the need to reduce 
transmit power for channels wider than 10 megahertz under the emissions 
mask set forth in Sec.  96.41(e) of the Commission's rules. Both 
alternative emission masks would extend the width of the -13 dBm/MHz 
transition step. Instead of the fixed 10 megahertz wide transition step 
in Sec.  96.41(e)(1), each alternative emission mask would extend the 
total transition bandwidth to be the bandwidth (B) of the fundamental 
transmission in megahertz. The first alternative emission mask (the 
Qualcomm Mask) has a single transition step at a level of -13 dBm/MHz. 
The second alternative emission mask (the Graduated Mask) has two steps 
with a steeper reduction of adjacent emission power, -13 dBm/MHz from 0 
to B/2 megahertz from the channel edge, and -20 dBm/MHz from B/2 to B 
megahertz from the channel edge. The Commission sought comment on these 
two alternative emission masks and specifically requested quantitative 
analysis of the tradeoffs between the use of wider channels and the 
risk of higher interference to users in adjacent channels.
    110. Qualcomm submitted results of a simulation study of the 
additional maximum power reduction (A-MPR) that would be required for 
the Qualcomm Mask and the Graduated Mask. Qualcomm asserts that both 
masks require the same amount of (non-zero) power reduction (e.g., 2.2 
dB) for channels with high resource utilization, but the Graduated Mask 
requires 0.8 dB-2.5 dB additional power reduction than the Qualcomm 
Mask for channels with low resource utilization. Thus, Qualcomm argues 
that its mask will more effectively facilitate wider bandwidth 
operations with less impact on transmit power. In ex parte 
presentations on March 6, 12, and 14, 2018, Qualcomm further asserted 
that with its proposed mask, emission reduction is achieved by power 
reduction resulting from both the spectrum emission mask (SEM) and the 
3GPP Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio (ACLR) requirement of 30 dB for 
user devices. In some cases, the ACLR requirement (and not the SEM) 
determines the amount of emission reduction, and in other cases the SEM 
requirement (and not the ACLR) determines the amount of emission 
reduction.
    111. Discussion. After review of the record, the Commission 
concludes, first, that it should make no changes to the OOBE limits 
outside the 3.5 GHz band, specifically at or beyond the 3550 and 3700 
MHz band edges. Second, it is not convinced that any change is needed 
in the emissions mask for Category A and B CBSDs to facilitate next 
generation wireless deployments, including 5G channels up to 40 
megahertz wide. Third, it finds that some relaxation in the emissions 
mask for uplinks from End User Devices is warranted to accommodate 
wider bandwidths. This change will help facilitate wide-network 
deployments, consistent with the other changes adopted herein.
    112. There is little in the record to suggest that changes in the 
OOBE limits outside the 3.5 GHz band are necessary to accommodate 
signals having wide bandwidths. Indeed, many commenters argue that 
there should be no relaxation of the emissions limits outside the 3.5 
GHz band. The existing OOBE limits outside the 3.5 GHz band were 
adopted

[[Page 63094]]

to ensure interference protection for fixed satellite services 
operating above the band and federal operations below the band. These 
important adjacent band coexistence issues have not changed since the 
rules were adopted and, as such, there is no need to reconsider the 
Commission's prior findings on this matter.
    113. In addition, the Commission finds that no changes to the 
emission limits for CBSDs are needed. Qualcomm's proposal is focused 
solely on End User Devices and there were no other technical showings 
that would support relaxation of the emissions limits for CBSDs. 
Indeed, equipment vendors argue that no change to the emission limits 
are necessary because current technologies can meet the existing limits 
and the existing rules allow higher power with wider bandwidth, which 
helps counteract the need for a reduction in power. The Commission 
believes their comments were in the context of CBSDs (i.e., base 
stations).
    114. The Commission is aware that it is generally easier to employ 
linearization techniques and better filtering in CBSDs to achieve low 
out-of-channel emissions because they operate off external electrical 
power and are less constrained by space limitations in the device as 
compared to End User Devices. Accordingly, the Commission is 
maintaining the existing OOBE limits for CBSDs.
    115. There is justification for relaxing the OOBE limits within the 
3.5 GHz band for End User Devices to accommodate bandwidths wider than 
ten megahertz. The Commission adopts the Qualcomm Mask and an adjacent 
channel leakage requirement of -30 dBc for End User Devices, because 
Qualcomm's analysis showed that -30 dBc, a 3GPP standard, in addition 
to the Qualcomm Mask, would limit the total emission power that affects 
adjacent channels. While most commenters support the Qualcomm Mask 
rather than the Graduated Mask, the Commission is concerned that the 
Qualcomm Mask, by itself, may lead to a higher level of OOBE than 
necessary to accommodate wider bandwidths with little or no power 
reduction. The Commission also believes that much of the equipment that 
will be used in this band will be designed to meet 3GPP standards. The 
3GPP standards are based on an adjacent channel leakage ratio (ACLR) of 
30 dBc for End User Devices, as well as a spectrum emission mask. The 
value of ACLR is a measure of the total power in the adjacent channel, 
as opposed to an emission mask that specifies a (typically) flat (per-
megahertz) limit over some frequency range, with reductions at 
particular points (i.e., 10 megahertz outside the channel). In its 
March 14, 2018 filing, Qualcomm demonstrated that for End User Devices, 
neither the Qualcomm Mask nor the Graduated Mask is sufficient, in some 
cases, to ensure that adjacent channel leakage is at least 30 dB below 
the fundamental channel power (i.e., 3GPP ACLR limit of 30 dB). This 
necessitates maximum power reduction based on an ACLR limit, to ensure 
that adjacent channel emission power is sufficiently minimized. 
Qualcomm performed software simulation of End User Device transmitter 
emission performance for many combinations of uplink sub-carrier 
assignments, for inner channels, for edge channels, and for different 
configurations of contiguous and non-contiguous spectrum assignments. 
Their analysis showed the power back-off required to meet 3GPP 
performance standards for edge channels and inner channels, for the 
current mask, the Qualcomm Mask, and the Graduated Mask. Based on this 
analysis, the Commission believes that adopting the two emission 
requirements assessed by Qualcomm--the Qualcomm emission mask and 
ACLR--would allow for wider transmission bandwidths, and ensure that 
in-band noise is appropriately limited for all End User Devices, not 
just 3GPP user equipment. Therefore, it adopts the Qualcomm Mask and an 
adjacent channel leakage requirement of -30 dBc for End User Devices.
    116. Some commenters expressed concern that changes to the emission 
limits could make some channels in the band (i.e., those furthest from 
the band edges) more desirable than others. While wider bandwidth 
operations using spectrum near the upper and lower edges of the 3.5 GHz 
band may need to make adjustments--including operating at lower power--
to use those parts of the band, the Commission does not believe this 
makes these parts of the band any less usable. The 3.5 GHz band will 
likely be used by a variety of different operators, each with unique 
spectrum needs. These operators should have the flexibility to use the 
band at a variety of different bandwidths and operational power levels 
suited to their particular business. For example, parties seeking to 
use the lower 10 megahertz channel may also seek to use it together 
with adjacent channels for wider aggregated bandwidth. They can also 
choose to employ devices with better filtering, slightly reduce power, 
or aggregate non-contiguous individual channels. The Commission is also 
cognizant that there is apt to be wide variability in the ability of 
multiple contiguous channels at any given location because it will 
depend on factors such as which channels have different licensees and 
the extent of other deployments in the band.
    117. Finally, the Commission corrects a typographic error in a 
paragraph reference in Sec.  96.41(e)(2) of its rules, which should 
reference paragraph (e)(1) instead of (d)(1).

IV. Procedural Matters

    118. Paperwork Reduction Analysis.--This Report and Order contains 
new and modified information collection requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 
section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal 
agencies will be invited to comment on the new and modified information 
collection requirements contained in the proceeding. In addition, the 
Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, it previously sought specific comment on how we might 
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' It has described impacts that 
might affect small businesses, which includes most businesses with 
fewer than 25 employees, in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA), in Appendix B of the Report and Order.
    119. Congressional Review Act.--The Commission will send a copy of 
this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).
    120. Regulatory Flexibility Act.--The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a FRFA, set forth 
in Appendix B of the Report and Order, concerning the possible impact 
of the rule changes.

V. Ordering Clauses

    121. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 4(j), 5(c), 302, 303, 304, 307(e), and 316 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), 
302, 303, 304, 307(e), and 316, this Report and Order in GN Docket No. 
17-258 is hereby adopted.

[[Page 63095]]

    122. It is further ordered that the amendments of the Commission's 
rules as set forth in the Final Rules section are adopted, effective 
thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register. Sections 
96.23(a), 96.25(b)(4), and 96.32(b) contain new or modified information 
collection requirements that require review by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission 
directs the Bureau to announce the effective date of those information 
collections in a document published in the Federal Register after the 
Commission receives OMB approval, and directs the Bureau to cause 
Sec. Sec.  96.23(d), 96.25(b)(5), and 96.32(d) to be revised 
accordingly.
    123. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.
    124. It is further ordered that this Report and Order shall be sent 
to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1 and 96

    Telecommunications, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

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

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; Sec. 102(c), Div. P, 
Public Law 115-141, 132 Stat. 1084; 28 U.S.C. 2461, unless otherwise 
noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  1.907 by revising the definition of ``Covered Geographic 
Licenses'' to read as follows:


Sec.  1.907  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Covered Geographic Licenses. Covered Geographic Licenses consist of 
the following services: 1.4 GHz Service (part 27, subpart I, of this 
chapter); 1.6 GHz Service (part 27, subpart J); 24 GHz Service and 
Digital Electronic Message Services (part 101, subpart G, of this 
chapter); 218-219 MHz Service (part 95, subpart F, of this chapter); 
220-222 MHz Service, excluding public safety licenses (part 90, subpart 
T, of this chapter); 600 MHz Service (part 27, subpart N); 700 MHz 
Commercial Services (part 27, subparts F and H); 700 MHz Guard Band 
Service (part 27, subpart G); 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service 
(part 90, subpart S); 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (part 
90, subpart S); Advanced Wireless Services (part 27, subparts K and L); 
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service (Commercial Aviation) (part 22, 
subpart G, of this chapter); Broadband Personal Communications Service 
(part 24, subpart E, of this chapter); Broadband Radio Service (part 
27, subpart M); Cellular Radiotelephone Service (part 22, subpart H); 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service (part 96, subpart C, of this chapter); 
Dedicated Short Range Communications Service, excluding public safety 
licenses (part 90, subpart M); H Block Service (part 27, subpart K); 
Local Multipoint Distribution Service (part 101, subpart L); 
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (part 101, subpart P); 
Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (part 90, subpart M); 
Multiple Address Systems (EAs) (part 101, subpart O); Narrowband 
Personal Communications Service (part 24, subpart D); Paging and 
Radiotelephone Service (part 22, subpart E; part 90, subpart P); VHF 
Public Coast Stations, including Automated Maritime Telecommunications 
Systems (part 80, subpart J, of this chapter); Upper Microwave Flexible 
Use Service (part 30 of this chapter); and Wireless Communications 
Service (part 27, subpart D).
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  1.949 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.949  Application for renewal of authorization.

* * * * *
    (c) Implementation. Covered Site-based Licenses, except Common 
Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service (part 101, subpart I, of 
this chapter), and Covered Geographic Licenses in the 600 MHz Service 
(part 27, subpart N, of this chapter); 700 MHz Commercial Services 
(part 27, subpart F); Advanced Wireless Services (part 27, subpart L) 
(AWS-3 (1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz) and AWS-4 
(2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz) only); Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service (part 96, subpart C, of this chapter); and H Block Service 
(part 27, subpart K) must comply with paragraphs (d) through (h) of 
this section. All other Covered Geographic Licenses must comply with 
paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section beginning on January 1, 
2023. Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service (part 101, 
subpart I) must comply with paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section 
beginning on October 1, 2018.
* * * * *

PART 96--CITIZENS BROADBAND RADIO SERVICE

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

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

0
5. Amend Sec.  96.3 by:
0
a. Adding the definitions of ``Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio'' and 
``Aggregated Channel Bandwidth'' in alphabetical order;
0
b. Removing the definition of ``Census tract'';
0
c. Adding the definitions of ``County'' in alphabetical order; and
0
d. Revising the definition of ``License area.''
    The additions and revision read as follows:


Sec.  96.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio. The Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio 
(ACLR) is the ratio of the filtered mean power over the assigned 
Aggregated Channel Bandwidth to the filtered mean power over the 
equivalent adjacent channel bandwidth. The power in the assigned 
Aggregated Channel Bandwidth and its equivalent adjacent channel 
bandwidth are measured with rectangular filters with measurement 
bandwidths equal to the Aggregated Channel Bandwidth.
    Aggregated Channel Bandwidth. The Aggregated Channel Bandwidth is 
the bandwidth of a single channel, or in the case of multiple 
contiguous channels, the bandwidth between the upper and lower limits 
of the combined contiguous channels.
* * * * *
    County. For purposes of this part, counties shall be defined using 
the United States Census Bureau's data reflecting county legal 
boundaries and names valid through January 1, 2017.
* * * * *
    License area. The geographic component of a PAL. A License Area 
consists of one county.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  96.23 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and 
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

[[Page 63096]]

Sec.  96.23  Authorization.

    (a) An applicant must file an application for an initial PAL. 
Applications for PALs must:
* * * * *
    (d) Paragraph (a) of this section contains information-collection 
and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance will not be required until 
after approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing that 
compliance date and revising this paragraph (d) accordingly.

0
7. Amend Sec.  96.25 by revising paragraph (b)(3) and adding paragraphs 
(b)(4) and (5) to read as follows:


Sec.  96.25   Priority access licenses.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) License term. Each PAL has a ten-year license term. Licensees 
must file a renewal application in accordance with the provisions of 
Sec.  1.949 of this chapter.
    (4) Performance requirement. Priority Access Licensees must provide 
substantial service in their license area by the end of the initial 
license term. ``Substantial'' service is defined as service which is 
sound, favorable, and substantially above the level of mediocre service 
which might minimally warrant renewal. Failure by any licensee to meet 
this requirement will result in forfeiture of the license without 
further Commission action, and the licensee will be ineligible to 
regain it. Licensees shall demonstrate compliance with the performance 
requirement by filing a construction notification with the Commission 
in accordance with the provisions set forth in Sec.  1.946(d) of this 
chapter. The licensee must certify whether it has met the performance 
requirement, and file supporting documentation, including description 
and demonstration of the bona fide service provided, electronic maps 
accurately depicting the boundaries of the license area and where in 
the license area the licensee provides service that meets the 
performance requirement, supporting technical documentation, any 
population-related assumptions or data used in determining the 
population covered by a service to the extent any were relied upon, and 
any other information the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may 
prescribe by public notice. A licensee's showing of substantial service 
may not rely on service coverage outside of the PAL Protection Areas of 
registered CBSDs or on deployments that are not reflected in SAS 
records of CBSD registrations.
    (i) Safe harbor for mobile or point-to-multipoint service. A 
Priority Access Licensee providing a mobile service or point-to-
multipoint service may demonstrate substantial service by showing that 
it provides signal coverage and offers service, either to customers or 
for internal use, over at least 50 percent of the population in the 
license area.
    (ii) Safe harbor for fixed point-to-point service. A Priority 
Access Licensee providing a fixed point-to-point service may 
demonstrate substantial service by showing that it has constructed and 
operates at least four links, either to customers or for internal use, 
in license areas with 134,000 population or less and in license areas 
with greater population, a minimum number of links equal to the 
population of the license area divided by 33,500 and rounded up to the 
nearest whole number. To satisfy this provision, such links must 
operate using registered Category B CBSDs.
    (5) Compliance date. Paragraph (b)(4) of this section contains 
information-collection and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance will 
not be required until after approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register 
announcing that compliance date and revising this paragraph (b)(5) 
accordingly.
* * * * *


Sec.  96.27  [Removed and Reserved]

0
8. Remove and reserve Sec.  96.27.

0
9. Section 96.29 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  96.29  Competitive bidding procedures.

    Mutually exclusive initial applications for PALs are subject to 
competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set 
forth in part 1, subpart Q, of this chapter will apply unless otherwise 
provided in this subpart.

0
10. Section 96.30 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  96.30   Designated entities in the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service.

    (a) Small business. (1) A small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the 
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not 
exceeding $55 million for the preceding three (3) years.
    (2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its 
affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its 
controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $20 
million for the preceding three (3) years.
    (b) Eligible rural service provider. For purposes of this section, 
an eligible rural service provider is an entity that meets the criteria 
specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(4) of this chapter.
    (c) Bidding credits. (1) A winning bidder that qualifies as a small 
business as defined in this section or a consortium of small businesses 
may use a bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in Sec.  
1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as 
a very small business as defined in this section or a consortium of 
very small businesses may use a bidding credit of 25 percent, as 
specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
    (2) An entity that qualifies as eligible rural service provider or 
a consortium of rural service providers who has not claimed a small 
business bidding credit may use a bidding credit of 15 percent, as 
specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(4) of this chapter.

0
11. Amend Sec.  96.32 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph 
(d) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Priority Access Licensees may partition or disaggregate their 
licenses and partially assign or transfer their licenses pursuant to 
Sec.  1.950 of this chapter and may enter into de facto transfer 
leasing arrangements for a portion of their licensed spectrum pursuant 
to part 1 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (d) Paragraph (b) of this section contains information-collection 
and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance will not be required until 
after approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing that 
compliance date and revising this paragraph (d) accordingly.

0
12. Amend Sec.  96.41 by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) and 
(e)(3)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  96.41  General radio requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) 3.5 GHz Emissions and Interference Limits--(1) General 
protection levels.

[[Page 63097]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07DE18.009

    (i) Except as otherwise specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this 
section, for channel and frequency assignments made by the SAS to 
CBSDs, the conducted power of any CBSD emission outside the fundamental 
emission bandwidth as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section 
(whether the emission is inside or outside of the authorized band) 
shall not exceed -13 dBm/MHz within 0-10 megahertz above the upper SAS-
assigned channel edge and within 0-10 megahertz below the lower SAS-
assigned channel edge. At all frequencies greater than 10 megahertz 
above the upper SAS assigned channel edge and less than 10 MHz below 
the lower SAS assigned channel edge, the conducted power of any CBSD 
emission shall not exceed -25 dBm/MHz. The upper and lower SAS assigned 
channel edges are the upper and lower limits of any channel assigned to 
a CBSD by an SAS, or in the case of multiple contiguous channels, the 
upper and lower limits of the combined contiguous channels.
    (ii) Except as otherwise specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this 
section, for channel and frequency assignments made by a CBSD to End 
User Devices, the conducted power of any End User Device emission 
outside the fundamental emission (whether in or outside of the 
authorized band) shall not exceed -13 dBm/MHz within 0 to B megahertz 
(where B is the bandwidth in megahertz of the assigned channel or 
multiple contiguous channels of the End User Device) above the upper 
CBSD-assigned channel edge and within 0 to B megahertz below the lower 
CBSD-assigned channel edge. At all frequencies greater than B megahertz 
above the upper CBSD assigned channel edge and less than B megahertz 
below the lower CBSD-assigned channel edge, the conducted power of any 
End User Device emission shall not exceed -25 dBm/MHz. Notwithstanding 
the emission limits in this paragraph, the Adjacent Channel Leakage 
Ratio for End User Devices shall be at least 30 dB.
    (2) Additional protection levels. Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) 
of this section, for CBSDs and End User Devices, the conducted power of 
emissions below 3540 MHz or above 3710 MHz shall not exceed -25 dBm/
MHz, and the conducted power of emissions below 3530 MHz or above 3720 
MHz shall not exceed -40dBm/MHz.
    (3) Measurement procedure. (i) Compliance with this provision is 
based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution 
bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. However, in the 1 megahertz bands 
immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee's authorized frequency 
channel, a resolution bandwidth of no less than one percent of the 
fundamental emission bandwidth may be employed. A narrower resolution 
bandwidth is permitted in all cases to improve measurement accuracy 
provided the measured power is integrated over the full reference 
bandwidth (i.e., 1 MHz or 1 percent of emission bandwidth, as 
specified). The fundamental emission bandwidth is defined as the width 
of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center 
frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which 
all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter 
power.
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  96.55 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  96.55  Information gathering and retention.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Upon request, SAS Administrators must make available to the 
general public aggregated spectrum usage data for any geographic area. 
Such information must include the total available spectrum and the 
maximum available contiguous spectrum in the requested area. SAS 
Administrators shall not disclose specific CBSD registration 
information to the general public except where such disclosure is 
authorized by the registrant.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-25795 Filed 12-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P