[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66888-66906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22529]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 27

[WT Docket No. 19-348; FCC 20-138; FRS 17121]


Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100-3550 MHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes rules to govern 
commercial wireless operations in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. It proposes 
to add a new primary allocation for fixed and mobile (except 
aeronautical mobile) services and to adopt technical, licensing, and 
competitive bidding rules governing licenses in this band. The 
Commission proposes and seeks comment on coexistence and coordination 
between new commercial wireless licensees and incumbent federal 
radiolocation and radionavigation operations, which will continue to 
operate on a limited basis, but which will remain co-primary with 
commercial operations. The Commission also proposes and seeks comment 
on relocation and sunset procedures for incumbent non-federal, 
secondary operations, which are being cleared from the band.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before November 20, 
2020; and reply comments on or before December 7, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 19-348, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ in 
docket number WT Docket No. 19-348. See Electronic Filing of Documents 
in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, 
and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, 
DC 20554
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general 
public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking 
number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not 
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number; an original and one copy are sufficient.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Jones, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-1327 or 
[email protected], or Ira Keltz, Office of Engineering and 
Technology, (202) 418-0616 or [email protected]. For information 
regarding the PRA information collection requirements, contact Cathy 
Williams, Office of Managing Director, at 202-418-2918 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WT Docket No. 19-348, FCC 20-138, 
adopted September 30, 2020, and released October 2, 2020. The full text 
of the FNPRM is available for public inspection at the following 
internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-138A1.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 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 
(TTY).
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 
the dates indicated on the first page of this document.

Ex Parte Rules

    This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules (47 CFR 1.1200). Persons making ex parte presentations must file 
a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments

[[Page 66889]]

can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents 
shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed 
to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 
rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which 
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, 
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and 
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of 
the policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. It requests written 
public comment on the IRFA, contained at Appendix E to the FNPRM. 
Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as 
comments filed in response to the FNPRM as set forth on the first page 
of this document and have a separate and distinct heading designating 
them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a 
copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    The FNPRM is part of the Commission's comprehensive strategy to 
Facilitate America's Superiority in 5G Technology (the 5G FAST Plan). 
Collectively, the 3.45-3.55 GHz band and neighboring 3.5 GHz and 3.7 
GHz bands could offer 530 megahertz of mid-band spectrum for flexible 
use.

II. Background

    The lower 3 GHz band--and the 3,450 MHz to 3,550 MHz portion of the 
band (3.45-3.55 GHz band) in particular--has been targeted as spectrum 
to support 5G both here and abroad, and assessed within the federal 
government, across the legislative and executive branches, as well as 
within the Commission.
    Congress addressed the pressing need for spectrum to support 
broadband, including mid-band spectrum, in the Fiscal Year 2018 omnibus 
spending bill, which included the Making Opportunities for Broadband 
Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless 
Act (MOBILE NOW Act) under Title VI of RAY BAUM'S Act. See Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law 115-141, Division P, the Repack 
Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services (RAY 
BAUM'S) Act, Title VI (the Making Opportunities for Broadband 
Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless 
Act or MOBILE NOW Act). The MOBILE NOW Act mandated that the Secretary 
of Commerce, working through NTIA: (1) Submit, in consultation with the 
Commission, a report by March 23, 2020, on the feasibility of 
``allowing commercial wireless service, licensed or unlicensed, to 
share use of the frequencies between 3,100 megahertz and 3,550 
megahertz, and (2) identify with the Commission ``at least 255 
megahertz of Federal and non-Federal spectrum for mobile and fixed 
wireless broadband use'' by December 31, 2022. MOBILE NOW Act Sec.  
605(a). Shortly before Congress signed the 2018 omnibus spending bill, 
NTIA announced that it had identified the 3.45-3.55 GHz band for study 
for potential repurposing to spur commercial wireless innovation. In 
2020, the White House and the DoD formed America's Mid-Band Initiative 
Team (AMBIT) with the goal of making 100 megahertz of contiguous mid-
band spectrum available in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band for full commercial 
use.

III. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Reallocating the 3.45-3.55 GHz Band for Commercial Wireless Use

    The Commission proposes to reallocate the 3.45-3.55 GHz band on a 
co-primary basis for non-federal fixed and mobile (except aeronautical 
mobile) services and seeks comment on its proposal. Under Section 
303(y) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission is 
permitted to allocate spectrum for flexible uses if the allocation is 
consistent with international agreements and if the Commission finds 
that: (1) The allocation is in the public interest; (2) the allocation 
does not deter investment in communications services, systems, or the 
development of technologies; and (3) such use would not result in 
harmful interference among users. The Commission anticipates that its 
proposal to add co-primary allocations for non-federal fixed and mobile 
(except aeronautical mobile) services to the U.S. Table of Frequency 
Allocations for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band would meet these criteria.
    The Commission tentatively concludes that its proposal would serve 
the public interest by advancing U.S. leadership in next-generation 5G 
networks. A key element of such leadership is making additional 
critical mid-band spectrum available for 5G services as proposed in the 
FNPRM. In addition, the Commission expects that its proposal will 
promote, rather than deter, investments in the band by flexible use 
licensees. Mid-band spectrum is particularly well-suited for 5G 
buildout due to its desirable coverage, capacity, and propagation 
characteristics and the Commission anticipates that this spectrum 
should attract investment from 5G network operators. Further, the 
actions the Commission takes in the accompanying Report and Order and 
proposes in the FNPRM should not result in harmful interference among 
users of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. To the contrary, the Commission's 
decision in the Report and Order to remove all secondary allocations 
and relocate certain secondary operations from the band will minimize 
the potential for interference to new flexible use licensees; and the 
Commission's proposals in the FNPRM should enable coordination with 
incumbent federal operations. In addition, the Commission's proposed 
allocation would harmonize the Commission's allocation for the 3.45-
3.55 GHz band with international allocations.

[[Page 66890]]

    The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to add this allocation 
and on its initial assessment that doing so is consistent with the 
requirements of Section 303(y). The Commission also asks commenters to 
provide quantitative estimates of its proposal's costs and benefits to 
current and potential non-federal users of the band.

A. Future of Federal Incumbent Use in the 3.45-3.55 GHz Band

    The 3.45-3.55 GHz band currently is used by the DoD for high-
powered radar systems on fixed, mobile, shipborne, and airborne 
platforms. In July 2020, consistent with the requirements of the MOBILE 
NOW Act to provide an evaluation of the feasibility of sharing portions 
of the 3.1-3.55 GHz band, NTIA released a report identifying the 3.45-
3.55 GHz band for such sharing. As directed by Section 605(d) of the 
MOBILE NOW Act, the Commission seeks comment on that report, 
specifically its findings as to the sharing of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, 
with commercial wireless services. While NTIA has identified the 
uppermost 100 megahertz of the 3.1-3.55 GHz band for commercial 
wireless operations, consistent with the MOBILE NOW Act, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether such operations are feasible below 3.45 GHz. 
In particular, the Commission asks commenters to provide input on the 
feasibility of reallocating the 100 megahertz of spectrum between 3.35 
GHz and 3.45 GHz for commercial wireless service at the same power 
levels that it proposes for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band throughout the 
contiguous United States and on what additional steps would be 
necessary to make such use feasible. The Commission seeks specific 
comment on whether clearing this spectrum of federal operations for 
exclusive commercial use is feasible, what steps need to be taken, what 
the timeline for such clearing would be, and whether limited sharing 
through geographic coordination zones could speed making this spectrum 
available to the commercial market.
    Also consistent with Congress's directive in the MOBILE NOW Act, 
and following the Commission's proposal in 2019 to take the first steps 
to make the 3.1-3.55 GHz band available for flexible use commercial 
operations, the DoD recently indicated that it intends to promote 
cooperative sharing of the band with new fixed and mobile, except 
aeronautical mobile, systems to the extent possible. The DoD intends to 
allow for commercial deployments in the band by adjusting its concept 
of operations for many of these systems to the extent possible without 
fully vacating the band. To this end, the AMBIT selected the specific 
frequency band 3450-3550 MHz for commercial access. Consistent with the 
AMBIT study, the Commission proposes that federal systems operating in 
the band may not cause harmful interference to non-federal operations 
in the band, except in limited circumstances and locations. Non-federal 
systems are not entitled to protection against harmful interference 
from federal operations (and limited restrictions may be placed on non-
federal operations), under the following circumstances: (1) In 
Cooperative Planning Areas; (2) in Periodic Use Areas; and (3) during 
times of National Emergency. The Commission seek comment on its 
proposal.
    Upon completion of the AMBIT study, a number of circumstances were 
identified where the DoD will require continued access to the band. 
Specifically, the DoD has identified a list of ``Cooperative Planning 
Areas,'' in which it anticipates that federal operations will continue 
subsequent to the assignment of flexible use licenses in the band. 
These areas are limited in size and scope and include military training 
facilities, test sites, Navy home ports, and shipyards. The Commission 
will work with the DoD to minimize the size of Cooperative Planning 
Areas where possible. For each Cooperative Planning Area, the DoD 
intends to receive input from and provide information to the wireless 
industry, including commercial operators, in the near future (i.e., 
before the spectrum is auctioned) regarding commercial network planning 
and deployments in order to minimize impacts from incumbent federal 
operation on future commercial operations and to enable effective 
federal operations. For example, the DoD anticipates holding workshops 
with wireless carriers to begin discussing such issues, similar to 
information sharing and transition planning that occurred with industry 
as part of the AWS-3 auction. The DoD anticipates that, once licenses 
are issued, it would reach mutual agreements with individual licensees 
for commercial network planning. In addition, the DoD has identified a 
number of ``Periodic Use Areas'' that overlap with certain Cooperative 
Planning Areas, in which the DoD will need episodic access to all or a 
portion of the band in identified, limited geographic areas. The DoD 
anticipates that it will need to coordinate federal usage of the 
spectrum with affected licensees for specific times, bandwidths, and 
locations. In both cases, the coordination procedures would need to 
ensure that the DoD has authority to radiate and that protection from 
interference would be adequate to preserve military readiness, 
capabilities, and national security. The Commission seeks comment on 
these concepts and how to incorporate them into future coordination 
procedures. Should the Commission also adopt a process for sharing of 
sensitive and classified information between federal and commercial 
operators? If so, should the Commission base this process on the 
procedures used in the AWS-3 proceeding?
    In light of the AMBIT agreement recently reached between the DoD 
and the White House, the Commission seeks comment on an appropriate 
coordination regime that would promote productive ongoing negotiations 
between federal incumbents and new, commercial flexible use licensees. 
What aspects of network planning should be considered during 
coordination efforts and what are the ramifications of such 
negotiations? For example, should federal incumbents and new, 
commercial licensees be required to coordinate network architecture, 
power levels, shielding, antenna backlobe/sidelobe and/or filter 
requirements to minimize potential co- and adjacent channel 
interference to and from commercial systems? How should disagreements 
be resolved? Should timelines be applied to such negotiations? What 
other safeguards would be appropriate to ensure efficient and 
productive coordination negotiations? For Periodic Use Areas, how would 
commercial licensees be notified of each periodic use and with how much 
advance notice? Would cooperative agreements between federal and non-
federal operators in Periodic Use Areas further increase the commercial 
utility of the spectrum in the vicinity of such areas? What costs would 
be involved in the proposed coordination regime, and how large would 
these costs be? What would be the benefits of such coordination 
regimes? In addition, the Commission notes that under certain 
environmental conditions tropospheric ducting could occur and harmful 
interference could be received at large distances from its source. In 
such instances, what notification and coordination mechanisms can be 
used by federal and non-federal users to identify and mitigate such 
interference? What steps, if any, can network operators and federal 
users take at system planning stages to account for the effects of

[[Page 66891]]

tropospheric ducting? Are there efforts federal users can undertake to 
optimize and encourage sharing? How should harmful interference in such 
instances be resolved? And should there be different procedures or 
requirements for Cooperative Planning and Periodic Use Areas and the 
rest of the contiguous U.S. that are not in such areas? Given that 
federal use of the radio spectrum is generally governed by NTIA while 
non-federal use is governed by the Commission, the Commission 
anticipates that any guidance or details concerning federal/non-federal 
coordination would be issued jointly by NTIA and the Commission. The 
Commission also seeks comment on directing the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology 
to administer details of the coordination regime for the 3.45 GHz band, 
and on whether to codify such direction into the Commission's rules.
    The Commission seeks comment on technical parameters that would 
inform federal and non-federal coordination in the band. The Commission 
invites commenters to discuss the likely costs and benefits of such 
parameters to ensure that new, co-primary commercial licensees are 
protected from harmful interference from incumbent federal operations. 
For example, what is the appropriate maximum co-channel received power 
from pulsed radar signals that could be tolerated as an input to 
commercial mobile cellular equipment (both base station and user 
equipment) without creating a significant impact on the user 
experience? Beyond the user experience, the Commission seeks comment on 
input power at which new commercial receivers, both base stations and 
mobile stations, would experience desensitization. What sensing 
mechanisms inherent in modern mobile cellular communication systems and 
networks could be used for identifying external interference caused by 
federal operators? Once identified, how should information about such 
interference and degradation to commercial operations be quantified and 
reported to the federal operators? What other mechanisms could be used 
to enable effective coordination in this band?
    While the Institute for Telecommunications Science has published 
preliminary testing results about the likely impact of federal radars 
on commercial 4G LTE systems, additional data may be needed to further 
validate the conclusions and values for 5G systems. The Commission 
therefore seeks technical analyses and comparisons between LTE and 5G 
new radio (NR) receiver performance in the presence of interference 
from radar-type pulses. The Commission also seeks comment on the impact 
the differences between LTE and 5G systems could have on the technical 
parameters and rules that the Commission may consider and adopt for 
this band. In addition, the Commission invites commenters to submit 
technical studies and analyses that account for the new 5G physical 
layer designs, including symbol time and structure, subcarrier spacing, 
channel coding, and interleaving as it relates to the ability of 5G NR 
to operate in the presence of pulsed radar. The Commission also invites 
commenters to submit technical studies on other variabilities in radar 
waveforms, including frequency domain bandwidth and chirping, pulse 
duration, and duty cycle.
    The Commission seeks comment additionally on how to assess and 
limit potential harmful interference to new 3.45-3.55 GHz flexible use 
licensees from federal operations in adjacent bands. Commenters who are 
concerned about adjacent band operations should identify the types of 
systems that they operate and provide information on measures that can 
be taken to lessen any effects. Are there filters that commercial and/
or federal users could use to minimize the potential for harmful 
interference? What are the minimum filtering requirements necessary to 
ensure that commercial operations will not suffer harmful interference 
in the presence of ongoing federal operations? How would such filters 
affect the size of the areas where commercial operations may be 
impacted by ongoing federal operations? Should the rules require 
commercial systems to install filters with minimum performance 
specifications to enable use of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band by federal and 
non-federal users? What form of sensing or notification-based 
mechanisms would facilitate successful and automated coordination 
between federal and non-federal operations in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band? 
What are the costs and benefits of a sensing regime as compared to a 
notification-based regime?
    What other techniques could federal incumbents and new commercial 
operators use to minimize interference to commercial operators? Are 
there additional steps that the DoD and commercial operators could take 
to adjust their operations to help block emissions to the non-federal 
fixed or mobile users and to federal users in areas where federal and 
non-federal operations will be in close proximity to one another? Could 
the DoD incorporate its efforts into Cooperative Planning Area 
negotiations? Could the sensing and notification-based mechanisms used 
in the 3.5 GHz band also be used in this band to enable successful 
coordination between federal and non-federal operations in the 3.45-
3.55 GHz band? What would be the costs and benefits of these 
alternative approaches? The Commission also seeks comment on the 
potential impact that relocating DoD operations out of the 3.45-3.55 
GHz band might have on commercial access to other spectrum bands.
    If the Commission makes this band available for non-federal fixed 
and mobile (except aeronautical mobile) operations, it seeks comment on 
how to coordinate incumbent federal radar operations in the future. 
Specifically, the DoD will require access to the band during times of 
National Emergency to fulfill military operational needs. Accordingly, 
the Commission proposes that during times of National Emergency federal 
users are authorized to operate within the band as required to meet 
operational mission requirements. Further, the Commission proposes that 
upon notification, commercial licensees shall terminate or otherwise 
adjust their operations to prevent harmful interference to the federal 
operations. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal. How would 
commercial operators be informed of a National Emergency and how would 
continued coordination be facilitated? What should constitute a 
``National Emergency'' in this context? How quickly would a commercial 
operator be required to terminate or adjust its operations following 
notification? How would the termination of a National Emergency be 
communicated to a commercial operator? What other coordination 
procedures would be beneficial under these circumstances? NTIA states 
that it is considering ``the development [of] an automated, real-time, 
incumbent-informing spectrum sharing system (`incumbent-informing 
system') that NTIA would operate in conjunction with DoD to notify 
commercial entities when the latter would need to cease operations.'' 
The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate means to coordinate 
operations of federal users and commercial licensees. The Commission 
seeks comment on the costs and benefits of such coordination regimes.

B. 3.45-3.55 GHz Band Plan

    Block Sizes.--The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate block 
size to promote efficient and robust use of the band for next 
generation wireless technologies, including 5G. The Commission proposes 
to adopt 20

[[Page 66892]]

megahertz blocks for this band to align with the 3.7 GHz band, which it 
recently reallocated for fixed and mobile use, and for which it 
likewise adopted 20 megahertz spectrum blocks. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. Alternatively, should the Commission license 
this band by 10 megahertz blocks akin to Priority Access Licenses 
(PALs) in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service operating in the 3.5 GHz 
band? If so, why? The Commission asks commenters to detail the 
advantages and disadvantages of their favored approach, including any 
costs and benefits. The Commission also seeks comment on potential 
alternatives.
    Spectrum Block Configuration.--The Commission proposes to allocate 
the 3.45-3.55 GHz band as an unpaired band to promote a consistent 
spectral environment with the nearby mid-band allocations in the 3.5 
GHz and 3.7 GHz bands, which are also unpaired in the United States. 
This approach is consistent with industry standards. The Commission 
seeks comment on its approach as well as alternative approaches, 
including the costs and benefits of a commenter's favored approach. 
What administrative measures would be necessary to keep track of how 
spectrum blocks are being used with time division duplexing (TDD) 
within the band or frequency division duplexing (FDD) paired with other 
bands? If the Commission anticipate that licensees will be using TDD, 
should it require licensees to synchronize or coordinate their 
transmissions with each other or with Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
users to the extent that the licensees both use TDD and one party 
requests synchronization? The Commission notes, however, that the 
Commission did not take this approach in the 3.7 GHz Service Order. See 
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 18-
122, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 
2343 (2020) (3.7 GHz Service Order). What are the consequences of 
adopting this flexible approach as compared to a more prescriptive 
approach? What other factors, including costs or benefits of this 
approach, should the Commission consider?
    Use of Geographic Licensing.--Consistent with the Commission's 
approach in several other bands used to provide fixed and mobile 
services, the Commission proposes to license the 3.45-3.55 GHz band on 
an exclusive, geographic area basis. The Commission seeks comment on 
this approach, including the costs and benefits of adopting a 
geographic area licensing scheme. If a party opposes using geographic 
licensing, it should explain its position, describe the licensing 
scheme it supports, and identify the costs and benefits associated with 
its alternative licensing proposal.
    Guard Bands.--The proposed 3.45-3.55 GHz band will be situated 
between two active bands. At the upper edge of the band, the Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service operates in the 3.55-3.7 GHz band, and federal 
incumbents use the 3.55-3.65 GHz band. At the lower edge of the band, 
the primary allocation for federal radiolocation operations will 
continue below 3.45 GHz. While the creation of guard bands is one 
option for protecting adjacent systems, such a use of valuable spectrum 
is inefficient and could be avoided using other technical solutions.
    The proposed technical rules mirror many of those adopted in the 
3.7 GHz Service Order, in which the Commission likewise did not create 
a guard band for the lower edge of the 3.7 GHz band, which also abuts 
the 3.5 GHz band. The Commission expects that its proposed technical 
rules also would sufficiently protect adjacent operations at the lower 
edge of the band. Accordingly, the Commission does not propose creating 
guard bands at either end of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposed approach and its underlying assumptions. 
If a commenter supports the creation of one or more guard bands, then 
it should include a technical analysis justifying the need for such 
guard band(s), including the costs and benefits.

C. Relocation of Secondary Non-Federal Radiolocation Operations

    In the accompanying Report and Order, the Commission removes the 
non-federal secondary allocations in the 3.3-3.55 GHz band for 
radiolocation operations and relocates them to the 2.9-3.0 GHz band. In 
the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on how it should relocate non-
federal radiolocation operators to the 2.9-3.0 GHz band and the timing 
for doing so.
    In the Report and Order, the Commission determined that secondary 
non-federal radiolocation licensees operating in this band as of the 
effective date of the Report and Order may continue to operate while 
the Commission finalizes plans to reallocate spectrum in the 3.45-3.55 
GHz band. Authorization for these operations will sunset on a date 
consistent with the first possible grant of flexible use authorizations 
to new users in that portion of the band. For example, if the 
Commission adopts a licensing scheme that will result in an auction to 
assign licenses, non-federal radiolocation use would sunset within 90 
days of the close of the auction. The Commission does not propose, 
however, to bifurcate the sunset of the secondary radiolocation 
allocation as it proposes for the amateur allocation, first sunsetting 
the allocation above 3.45 GHz, and later at 3.3-3.4 GHz. There are far 
fewer radiolocation operators in the lower 3 GHz band than amateur 
users, and their operations are higher power. The Commission seeks 
comment on this approach. Further, within this framework, the 
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate timing of transitioning 
such licenses to the 2.9 to 3.0 GHz band. What interim benchmarks or 
deadlines might be appropriate to best relocate such licensees without 
interruptions to their operations?
    In order to clear the entire 3.3-3.55 GHz band for future flexible 
use licenses, the Commission proposes to use its section 316 authority 
to modify existing secondary, non-federal radiolocation licenses such 
that they are no longer authorized to operate in the 3.3-3.55 GHz band 
following adoption of final rules based on the proposals in this FNPRM. 
The Commission finds that such modifications are consistent with its 
statutory authority and would serve the public interest. Given the 
Commission's decision to sunset the allocation for these secondary, 
non-federal radiolocation operations, it proposes to modify their 
licenses accordingly to authorize use in the 2.9-3.0 GHz band, which 
would allow them to continue providing the same services as they do 
today. The Commission proposes that, once it finalizes procedures for 
the relocation of non-federal radiolocation licensees and determines 
the appropriate timing for the transition of such licensees to their 
new frequencies, it would issue an Order of Proposed Modification under 
section 316 to modify their licenses to operate on these new 
frequencies. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should require new 
flexible use licensees to reimburse incumbent non-federal, commercial 
radiolocation operators for relocation costs they might incur. The 
Commission notes that non-federal radiolocation operations in the 3.3-
3.55 GHz band are pursuant to a secondary allocation and that the 
Commission has previously found that such secondary users were not 
entitled to reimbursement. However, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether it should expand the Emerging

[[Page 66893]]

Technologies framework in this specific instance to include some 
reimbursement for secondary users relocating out of the 3.3-3.55 GHz 
band. The Commission recognizes that reimbursement would increase the 
costs of participating in its new flexible use licensing regime, and 
that it could therefore reduce investment in the band and proceeds 
generated by an auction of licenses in the band. The Commission seeks 
comment on this possibility and note that section 309(j) of the 
Communications Act only requires the Commission to recover a ``portion 
of the value of the public spectrum resource made available for 
commercial use.'' The Commission also seeks comment on the level of 
investment in these commercial operations, and the remaining useful 
life of the equipment used for such operations, as well as on the 
importance of the services they provide. The Commission therefore seeks 
comment on the costs and benefits of such reimbursement. If the 
Commission elects some form of reimbursement for these secondary users, 
should it require all incoming licensees to share in reimbursing such 
relocation costs? How should this shared reimbursement structure work? 
The Commission invites reference to prior shared reimbursement regimes.
    Commenters should specify the extent to which the Commission should 
or should not expand the Emerging Technologies framework to include 
relocated secondary licensees. If the Commission should provide for 
reimbursement of relocation costs, to what extent is that decision 
specific to the secondary, non-federal radiolocation operations in the 
3.3-3.55 GHz band or generally applicable to secondary users across 
other bands and services? The Commission notes that operators in this 
band perform important safety functions, in particular for weather 
forecasting and physical security, and, despite their secondary status, 
have operated without significant interference risks from primary 
federal operations. To what extent should these factors, or others, 
play a role in guiding the Commission's decision on reimbursement in 
this proceeding and otherwise?
    Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on costs associated with 
relocating secondary, non-federal radiolocation operations. The 
Commission seeks comment on the nature of relocation costs and how best 
to quantify them. For example, what equipment or software would need to 
be modified or replaced? The Commission seeks comment on the frequency 
agility of existing radars; could such equipment be retuned to the 
relocated band or are other modifications required? If changes are 
needed, commenters should address the nature of such changes, e.g., new 
filters, new antennas, etc. Are labor costs likely to be incurred in 
implementing the relocations? The Commission seeks comment on how long 
relocations would be expected to take and on any changes in operations 
that need to be made to operate in new bands. Commenters should discuss 
in detail any such specific costs. Commenters should also discuss how 
costs should be calculated and what, if any, costs should be excluded, 
as well as the most appropriate Commission implementation of any 
reimbursement regime.
    Which of the relocation mechanisms that the Commission has used in 
the past would be appropriate here? Are there unique logistical 
concerns with relocation planning for these operations that the 
Commission should address by rule, as opposed to by public notices to 
be issued by the relevant bureaus? The Commission proposes to handle 
any mutually exclusive applications for new frequencies based on its 
existing part 90 shared spectrum use rules, but it seeks comment on 
alternatives.

D. Continued Operation of Amateur Stations in Part of the 3.3-3.45 GHz 
Band

    In the accompanying Report and Order, the Commission sunsets the 
allocation for amateur operations in the 3-3.3.5 GHz band to allow for 
full commercial use of the spectrum to be made available through 
flexible use licenses. The Commission authorizes continued operations 
for amateur license holders only until the date consistent with the 
first possible grant of flexible use authorizations to new users in the 
band, consistent with the timeline for relocation of secondary 
radiolocation services.
    Many amateur licensees argue that requiring them to cease 
operations earlier than necessary would be ``a waste of valuable 
spectrum resources.'' Many also argue that, since the focus of future 
flexible use licensing is above 3.45 GHz, the Commission at a minimum 
should allow amateur operators to continue below 3.45 GHz for the 
foreseeable future. In light of these concerns, and of the large number 
of amateur licensees currently operating in the band, the Commission 
seeks comment on sunsetting amateur use in the band in two separate 
phases.
    The Commission proposes to sunset amateur operations in the 3.4-3.5 
GHz band, pursuant to the accompanying Report and Order, but to allow 
amateur operations in the remainder of the band (i.e., 3.3-3.4 GHz) to 
continue pending further decisions about the future of this portion of 
the spectrum. Specifically, the Commission proposes that amateur use in 
the upper portion of the 3.3-3.55 GHz band would sunset according to 
the procedures set out in the accompanying Report and Order (on a date 
consistent with the first possible grant of flexible use authorizations 
to new users in that portion of the band), while amateur use of the 
lower portion of the band would continue until a future date to be set 
later in this proceeding. If the Commission adopts this approach, it 
stresses that amateur operations in that lower portion of the band 
would remain on a secondary basis, and the allocation would continue to 
be subject to sunset at any time.
    Would this approach of bifurcating the amateur allocation and 
sunsetting the two portions on different dates allow amateur operations 
to continue during the pendency of decisions about use of the band 
below 3.4 GHz, while still providing future flexible use licensees 
sufficient protection from harmful interference? What are the costs and 
benefits of this approach and of any alternatives? If the Commission 
were to adopt this approach, at what frequency should it split the 
band? Given the possibility that cross-service adjacent channel 
interference could result if the Commission allows amateur operations 
to continue immediately adjacent to 3.45 GHz, the Commission proposes 
to set the upper boundary of this lower portion of the allocation at 
3.4 GHz in order to create a 50 megahertz guard band, and seeks comment 
on that proposal. Are there alternatives to this approach that would 
allow increased amateur use while also providing full protection to 
flexible use licensees?
    Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether any modifications 
pursuant to its Section 316 authority are necessary to accomplish its 
proposed changes to the amateur allocation. The Commission notes the 
unique nature of amateur licensing relative to other Commission 
licensees, and that it is not selecting new frequencies for amateur 
operations because there are many alternate bands available for 
amateurs to choose from.

E. Technical Issues

    The Commission seeks comment on appropriate technical rules to 
maximize the potential uses of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, particularly for 
the next generation of wireless services, while minimizing the impact 
on adjacent band incumbents, consistent with the public

[[Page 66894]]

interest. In order to promote maximum flexibility for 5G deployments, 
the Commission proposes to align the technical rules for this band with 
those adopted in the 3.7 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on this 
overarching proposal and its potential impact on operations in adjacent 
bands. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative approaches. For 
example, fixed wireless providers may deploy fixed client devices in 
this band. What technical standards should apply to such devices, 
particularly when mounted outdoors? In order to prevent interference to 
fixed and mobile operations in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, 
should the technical rules for this band more closely resemble those 
for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz band? Are there 
advantages to adopting technical rules that are harmonized with the 
rules applicable to Priority Access Licenses in the adjacent 3.5 GHz 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service band? The Commission seeks comment on 
the technical approach that will maximize the spectral efficiency of 3 
GHz spectrum. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on appropriate 
power limits, out-of-band emissions limits, antenna height limits, 
service area boundary limits, international coordination requirements, 
and any other technical rules that would maximize flexible use of the 
band while protecting new, non-federal licensees and federal incumbents 
in adjacent bands.
    Power Limits for Base Stations.--The Commission seeks comment on 
transmit power limits for base stations in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. The 
Commission proposes to adopt the same base station power limits that 
the Commission adopted in the 3.7 GHz band, 1640 watts and 3280 watts 
of equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) per megahertz in non-
rural and rural areas, respectively. These power levels were used in 
the AMBIT study, and any change can change the result of the study and 
produce a corresponding increase or decrease in Cooperative Planning 
Areas and Periodic Use Areas. The Commission believes these limits 
would support robust deployment of next-generation mobile broadband 
services. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Commenters 
should provide a technical evaluation of the impact of these proposed 
power levels on effective coexistence with all operations within the 
3.45-3.55 GHz band and across adjacent bands, as well as its costs and 
benefits. The Commission also seeks comment on the potential effect on 
users in the adjacent 3.5 GHz band. Could asymmetrical EIRP limits 
between the 3.45-3.55 GHz and Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
operations result in interference to Priority Access Licensees or 
General Authorized Access users in the lower 50 megahertz of the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service band? The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether the proposed EIRP would impact Environmental Sensing 
Capability sensors in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service band and, if 
so, what effect this could have for access to the lower 100 megahertz 
of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service band. Absent any coordination 
requirement, what power limits would be needed to avoid interference to 
existing or future Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations?
    The Commission also seeks comment on alterative base station power 
limits. Should the power be composed of transmit conducted power and 
antenna gain with some flexibility to ``mix and match'' both, or should 
the rule only define the final power in EIRP? While higher power limits 
may provide additional flexibility for some deployments, what is the 
impact of high-power base stations on adjacent bands? Commenters that 
propose alternative base station transmit power limits should include a 
thorough technical justification for their proposal, including the 
effect on receiver blocking or other aggregate interference issues 
impacting receivers operating above and below the band. Commenters 
should also provide the costs and benefits of such proposals.
    Power Limits for Mobile Stations.--The Commission seeks comment on 
appropriate power limits for mobile stations in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. 
The Commission notes that most commercial services, including LTE, 
CDMA, and UMTS, commonly deploy mobile stations which operate at a 
maximum output power of 23 dBm (200 milliwatts), regardless of higher 
FCC power limits. 3GPP, however, has defined a higher power class for 
LTE and 5G at 26 dBm (400 milliwatts). This development may warrant 
continued flexibility in the Commission's rules to allow for a wider 
range of device types.
    The Commission proposes to adopt 1 Watt EIRP as the maximum power 
limit consistent with the 3.7 GHz Service rules. The Commission 
anticipates that this mobile power limit would provide adequate power 
for robust mobile service deployment. Additionally, this limit would 
permit operation of mobile user equipment (UE) at two power levels--23 
dBm and 26 dBm--as specified in the 3GPP standards for 5G systems, 
which are both lower than the proposed 1 Watt EIRP limit. The 
Commission seeks comment on its proposed limit and queries whether 
alternative mobile station power limits should be considered based on 
expected use cases. Commenters supporting specific mobile station 
transmit power limits should include a technical justification for such 
power limits and an evaluation of any coexistence issues. For each 
proposed power limit, The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 
proposed limit would affect operation of mobile stations in the 
adjacent Citizens Broadband Radio Service or affect federal users in 
the 3.5 GHz band. Commenters should provide an analysis of the costs 
and benefits of their proposals.
    Out-of-Band Emission Limits.--The Commission seeks to adopt OOBE 
limits that would both protect incumbent services in adjacent bands 
while still allowing full commercial use in the new band. At the upper 
edge, this band is adjacent to the 3.5 GHz band's Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service and the DoD's shipborne radar operations in the 3.55-3.65 
GHz portion of the band. At the lower edge, the DoD will continue radar 
operations in the 3.1-3.45 GHz range for the foreseeable future, and it 
may increase its use below 3.45 GHz as the DoD migrates some radar 
operation out of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. In addition, the DoD's use 
below 3.45 GHz is expected to include ground-based and airborne 
operations, which may necessitate additional protection considerations.
    The Commission proposes to adopt an OOBE limit of -13 dBm/MHz at 
the authorized channel edge (as measured at the antenna terminals), 
consistent with the OOBE limit adopted for the 3.7 GHz band. Further, 
as a baseline for the 3.45 GHz band, the Commission proposes additional 
requirements beyond the upper and lower band edges such that base 
stations meet the same two-step limits consistent with the OOBE limits 
specified for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service as implemented for 
band n48. The Commission believes that these OOBE limits will be needed 
to facilitate widespread deployment of next generation wireless 
services in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, while ensuring effective 
coexistence with the mission critical federal and other non-federal 
services operating in the adjacent bands. Specifically, the Commission 
proposes the following emissions limits for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band:
     -13 dBm/MHz at the authorized channel edge;

[[Page 66895]]

     Equal to or less than -25 dBm/MHz beyond the band edge 
down to 3430 megahertz and up to 3570 megahertz;
     Equal to or less than -40 dBm/MHz below 3430 megahertz and 
above 3570 megahertz.
    The Commission summarizes its proposed approach in Figure 1 below.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC20.001
    
    The Commission seeks comment on its proposal. The Commission's 
proposal for a -13 dBm/MHz OOBE limit at the band edge is consistent 
with other commercial mobile bands and the additional requirements are 
consistent with OOBE limits for the nearby Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service, for which the Commission adopted a graduated emissions mask 
to, among other things, prevent adjacent channel interference from 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to federal radar operations in 
3.45-3.55 GHz band. Although it does not propose a specific OOBE limit, 
NTIA recommends that the Commission consider ``tighter'' OOBE limits 
for commercial operations to better facilitate federal and non-federal 
operations on adjacent frequencies. Without additional emission limits 
to protect adjacent band operations, would new mobile broadband 
deployments in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band near federal radar usage areas 
and deployed Environmental Sensing Capability sensors experience 
operational impacts which could lower the spectrum's value and use in 
some high population areas? The Commission also seeks comment on what 
OOBE limits might be appropriate to protect users in the adjacent 3.5 
GHz band. Would OOBE from 3.45-3.55 GHz emitters contribute to the 
aggregate interference for shipborne and inland DoD radars in the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service band? If so, are SAS operators able to 
accurately model or manage this interference contribution? Would a TDD 
synchronization or coordination requirement enable less stringent OOBE 
limits? The Commission declined to adopt such a requirement in the 3.7 
GHz proceeding.
    Alternatively, should the Commission adopt an OOBE limit which only 
specifies the limit at the edge of the authorized channel (i.e., -13 
dBm/MHz) consistent with other commercial mobile bands? How would the 
graduated emission mask the Commission proposes here affect the ability 
of equipment to operate across other mid-band spectrum bands, such as 
the 3.7 GHz or 2.5 GHz bands?
    The Commission's proposals recognize that 3GPP 5G standards, based 
on regional regulatory requirements, define similar basic and band-
specific base station emission limits for certain mid-band spectrum 
bands. For example, the 3GPP standard for bands n77 and n78, which 
overlap with the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, requires emissions to be reduced 
below -52 dBm/MHz as measured from the edge of the spectrum band, while 
emissions for other bands must be reduced below -49 dBm/MHz. For band 
n48, which applies to 5G base stations in the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service band in the U.S., the 3GPP standard is in line with the 
Commission's part 96 rules. The Commission's proposed approach, while 
more relaxed than what is required by 3GPP for similar bands in other 
regions, should provide more flexibility and consistency with its 
recent rules and 3GPP limits for adjacent band n48. The Commission 
believes that the limits proposed above are sufficient for expected 
coexistence scenarios without imposing unreasonable implementation 
costs. The Commission seeks comment on this notion.
    The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and requests 
technical evaluation of this or any alternative approach including 
alternative limit values or use of slopes rather than steps. For 
example, should the emission limit only specify a flat -13 dBm/MHz 
requirement similar to other commercial mobile bands or start with -13 
dBm or -25 dBm at the edge of the band and gradually lower to -40 dBm 
at a 20 megahertz offset from edge of the band? Are there other 
alternatives that achieve the same goal of protecting adjacent services 
without unduly impacting equipment in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band? The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether different limits should be 
applied based on the location of deployments. Commenters should provide 
an analysis of the costs and benefits of different options and provide 
detailed technical analysis in support of their proposals.
    To fully define an OOBE limit, the Commission's rules generally 
specify how to measure the power of the emissions, such as the 
resolution

[[Page 66896]]

bandwidth. For most AWS bands, the resolution bandwidth used to 
determine compliance with the base station limit is one megahertz or 
greater, except that within one megahertz of the channel edge, a 
resolution bandwidth of at least 1% of the emission bandwidth of the 
fundamental emission of the transmitter can be employed. The Commission 
proposes to adopt the same approach here and seeks comment on its 
proposal. In addition, The Commission seeks comment on alternative 
approaches to defining resolution bandwidth. For example, the Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) rules under part 30 instead 
specify use of a one megahertz resolution bandwidth but allow an OOBE 
limit of -5 dBm per megahertz from the channel edge out to 10% of the 
channel. Should the rules the Commission adopts in this band instead 
follow the UMFUS approach to defining the resolution bandwidth? Is 
another approach more appropriate? In addition, like other part 27 
services, the Commission proposes to apply section 27.53(i), which 
states that the FCC, in its discretion, may require greater attenuation 
than specified in the rules if an emission outside of the authorized 
bandwidth causes harmful interference. The Commission seeks comment on 
this approach.
    Mobile Out-of-Band Emissions.--As with base station OOBE limits, 
the Commission proposes to adopt mobile emission limits similar to its 
standard emission limits that apply to other mobile broadband services. 
Specifically, the Commission proposes that mobile units be required to 
suppress the conducted emissions to no more than -13 dBm/MHz outside 
their authorized frequency band. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal and on other alternative limits to ensure robust coexistence 
with federal and non-federal operations in adjacent bands, including 
any costs and benefits. Should the same OOBE limits apply to both base 
stations and mobile stations or are different OOBE requirements needed 
for each? The Commission notes that mobile stations and other end user 
equipment usually operate with power control and at lower maximum power 
levels than base stations, and that the implementation of more 
stringent emission limits could be complex and cost-prohibitive for the 
form factor. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the OOBE 
limits for base stations and mobile stations. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether the same or different OOBE limits should be applied 
to emissions within the band as compared to those at either edge of the 
band. Commenters should address the costs and benefits of their 
proposals.
    Coexistence with Federal and Non-federal Adjacent Band Operators.--
The Commission seeks comment on whether additional coordination or 
technical protection criteria, beyond OOBE limits, are necessary to 
ensure effective coexistence with federal and non-federal adjacent band 
operators. Regarding federal adjacent band operators, what rules might 
be necessary to assess and avoid potential excessive receiver blocking 
that could occur from the aggregated power received from dense 
deployment of base stations and mobile stations to the federal radars 
operating below and above the 3.45-3.55 GHz band? Similarly, what rules 
would be necessary to assess and avoid potential receiver blocking to 
new flexible use fixed/mobile operations in the band from adjacent 
high-power radar systems below and above the band?
    Field Strength Limit and Market Boundaries.--If the Commission 
decides to license the 3.45-3.55 GHz band based on geographic service 
areas, it would need to ensure that such licensees do not cause 
interference to co-channel systems operating along common geographic 
borders. The Commission proposes to adopt the same parameters that it 
adopted in the 3.7 GHz band. Specifically, the Commission proposes to 
adopt a -76 dBm/m2/MHz power flux density (PFD) limit at a height of 
1.5 meters above ground at the border of the licensees' service area 
boundaries. In addition, the Commission proposes to allow licensees 
operating in adjacent geographic areas to agree voluntarily to higher 
field strength limits at their common boundaries. The Commission seeks 
comment on these proposals as well as alternative approaches to limit 
field strength or power level in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. For example, 
the current rules for AWS-1, AWS-3, and AWS-4 address the possibility 
of harmful co-channel interference between geographically adjacent 
licenses by setting a field strength limit from base stations of 47 
dB[mu]V/m at the edge of the license area. In the 3.5 GHz band, the 
Commission limited aggregate power at PAL boundaries to be less than or 
equal to -80 dBm/10 MHz (with the measurement antenna placed at a 
height of 1.5 meters above ground level) or at a level mutually agreed 
upon by operators. Would one of these other approaches be preferable 
here? Should technical rules allow adjacent affected area licensees to 
agree voluntarily to higher signal levels like the Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service, PCS, and AWS services? Should such a power level or 
field strength limit be based on single node transmission or aggregate 
powers received? The Commission seeks comment on appropriate metrics to 
be used and the best approaches to determine the limits, including the 
costs and benefits of such approaches.
    Antenna Height Limits.--The Commission seeks comment on the 
appropriate antenna height limits for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. The 
Commission notes that while specific antenna height restrictions for 
AWS-1 and AWS-3 base stations are not set forth in part 27 of its 
rules, all such services are subject to section 27.56, which bans 
antenna heights that would be a hazard to air navigation. In the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service, there is no height limit for base 
stations if they operate indoors or are professionally installed. 
Furthermore, the co-channel coexistence between adjacent networks and 
the adjacent channel coexistence between overlapping networks limit 
field strength at the geographical boundary of the license, which may 
also effectively limit deployable antenna heights. The Commission 
proposes to adopt the flexible antenna height rules that apply to AWS-1 
and AWS-3 and seeks comment on its proposal and any alternatives. 
Should the antenna height limit for base stations operating in this 
band be tied to the base station maximum power limit? Should the 
Commission consider banning antenna heights that would be a hazard to 
air navigation or air-borne radars in adjacent bands? Commenters should 
address the costs and benefits of their proposals as well as include 
technical support.
    Canadian and Mexican Coordination.--Section 27.57(c) of the 
Commission's rules provides that several AWS services, including WCS, 
AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4, and the H Block, are subject to international 
agreements with Mexico and Canada. The Commission proposes to apply the 
same limitation to the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. Until such time as adjusted 
agreements between the United States and Mexico, or the United States 
and Canada, can be successfully negotiated, operations would be 
prohibited from causing harmful interference across the border, 
consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in force. The 
Commission notes that further modification (of the proposed or final 
rules) might be necessary in order to comply with any future agreements 
with Canada and Mexico regarding the use of these bands. The Commission 
seeks comment on this issue, including the

[[Page 66897]]

costs and benefits of alternative approaches to this issue.
    General Part 27 Rules.--There are several additional technical 
rules applicable to all part 27 services, including sections 27.51 
(equipment authorization), 27.52 (RF safety), 27.54 (frequency 
stability), 27.56 (antennas structures; air navigation safety), and 
27.63 (disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns). The 
Commission proposes to apply these general part 27 rules to all 3.45-
3.55 GHz band licenses. Further, the Commission proposes to apply these 
rules to licensees that acquire their licenses through partitioning or 
disaggregation (to the extent the service rules permit such 
aggregation). The Commission seeks comment on its proposals, including 
specific costs and benefits.

F. Licensing and Operating Rules; Regulatory Issues

    The Commission proposes and seeks comment on service-specific rules 
for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, including eligibility, mobile spectrum 
holdings policies, license term, performance requirements, renewal term 
construction obligations, and other licensing and operating rules. In 
addressing these issues, commenters should discuss the costs and 
benefits associated with these proposals and any alternatives that 
commenters propose. The Commission seeks comment generally on the 
appropriate approach or combination of approaches to encourage 
investment, promote efficient spectrum use, and facilitate robust 
deployment in the band. In general, the Commission proposes to align 
the licensing and operating rules for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band with the 
rules adopted in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, but also seeks comment on 
alternative or different approaches, including aspects of the Part 96 
rules, such as smaller license areas and shorter license terms.
    Eligibility.-- The Commission proposes to adopt an open eligibility 
standard for licenses in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, consistent with 
established Commission practice. An open eligibility standard for the 
licensing of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band should encourage the development of 
new technologies, products, and services, while helping to ensure 
efficient use of this spectrum. The Commission seeks comment on this 
assumption. The Commission notes that an open eligibility approach 
would not affect citizenship, character, or other generally applicable 
qualifications that may apply under its rules. Commenters should 
discuss the costs and benefits of the open eligibility proposal on 
competition, innovation, and investment. The Commission proposes to 
apply the ineligibility provision which provides that a person who, for 
reasons of national security, has been barred by any agency of the 
Federal Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an 
auction, or receiving a grant is ineligible to hold a license that the 
Spectrum Act requires to be assigned by a system of competitive bidding 
under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act.
    Mobile Spectrum Holding Policies.--Spectrum is an essential input 
for the provision of mobile wireless services, and the Commission has 
developed policies to ensure that spectrum is assigned in a manner that 
promotes competition, innovation, and efficient use. The Commission 
seeks comment generally on whether and how to address any mobile 
spectrum holdings issues involving 3.45-3.55 GHz band spectrum to meet 
its statutory requirements and to ensure competitive access to the 
band. Similar to the Commission's approach in the 2017 Spectrum 
Frontiers Order and FNPRM and the 1675-1680 MHz NPRM, the Commission 
proposes not to adopt a pre-auction, bright line limit on the ability 
of any entity to acquire spectrum in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band through 
competitive bidding. The Commission is not inclined to adopt such 
limits absent a clear showing that they are necessary to address a 
specific competitive concern; such pre-auction limits may restrict 
unnecessarily the ability of entities to participate in and acquire 
spectrum in an auction. The Commission seeks comment on any specific 
concerns of this type.
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether this band should be 
included in the Commission's spectrum screen, which helps to identify 
markets that may warrant further competitive analysis, for evaluating 
proposed secondary market transactions. The Commission seeks comment on 
reviewing holdings on a case-by-case basis when long-form applications 
for initial licenses are filed to ensure that the public interest 
benefits of having a spectrum screen applicable to secondary market 
transactions are not rendered ineffective. And, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether and how the similarity of this spectrum to spectrum 
currently included in the screen should be factored into its analysis, 
including its suitability for use in the provision of mobile telephony 
or broadband services. Commenters should discuss and quantify any costs 
and benefits associated with any proposals on the applicability of 
mobile spectrum holdings policies to 3.45-3.55 GHz band spectrum.
    Geographic License Area.--Considering the opportunity presented 
here to align the 3.45-3.55 GHz band with other mid-band spectrum, the 
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate geographic license area for 
the band to best facilitate robust band use. The Commission proposes to 
issue flexible use licenses on a Partial Economic Area (PEA) basis, as 
it recently adopted for the 3.7 GHz Service. The Commission asks 
commenters to discuss and quantify the economic, technical, and other 
public interest considerations of licensing on a PEA basis, or if 
offering alternatives (such as counties), to discuss and quantify the 
same considerations for that alternative. The Commission invites 
commenters to discuss which set of considerations is most applicable 
for the circumstances of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. Or do the 
considerations in this band indicate a different geographic license 
area is more appropriate? As the Commission has for the adjacent 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service, should it allow ``license-by-rule'' 
use for some spectrum in the band? For areas where not all spectrum 
licenses are sold at auction, should the Commission permit 
opportunistic use of that spectrum? How would the Commission ensure 
adequate protection of incumbent and licensee operations under 
alternative licensing frameworks? Would the need for a database or 
other coordination techniques create unnecessary burdens on licensees 
or hinder the ability to protect incumbents? The Commission asks 
commenters to address the costs and benefits of their recommended 
licensing approach.
    The Commission also recognizes that the AMBIT study focused on 
licensing for the contiguous United States and it therefore proposes 
that the states of Hawaii and Alaska and U.S. territories should be 
excluded from 3.45-3.55 GHz band licensing at this time. The Commission 
seeks comment on its proposal, including the costs and benefits. Going 
forward, NTIA and DoD plan to conduct additional analysis of federal 
operations in Alaska, Hawaii and the U.S. Territories and Possessions, 
in close cooperation with industry stakeholders to identify additional 
Cooperative Planning Areas and Periodic Use Areas outside of the 
contiguous United States. Pending the results of such future analysis, 
should the Commission consider extending any 3.45-3.55 GHz band regime 
adopted in this proceeding to additional areas at a

[[Page 66898]]

later date? Should the Commission delegate authority to the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology to 
make any future adjustments to Cooperative Planning Areas or Periodic 
Use Areas as they deem appropriate in consultation with NTIA and 
consistent with NTIA and DoD analysis? In addition, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether there are ways to mitigate the impact of 
possible future licensees in the Gulf of Mexico to federal operations. 
Could the Commission's past experiences in licensing under similar 
circumstances, such as in the AWS-3 band, prove useful here?
    License Term.--Given the similarity in the flexible use goal of the 
Commission in opening the 3.7 GHz Service and opening this spectrum to 
commercial use, the Commission believes a 15-year term, as was adopted 
for licenses in the 3.7 GHz Service, would afford licensees sufficient 
time to make long-term investments in deployment. For that service, the 
Commission determined that additional time was necessary for relocation 
of services vacating the band. Here, a similar transition period may be 
necessary, given the anticipated need to coordinate federal usage of 
the spectrum with affected licensees under circumstances that may be 
particular to each licensee's individual situation. The Commission 
seeks comment on the appropriate license term for flexible use licenses 
in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band and on the costs and benefits of this 
proposal. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there 
are alternative license terms that might be better suited for this 
band. If an alternative license term is chosen, what impact would it 
have on investment or deployment, particularly for smaller or rural 
entities? The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of the 
license term being discussed.
    Renewal.--The Commission proposes to apply its general part 27 
renewal requirements for wireless licenses, as in the 3.7 GHz Service 
Order and the 3.5 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal. Commenters should address the costs and benefits of the 
renewal term being advocated.
    Performance Requirements.--The Commission seeks comment on the 
types of performance requirements that would be appropriate to 
encourage rapid deployment by flexible use licensees in the 3.45-3.55 
GHz band. For example, in the 3.7 GHz Service Order, the Commission 
adopted specific quantifiable benchmarks for different types of 
operations. The Commission proposes to adopt the same requirements 
here. Licensees offering mobile or point-to-multipoint services are 
required to provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at 
least 45% of the population in each of their license areas within eight 
years of the license issue date (first performance benchmark), and to 
at least 80% of the population in each of their license areas within 12 
years from the license issue date (second performance benchmark). 
Licensees providing fixed service must demonstrate within eight years 
of the license issue date (first performance benchmark) that they have 
four links operating and providing service, if the population within 
the license area is equal to or less than 268,000. If the population 
within the license area is greater than 268,000, a licensee relying on 
point-to-point service must demonstrate that it has at least one link 
in operation and providing service, either to customers or for internal 
use, per every 67,000 persons within a license area. The Commission 
requires licensees relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate 
within 12 years of the license issue date (final performance benchmark) 
that they have eight links operating and providing service, either to 
customers or for internal use, if the population within the license 
area is equal to or less than 268,000. If the population within the 
license area is greater than 268,000, the Commission requires a 
licensee relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate it is 
providing service and has at least two links in operation per every 
67,000 persons within a license area. Would these metrics be 
appropriate in the 3450-3550 MHz band? If not, why? And how should they 
be adjusted?
    For the 3.7 GHz Service, the Commission also adopted alternate 
Internet of Things (IoT) performance requirements in order to allow for 
flexibility to provide services potentially less suited to a population 
coverage metric. Specifically, licensees providing IoT-type services 
thus have flexibility to demonstrate that they offer geographic area 
coverage of 35% of the license area at the first (eight-year) 
performance benchmark, and geographic area coverage of 65% of the 
license area at the second (12-year) performance benchmark. Is it 
appropriate to adopt this--or a different--IoT metric here?
    The Commission seeks comment on these types of requirements and any 
other requirements to achieve its goal of ensuring spectrum use. 
Commenters should discuss the appropriate metric to accommodate such 
service offerings or other innovative services in the 3.45-3.55 GHz 
band, as well as the costs and benefits of an alternative approach.
    Failure to Meet Performance Requirements.--Along with performance 
benchmarks, the Commission proposes to adopt meaningful and enforceable 
penalties for failing to meet the benchmarks. The Commission proposes 
that, in the event a licensee fails to meet the first performance 
benchmark, the licensee's second benchmark and license term would be 
reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the second 
performance benchmark two years sooner (at 10 years into the license 
term) and reducing its license term to 13 years. If a licensee fails to 
meet the second performance benchmark for a particular license area, 
its authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet the 
performance requirement shall terminate automatically without 
Commission action. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on 
which penalties will most effectively ensure timely build-out.
    The Commission proposes that, in the event a 3.45-3.55 GHz band 
licensee's authority to operate terminates, its spectrum rights should 
become available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding 
provisions of section 309(j). The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether, consistent with the Commission's rules for other part 27 
licenses, it should require that any 3.45-3.55 GHz band flexible use 
licensee that forfeits its license for failure to meet its performance 
requirements be precluded from regaining that license. Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on other performance requirements and 
enforcement mechanisms that would effectively ensure timely buildout.
    Compliance Procedures.--The Commission proposes a rule requiring 
licensees to submit electronic coverage maps that accurately depict 
both the boundaries of each licensed area and the coverage boundaries 
of the actual areas to which the licensee provides service or, in the 
case of a fixed deployment, the locations of the fixed transmitters 
associated with each link. The Commission's proposal is consistent with 
the compliance procedures adopted in the 3.7 GHz Service Order, in 
addition to compliance procedures applicable to all part 27 licensees, 
including the filing of electronic coverage maps and supporting 
documentation. If a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage 
to an entire license area, the Commission proposes that it must provide 
a map that accurately depicts the boundaries of the area or areas 
within each license area

[[Page 66899]]

that are not being served. The Commission further proposes that each 
licensee must file supporting documentation certifying the type of 
service it is providing for each licensed area within its service 
territory and the type of technology used to provide such service. 
Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to create 
the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the signal 
strength necessary to provide reliable service with the licensee's 
technology. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Would such 
procedures confirm that the spectrum is being used consistently with 
the performance requirements? The Commission seeks comment on this 
assumption. The Commission also seeks comment on whether small entities 
face any special or unique issues with respect to the transition such 
that they would require additional time to comply.
    Applicability of Other Part 27 Rules.--In establishing service 
rules for similar bands, the Commission has sought to afford licensees 
the flexibility to align licenses with other spectrum bands governed by 
part 27 of the Commission's rules. The Commission therefore proposes 
that licensees in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band should be governed by 
licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all part 27 
services, including regulatory status, foreign ownership reporting, 
compliance with construction requirements, permanent discontinuance of 
operations, partitioning and disaggregation, and spectrum leasing. The 
Commission asks commenters to identify any aspects of its general part 
27 service rules that should be modified to accommodate the particular 
characteristics of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. Are there reasons that 
flexible use licensees in this band should not be subject to these 
general part 27 requirements? The Commission asks proponents of the 
various mechanisms described above whether there are issues specific to 
this section and their preferred approach. The Commission also asks 
commenters that support modifying certain part 27 rules as applied to 
licensees in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band to articulate the reasons why 
different treatment here is justified.

G. Competitive Bidding Procedures

    The Commission proposes to assign the licenses through a system of 
competitive bidding. Consistent with the competitive bidding procedures 
the Commission has used in previous auctions, the Commission proposes 
to conduct any auction for licenses for spectrum in the band in 
conformity with the part 1, subpart Q general competitive bidding 
rules, subject to any modification of the part 1 rules that the 
Commission may adopt in the future. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether any of these rules would be inappropriate or should be modified 
for an auction of licenses in this band. The Commission seeks comment 
on the costs and benefits of these proposals.
    Under the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA), federal 
entities operating on certain frequencies that have been reallocated 
from federal to co-primary federal and non-federal use and assigned by 
the Commission through auction are eligible for reimbursement for the 
cost of relocating or sharing their operations. In order to provide for 
such reimbursement, the Communications Act requires that the ``total 
cash proceeds'' from the auction of these frequencies must equal at 
least 110% of the estimated relocation or sharing costs of incumbent 
federal operations. Based on the current use of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band 
by the DoD and DoD's planned sharing arrangements and relocation of 
some operations out of the band to make way for commercial use as part 
of the AMBIT agreement, this spectrum qualifies as eligible frequencies 
under the CSEA. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to set the reserve 
price for any auction of 3.45-3.55 GHz band licenses at 110% of 
expected federal relocation costs, based on the estimate of relocation 
costs provided to the Commission by NTIA under the CSEA.
    The Commission also proposes to make bidding credits for designated 
entities available for this band and seeks comment on this proposal. If 
the Commission decides to offer small business bidding credits, it 
seeks comment on how to define a small business. In recent years, for 
other flexible use licenses, the Commission has adopted bidding credits 
for the two larger designated entity business sizes provided in the 
Commission's part 1 standardized schedule of bidding credits. The 
Commission proposes to use the same definitions here. Accordingly, the 
Commission proposes to define a small business as an entity with 
average gross revenues for the preceding five years not exceeding $55 
million, and a very small business as an entity with average gross 
revenues for the preceding five years not exceeding $20 million. A 
qualifying ``small business'' would be eligible for a bidding credit of 
15% and a qualifying ``very small business'' would be eligible for a 
bidding credit of 25%. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 
characteristics of these frequencies and its proposed licensing model 
suggest that it should adopt different small business size standards 
and associated bidding credits than it has in the past. Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should offer rural service 
providers a designated entity bidding credit for licenses in this band. 
The Commission proposes to offer rural service providers a bidding 
credit of 15% under its rules, consistent with its approach in other 
similar flexible use bands. Commenters addressing these proposals or 
advocating for any alternatives should consider what details of 
licenses in the band may affect whether designated entities will apply 
for them.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    It is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 157, 301, 303, 307, 
308, 309, 310, and 316, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
as well as the MOBILE NOW Act, Public Law 115-141, 132 Stat. 1098, Div. 
P, Title VI, Sec.  603 (Mar. 23, 2018), 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157, 
301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, and 1502, that this Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Lists of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 27

    Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers, 
Communications common carriers, Radio, Table of Frequency Allocations, 
Wireless communication services, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 
parts 1, 2, and 27 as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 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.

* * * * *

[[Page 66900]]

    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); 900 MHz Broadband Service (part 27, subpart P); 3.45 
GHz Service (part 27, subpart Q); 3.7 GHz Service (part 27, subpart O); 
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); Educational Broadband Service (part 27, 
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 of this chapter).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  1.9005 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (ll);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (mm) and adding a semi-
colon;
0
c. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (nn) and adding ``; 
and'' in its place; and
0
d. Adding paragraph (oo).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  1.9005   Included services.

* * * * *
    (oo) The 3.45 GHz Service in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band (part 27 of 
this chapter).

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

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

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

0
5. Amend Sec.  2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, as follows:
0
a. Revise pages 40 and 41.
0
b. In the list of United States (U.S.) Footnotes, add footnotes US103 
and US431B.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  2.106   Table of Frequency Allocations.

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

[[Page 66901]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC20.002


[[Page 66902]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC20.003


[[Page 66903]]


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

United States (U.S.) Footnotes

* * * * *
    US103 In the band 3300-3550 MHz, the following provisions shall 
apply: Non-Federal stations in the radiolocation service that were 
licensed (or licensed pursuant to applications accepted for filing) 
before February 22, 2019, may continue to operate on a secondary basis 
until new flexible use licenses are issued for operation in the band 
3450-3550 MHz. The date by which non-Federal stations in the 
radiolocation service will be required to cease operations in the band 
3300-3550 MHz will be set when the Commission establishes procedures 
for assigning flexible use licenses. After [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE], no new assignments may be made to non-Federal stations in the 
radiolocation service.--In the band 3300-3500 MHz, stations in the 
amateur service may continue to operate on a secondary basis until new 
flexible use licenses are issued for operation in the band 3450-3550 
MHz. The date by which stations in the amateur service will be required 
to cease operations in the band 3400-3500 MHz will be set when the 
Commission establishes procedures for assigning flexible use licenses. 
Stations in the amateur service may continue to operate in the band 
3300-3400 MHz on a secondary basis while the band's future uses are 
finalized, and stations in the amateur service may be required to cease 
operations in the band 3300-3450 MHz at any time if the amateur service 
causes harmful interference to flexible use operations..
* * * * *
    US431B In the 3450-3550 MHz band, the following provisions shall 
apply. In general, within the contiguous United States, the band is a 
shared co-primary allocation between the Federal Radiolocation service 
and non-Federal Fixed and Mobile, except aeronautical mobile, services. 
Federal operations in the 3450-3550 MHz band must protect non-Federal 
operations from harmful interference, except under the following 
circumstances.--Military Operational Need in National Emergency. In 
time of war or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or disaster 
or other national emergency (collectively ``national emergency''), 
Federal users are authorized to operate within the band as required to 
meet operational mission requirements. Upon notification, non-Federal 
licensees shall terminate or otherwise adjust their operations to 
prevent harmful interference to the Federal operations consistent with 
procedures established by the FCC in coordination with NTIA. During 
such operations and until the end of the national emergency, non-
Federal licensees must adjust their operations to enable Federal use of 
the band and non-Federal users may not claim protection from harmful 
interference.--Cooperative Planning Areas. Cooperative Planning Areas 
are geographic locations in which non-Federal operations shall 
coordinate with Federal systems in the band to deploy non-Federal 
operations, in a manner that shall not cause harmful interference to 
Federal systems operating in the band and to protect non-Federal 
operations from potential harm caused by high powered Federal 
operations. In such areas, operators of non-Federal stations may be 
required to modify their operations (e.g., reduce power, adjust antenna 
pointing angles, shielding, etc.) to protect themselves and to protect 
Federal operations from interference. In these areas, non-Federal 
operations may not claim interference protection from Federal systems 
outside of coordination procedures. To the extent possible, Federal use 
in Cooperative Planning Areas will be chosen to minimize operational 
impact on non-Federal users. Appendix A to part 2 identifies the 
locations of Cooperative Planning Areas. Cooperative Planning Areas may 
also be Periodic Use Areas as described below. Coordination between 
Federal users and non-Federal licensees in Cooperative Planning Areas 
shall be consistent with procedures established by the FCC in 
coordination with NTIA.--Periodic Use Areas. Periodic Use Areas are 
geographic locations where non-Federal operations in the band may not 
cause harmful interference to Federal systems operating in the band for 
episodic periods. During these times and in these areas, Federal users 
will require interference protection from non-Federal operations. Non-
Federal operations may be required to temporarily modify their 
operations (e.g., reduce power, adjust antenna pointing angles, etc.) 
to protect Federal operations from interference, which may include 
restrictions on non-Federal stations' ability to radiate at certain 
locations during specific periods of time. During such episodic time 
periods, non-Federal users in Periodic Use Areas must alter their 
operations to enable Federal systems' temporary use of the band, and 
during such times, non-Federal users may not claim interference 
protection from Federal systems outside of coordination procedures. To 
the extent possible, Federal use in Periodic Use Areas will be chosen 
to minimize operational impact to non-Federal users. Coordination 
between Federal users and non-Federal licensees in Periodic Use Areas 
shall be consistent with procedures established by the FCC in 
coordination with NTIA. While all Periodic Use Areas are co-located 
with Cooperative Planning Areas, the exact geographic area used during 
periodic use may differ from the co-located Cooperative Planning Area. 
The geographic locations of Periodic Use Areas are identified in 
Appendix A to part 2. Restrictions and authorizations for the 
Cooperative Planning Areas remain in effect during periodic use unless 
specifically relieved in the coordination process.
* * * * *
0
6. Add Appendix A to part 2 to read as follows:

  Appendix A to Part 2--Table of Table: Department of Defense Cooperative Planning Areas and Periodic Use Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Location name                       State                     CPA                      PUA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Little Rock.........................  AR......................  Yes....................
Yuma Complex (includes Yuma Proving   AZ......................  Yes....................  Yes.
 Grounds and MCAS Yuma).
Camp Pendleton......................  CA......................  Yes....................
Edwards Air Force Base..............  CA......................  Yes....................  Yes.
National Training Center............  CA......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Naval Air Weapons Station, China      CA......................  Yes....................  Yes.
 Lake.
Point Mugu..........................  CA......................  Yes....................  Yes.
San Diego *.........................  CA......................  Yes....................
Includes Point Loma SESEF range *...
Twentynine Palms....................  CA......................  Yes....................

[[Page 66904]]

 
Eglin Air Force Base................  FL......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Includes Santa Rosa Island and Cape
 San Blas site.
Mayport *...........................  FL......................  Yes....................
Includes Mayport SESEF range *......
Pensacola...........................  FL......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Joint Readiness Training Center.....  LA......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Chesapeake Beach....................  MD......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Naval Air Station, Patuxent River...  MD......................  Yes....................  Yes.
St. Inigoes.........................  MD......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Bath................................  ME......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Pascagoula..........................  MS......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Camp Lejeune........................  NC......................  Yes....................
Cherry Point........................  NC......................  Yes....................
Fort Bragg..........................  NC......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Portsmouth..........................  NH......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Moorestown..........................  NJ......................  Yes....................  Yes.
White Sands Missile Range...........  NM......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Nevada Test and Training Range......  NV......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Fort Sill...........................  OK......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Tobyhanna Army Depot................  PA......................  Yes....................
Dahlgren............................  VA......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Newport News........................  VA......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Norfolk *...........................  VA......................  Yes....................
Includes Fort Story SESEF range *...
Wallops Island......................  VA......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Bremerton...........................  WA......................  Yes....................  Yes.
Everett *...........................  WA......................  Yes....................
Includes Ediz Hook SESEF range *....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility (SESEF) attached to each homeport.

PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

0
7. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, 
337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unless otherwise noted.

0
8. Amend Sec.  27.1 by adding paragraph (b)(17) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1   Basis and purpose.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (17) 3450-3550 MHz.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  27.4 by adding, in alphabetical order, the definition 
for ``3.45 GHz Service'' to read as follows:


Sec.  27.4   Terms and definitions.

    3.45 GHz Service. A radiocommunication service licensed under this 
part for the frequency bands specified in Sec.  27.5(n) (3450-3550 MHz 
band).
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  27.5 by adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.5   Frequencies.

* * * * *
    (o) 3450-3550 MHz band. The 3.45 GHz Service is licensed as five 
individual 20 megahertz blocks available for assignment in the 
contiguous United States on a Partial Economic Area basis, see Sec.  
27.6(n).
0
11. Amend Sec.  27.6 by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.6   Service areas.

* * * * *
    (n) 3450-3550 MHz Band. Service areas in the 3.45 GHz Service are 
based on Partial Economic Areas (PEAs) as defined by appendix A to this 
subpart (see Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details About 
Partial Economic Areas, DA 14-759, Public Notice, released June 2, 
2014, for more information).
0
12. Amend Sec.  27.11 by adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.11   Initial authorization.

* * * * *
    (m) 3450-3550 MHz band. Authorizations for licenses in the 3.45 GHz 
Service will be based on Partial Economic Areas (PEAs), as specified in 
Sec.  27.6(n), and the frequency blocks specified in Sec.  27.5(n).
0
13. Amend Sec.  27.13 by adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.13   License period.

* * * * *
    (o) 3450-3550 MHz Band. Authorization for the band will have a term 
not to exceed fifteen years from the date of issuance.
0
14. Amend Sec.  27.14 by revising the first sentence of paragraphs (a) 
and (k), and adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.14   Construction requirements.

    (a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees 
holding authorizations for the 600 MHz band, Block A in the 698-704 MHz 
and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz 
bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1 or C2 in the 746-
757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305-2310 MHz and 2350-
2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz bands, 
Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz band, Block D in the 2345-2350 MHz band, 
in the 3450-3550 MHz band, and in the 3700-3980 MHz band, and with the 
exception of licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz 
and 1995-2000 MHz bands, the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, or 
1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz bands, must, as a 
performance requirement, make a showing of ``substantial service'' in 
their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in 
Sec.  27.13. * * *
* * * * *
    (k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum 
blocks

[[Page 66905]]

enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (q), (r), (s), (t), (v) and (w) 
of this section, including any licensee that obtained its license 
pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this section, 
shall demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a 
construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the 
expiration of the applicable benchmark, in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in Sec.  1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *
    (w) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an 
authorization in the 3450-3550 MHz band:
    (1) Licensees relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service 
shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer service within eight 
(8) years from the date of the initial license to at least forty-five 
(45) percent of the population in each of its license areas (``First 
Buildout Requirement''). Licensee shall provide reliable signal 
coverage and offer service within twelve (12) years from the date of 
the initial license to at least eighty (80) percent of the population 
in each of its license areas (``Second Buildout Requirement''). 
Licensees relying on point-to-point service shall demonstrate within 
eight years of the license issue date that they have four links 
operating and providing service to customers or for internal use if the 
population within the license area is equal to or less than 268,000 
and, if the population is greater than 268,000, that they have at least 
one link in operation and providing service to customers, or for 
internal use, per every 67,000 persons within a license area (``First 
Buildout Requirement''). Licensees relying on point-to-point service 
shall demonstrate within 12 years of the license issue date that they 
have eight links operating and providing service to customers or for 
internal use if the population within license area is equal to or less 
than 268,000 and, if the population within the license area is greater 
than 268,000, shall demonstrate they are providing service and have at 
least two links in operation per every 67,000 persons within a license 
area (``Second Buildout Requirement'').
    (2) In the alternative, a licensee offering Internet of Things-type 
services shall provide geographic area coverage within eight (8) years 
from the date of the initial license to thirty-five (35) percent of the 
license (``First Buildout Requirement''). A licensee offering Internet 
of Things-type services shall provide geographic area coverage within 
twelve (12) years from the date of the initial license to sixty-five 
(65) percent of the license (``Second Buildout Requirement'').
    (3) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the First 
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, the licensee's 
Second Buildout Requirement deadline and license term will be reduced 
by two years. If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Second 
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, its authorization 
for each license area in which it fails to meet the Second Buildout 
Requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action, 
and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it if the Commission 
makes the license available at a later date.
    (4) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements, 
licensees shall use the most recently available decennial U.S. Census 
Data at the time of measurement and shall base their measurements of 
population or geographic area served on areas no larger than the Census 
Tract level. The population or area within a specific Census Tract (or 
other acceptable identifier) will be deemed served by the licensee only 
if it provides reliable signal coverage to and offers service within 
the specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier). To the 
extent the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) extends beyond 
the boundaries of a license area, a licensee with authorizations for 
such areas may include only the population or geographic area within 
the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) towards meeting the 
performance requirement of a single, individual license. If a licensee 
does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area, 
the license must provide a map that accurately depicts the boundaries 
of the area or areas within each license area not being served. Each 
licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying the type of 
service it is providing for each licensed area within its service 
territory and the type of technology used to provide such service. 
Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to create 
the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the signal 
strength necessary to provide reliable service with the licensee's 
technology.
0
15. Amend Sec.  27.50 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.50   Power limits and duty cycle.

* * * * *
    (k) The following power requirements apply to stations transmitting 
in the 3450-3550 MHz band:
    (1) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 
3450-3550 MHz band and located in any county with population density of 
100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most recently 
available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, is 
limited to an equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of 3280 
Watts/MHz. This limit applies to the aggregate power of all antenna 
elements in any given sector of a base station.
    (2) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 
3450-3550 MHz band and situated in any geographic location other than 
that described in paragraph (j)(1) of this section is limited to an 
EIRP of 1640 Watts/MHz. This limit applies to the aggregate power of 
all antenna elements in any given sector of a base station.
    (3) Mobile and portable stations are limited to 1 Watt EIRP. Mobile 
and portable stations operating in these bands must employ a means for 
limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.
    (4) Equipment employed must be authorized in accordance with the 
provisions of Sec.  27.51. Power measurements for transmissions by 
stations authorized under this section may be made either in accordance 
with a Commission-approved average power technique or in compliance 
with paragraph (j)(5) of this section. In measuring transmissions in 
this band using an average power technique, the peak-to-average ratio 
(PAR) of the transmission may not exceed 13 dB.
    (5) Peak transmit power must be measured over any interval of 
continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of an 
rms-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be properly 
adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector response 
times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to the 
emission bandwidth, sensitivity, and any other relevant factors, so as 
to obtain a true peak measurement for the emission in question over the 
full bandwidth of the channel.
0
16. Amend Sec.  27.53 by adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.53   Emission limits.

* * * * *
    (o) 3.45 GHz Service. The following emission limits apply to 
stations transmitting in the 3450-3550 MHz band:
    (1) For base station operations in the 3450-3550 MHz band, the 
conducted power of any emission outside the licensee's authorized 
bandwidth shall not exceed -13 dBm/MHz. Compliance with this paragraph 
(o)(1) is based on the use of measurement instrumentation

[[Page 66906]]

employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. However, in 
the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the 
licensee's frequency block, a resolution bandwidth of at least one 
percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the 
transmitter may be employed. The emission bandwidth is defined as the 
width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center 
frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which 
all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter 
power. Notwithstanding the channel edge requirement of -13 dBm per 
megahertz, for base station operations in the 3450-3550 MHz band beyond 
the two edges of the band, the conducted power of any emission shall 
not exceed -25 dBm/MHz within a 20 megahertz offset from the top and 
bottom edges of the band, and shall not exceed -40 dBm/MHz beyond that 
20 megahertz offset.
    (2) For mobile operations in the 3450-3550 MHz band, the conducted 
power of any emission outside the licensee's authorized bandwidth shall 
not exceed -13 dBm/MHz. Compliance with this paragraph (o)(2) 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 frequency block, the 
minimum resolution bandwidth for the measurement shall be either one 
percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the 
transmitter or 350 kHz. In the bands between 1 and 5 MHz removed from 
the licensee's frequency block, the minimum resolution bandwidth for 
the measurement shall be 500 kHz. The emission bandwidth is defined as 
the width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier 
center frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of 
which all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter 
power.
0
17. Amend Sec.  27.55 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.55   Power strength limits.

* * * * *
    (e) Power flux density for stations operating in the 3450-3550 MHz 
band. For base and fixed stations operation in the 3450-3550 MHz band 
in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  27.50(j), the power flux 
density (PFD) at any location on the geographical border of a 
licensee's service area shall not exceed -76 dBm/m\2\/MHz. This power 
flux density will be measured at 1.5 meters above ground. Licensees in 
adjacent geographic areas may voluntarily agree to operate under a 
higher PFD at their common boundary.
0
18. Amend Sec.  27.57 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.57   International coordination.

* * * * *
    (c) Operation in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180 
MHz, 2180-2200 MHz, 3450-3550 MHz, and 3700-3980 MHz bands is subject 
to international agreements with Mexico and Canada.
0
19. Add new Subpart Q to read as follows:

Subpart Q--3450-3550 MHz Band

Sec.
27.1600 3450-3550 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.
27.1601 Designated entities in the 3450-3550 MHz band.
27.1602 Permanent discontinuance of service in the 3450-3550 MHz 
band.


Sec.  27.1600   3450-3550 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.

    Mutually exclusive initial applications for 3450-3550 MHz band 
licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive 
bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q of this 
chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.


Sec.  27.1601   Designated entities in the 3450-3550 MHz band.

    (a) Definitions. (1) Small business. 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 five (5) years.
    (2) Very small business. 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 five (5) years.
    (b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small 
business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of small 
businesses may use the bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in 
Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter, subject to the cap specified 
in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(ii) 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 the bidding credit of 25 
percent, as specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter, 
subject to the cap specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter.
    (c) Eligibility for rural service provider bidding credit. A rural 
service provider, as defined in Sec.  1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this chapter, 
that has not claimed a small business bidding credit may use the 
bidding credit of 15 percent specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(4) of this 
chapter.


Sec.  27.1602   Permanent discontinuance of 3450-3550 MHz licenses.

    A 3450-3550 MHz band licensee that permanently discontinues service 
as defined in Sec.  1.953 must notify the Commission of the 
discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 requesting license 
cancellation. An authorization will automatically terminate, without 
specific Commission action, if service is permanently discontinued as 
defined in Sec.  1.953, even if a licensee fails to file the required 
form requesting license cancellation.

[FR Doc. 2020-22529 Filed 10-19-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P